Who said anything?

The

trigger

phrase

is

{ }

Everything is nothing, nothing is everything....

Subrosa

Does this picture not look cool? Exactly. I was raiding the cheapies bin at one of the local record shops and saw a cd album with this pic as a cover. I thought I'd gamble the 2$ or so to see if it were good or not. Well, it turned out better than I guessed at first. The album is called 'No Help For The Mighty Ones'. The band is called SubRosa. 'Sub rosa'  means 'under the rose' in Latin, which is a phrase denoting something that is done in secret. They are not to be confused with a band of the same name that was once called 'For Squirrels' and were kinda alt rockish, releasing an album called 'Never Bet The Devil Your Head' on Sony Records. Nope not them. From what I can gather, THIS SubRosa is comprised mostly of chicks from Salt Lake City (of all places). They seem very independent and DIY and have not been on any major label. There is a wicked brand of distortion on a downtuned guitar leading through the mix, but it's not usually 'wall of sludge' so much. It is more single note or sparse, giving it a cleaner finish to that wonderful dirty. Is it a Pro Co Rat distortion pedal? Can't figure out. I love the sound though.   The wielder of this magic axe is Rebecca Vernon, she also is the main vocalist and songwriter. Joining her are Sarah Pendleton and Kim Pack, two electric violinists and vocalists.  Zach Hatsis pounds the drums and, get this, the bassist's name is Davey Jones! Well, he's listed as just 'Dave Jones', but it's impossible for me not to think of Davey Jones! Yarrrr! Davey Jones' Lockerrrrr. Or David Jones is David Bowie's real name..imagine Bowie as a weird guest on this record?? Ha! On some tracks there are other guest stars, and some other instruments are pitched in such as chimes or dulcimer. I'd describe the overall sound as trippy and doomy with obvious folk and neoclassical influences. I could try to go on for another paragraph about the sound, suffice to say it was unique enough to stand out to me.  Let the music speak for itself having said that much, here's a link to preview or buy the album: http://subrosausa.bandcamp.com/  
Here's the thing, a lot of albums get better with multiple listens, right. I've added this last part as a sort of update to the original entry. By second listen the album didn't strike me as much. I guess I payed attention to the details more, and it seemed more monotonous. They had some parts with cheezy death metal growls (ps. I hate death metal) and the songs dragged on too long.
So easy come easy go I guess..SubRosa kinda struck me at first and then the magic didn't stay as much. What I thought was 8/10 became more a 6.5/10. I will maintain that the cover art is still fakking cool and the guitar tone is still sweet, and I'm not crying over a lost 2 $, I mean it wasn't THAT bad!

Whiskey Tasting

I had my first whiskey tasting with friends recently, it was quite fun. We had 10 different types of whiskey, mostly popular brands on the cheaper side. I suppose we can get into the expensive hardcore stuff soon enough, but it seemed to make more sense to just try a variety of the entry level stock as most of us were uninitiated. If you hold your own tasting, these points are recommended:

*If doing it in a small group, find a way to vote for the best ones you would like to try and find an even way to split the cost. You could have one person buy it all and reimburse them, or you could have each person buy a different bottle and make sure they let others know what they are getting so the same thing isn't bought three times over.

*Be responsible. Eat a big meal beforehand (don't drink on an empty stomach) and make arrangements to prevent people from drunk driving or killing pigeons and bathing in their blood in a drunken stupor.

*Find some good glasses for the tasting. Shot glasses work, or try something like a broad based glass with a bit of a bell or curve to it.  Something like this:

*Don't add ice or water, at least initially. They can interfere with subtleties in flavor. Once you get the taste in, if you please you can add a shot of spring water or ice cubes made of spring water. Why spring water? Tap water or mineral water have a lot of funky metallic and mineral flavors that will interfere with true taste.  If you want to be REALLY pure, rinse your glass between types of whiskey or use whole new glasses. It's also a good idea to drink whole glasses of water frequently, stay well hydrated to avoid alcohol headaches etc.  If you want to keep whiskey cool but don't want it diluted by melting ice cubes, whiskey stones are a good idea. These are simply special rocks you cool and chuck in the glass to serve this purpose. They look kinda like:

*Blindfolds are a knifty idea. That way there are less image based preconceptions or judgements that may alter your perception on how a whiskey tastes.  If you want to do it 'eyes open', start with what are supposed to be lighter whiskies and work your way up to the heavier ones.

*Palate cleansers are a must. You clean your tongue of aftertaste between different types of whiskey. Unsalted soda crackers or other bland crackers work well. So do plain baguettes or melba toasts. I've heard of some more exotic palate cleansers like lemon or lime sorbet or plain unsweetened green tea, but I wouldn't really bother unless you really really wanted to.

*Certain foods accent well with whiskey: dark chocolate, toffee, smoked salmon, rare beef, pate de foie gras, haggis, you get the picture. However, do not have these until you have the basic tasting done and through with, as even though the flavors compliment, they may disguise a true nature in a whisky's flavor.

*Don't gulp and guzzle. Take your time, smell it, roll it in the glass and on your tongue, breathe in and out, let the character shine.

*Stick to one general type for a tasting. Try not to have bourbon and scotch and rye all under one whole tasting. Stick to scotch alone, or American whiskies alone, for example. However for the tasting I participated in we added a few 'curveball' or outsider types to try at the end just for fun.

*Have fun! I know I sure as hell did!

Now, what of the results of the tasting I was at? Surprisingly, some highly rated ones ended up being poorer than thought and vice versa. Yet also at times the taste and quality was right in line with previous reviews read.  Here's what we came up with, the general consensus:

~Rough rating guideline:

0- 100% pure paint thinner! undrinkable!!
1- poor (almost paint thinner)
2- not too great
3- good/fair
4- excellent
5- amazing

~Loose ranking (lowest to highest):  (first rating is average online rating from multiple ratings......second rating aka 'actual' is what me and me chums thought)

GRANT'S FAMILY RESERVE SCOTCH WHISKY 4/5  actual 1.5/5

Wasn't too remarkable. It reminded me of the whiskey I got drunk on when I was like 5 years old, and since then never really went too crazy with alcohol. Kind of sharp and harsh with sweet hints, nothing too complex. It is drinkable, but not great, use as a mixer maybe.

JOHNNIE WALKER BLACK LABEL 4/5 actual 1.5/5

For all the hype and good ratings, this was surprisingly not too great. My one friend found it mute or very plain. Me and my other friend found it a bit on the harsh side, I could taste 'dirty barrel'. I do think if you didn't like whiskey too frilly or sweet or fancy with a lowdown grit-tooth resolve to it, you may enjoy it. It's kinda like if whiskey was heavy metal, and Black Label was Black Metal. If you hate Black Metal because it all sounds the same and it's too one dimensional compared to many other metal styles...steer clear of Johnnie Walker Black Label for similar reasons.

GLENFIDDICH SINGLE MALT 12 YEARS OLD SCOTCH WHISKY 2/5  actual  2.5/5

Knew a few people who recommended this or preferred this previous to the tasting. The average online reviews said it was actually quite poor, surprisingly. For my pals and I, it was nice, but really nothing special. Not atrocious, not amazing. I'd say it's worth trying at least. The main thing working against it for me was this strange barfy aftertaste.


BUSHMILLS IRISH WHISKEY  4/5                   actual 2.5/5

Bushmills is alright. I haven't had a bad Irish whiskey yet come to think of it. It's sort of the Irish whiskey to have that is a nod towards Canadian Rye or some American whiskies, though sweeter and milder. If you prefer those mentioned and want to venture into Irish territory this is a good entrance to that.

JOHNNIE WALKER RED LABEL 2.5/5 actual 3/5

Amazingly enough, far better than Black Label! I've yet to try Green Label (a level above Black) or Gold Level (a level above Green), but if this is any indication..I'm hesitant that the more touted and expensive kinds of Johnnie Walker are really so superior. Red Label is not terribly complex but not dreadfully boring or plain. It has SOMETHING going on. It's also not too harsh but not too sickly sweet. You can get mickey or airplane sized bottles for a fair price. I think this would be a fine introduction in the entire world of whiskey itself.

JAMESON IRISH WHISKEY  3.5/5 actual 4/5

Very fine for the price. I like to call this a 'dessert whisky'. It is not grossly sweet, just right. It has interesting overtones. It'd be great in an Irish Coffee. So far, my preferred Irish Whiskey, and it goes toe to toe with some good types of scotch.

JAMESON IRISH WHISKEY 12 YR  4/5 actual 4/5

Exactly as above, but the 'aged 12 years version'. I tried hard to find a difference but there seemed to be none. So probably not worth spending the extra money, the non 12 year is fine.
If you were seasoned beyond all seasons, a hardcore connoisseur, you MIGHT be able to tell the difference.

THE GLENLIVET 12 YEAR OLD SINGLE MALT 3/5 actual 4/5

This one emanated good vibes all around even before the bottle was opened. It delivered nicely. I would say one of the best value wise. There may be plenty of whiskies out there far better, but try to find them even close to Glenlivet's cheap price. It seemed to have a balance of many good flavors.


                                                                   THE BLACK GROUSE 4/5 actual 4/5

This one was great. It's like the Famous Grouse, but the next step up. Still very affordable. Sweet fiery quality with pleasant aftertaste, as was my experience. Strongly recommended.

ISLAY MIST SCOTCH 8 YEARS OLD SCOTCH WHISKY 4/5   actual 4/5

Another good one. It's aged 8 years, not 12, but tasted better than most 12 year old blends. It contains laphroaig, one of the most flavorful types of Scotch in the world. There is a medicinal smell and taste to Islay Mist, with hints of peat and smoke and wood, and a smooth sweetness. This was probably the best of the whole tasting, or tied with Black Grouse and Glenlivet.

Jaz Coleman FOUND

Jaz Coleman has been found alive and well, in the Sahara Desert living like a nomad. Recently, he vanished without much of a hint and his band mates in Killing Joke and others were worried about his welfare. Coleman seemed amused that there was so much hype over it all, and apparently had been just working on some projects and getting some quiet time. Upon surfacing he issued statements such as these : "I've been finishing my book and writing the score for my new project — (The Nirvana Symphonic) — (laughs), what's all the fuss about then?" and "looks like this has caused a right ding dong and feel its impossible to continue this tour under the circumstances", the latter referring  to the upcoming tour with his band Killing Joke alongside the Cult and the Mission UK.

 Seems it all started with that when he seemed perturbed at an apparent lack of integrity especially on the Cult's part (ticket prices too high, venues too small, covering up their British roots, etc.) The statement issued then where he tore into the Cult and subsequently vanished is now said to be written by an imposter (according to him). It is said he wished the Cult and Mission UK best of luck on the tour and wants to find out his impostor. I bet you it was him, but it just seems smoother to blame it on another one's doing now. Jaz probably used his time alone to think of a good way to resurface with minimal mess, whilst still avoiding the tour he'd hate to go on with the Cult. Remember, he is the Black Joker, the Trickster. 

There is always more than meets the eye, especially beyond simple posts on internet sites! 
For example, he could even been abducted by aliens and had his mind initialized and calibrated to do their supreme will, and then more mundane excuses were thought of to cover it up. Haha.
I imagine fans who bought any tickets for canceled KJ gigs will receive refunds. It's hard to say if the rest of the band is right pissed at Jaz.

                

The Olympics Suck!

A Bansky original??

The first Olympics ever were held in Ancient Greece around 776 BC. They initially involved running, and other events were added such as boxing and wrestling, long jump, chariot racing, and discus and javelin throwing. The various States of Greece would have competitors come even in times of war with each other and would suspend fighting to compete in the Olympics.
In fact, one of the prime reasons FOR the Olympics was to keep men fit for war. It was very down & dirty and no-nonsense. Most events were done in the nude, except one type of running race in full armor (awesome). The first Olympics ruled!

Well actually, probably not. I think it's bad enough watching half naked modern MMA fighters roll around on the ground with each other, seeing fully naked hairy Greek dudes would be pretty gross. Things were brutal enough that people prolly really got fucked up and hurt, I imagine the boxing was bare-knuckle and not with cushy gloves and so forth. People prolly even died..just think of Roman Gladiators and all that..it wasn't too far off from it.


Yet what I am to venture to say is that for all that brutalness, it's probably not much better how the Olympics evolved today. The modern day version still sucks, mostly for different reasons.

What the fuck is this?!?! Seriously.

The first reason the Olympics suck is the very predictable MONEY and corporate influence. It has grown way too huge and expensive.  Let's look at a quick version of the process. The International Olympic Committee picks a host city, right. Money is raised to hold the Olympics by the committee. This is accomplished mainly through selling tickets and licensed merchandise (aka tacky crap like mugs and hats). Also, TV and radio networks will pay them for the rights to broadcast the events. Sponsors like McDonalds and Coca Cola will pitch in money in exchange for some advertising and opportunity to sell their garbage, and other funders and donations will be made. Programs are also put in place such as minting special Olympic commemorative coins in the local currency, or Olympic stamps. The leftover money made between the cost of the raw materials and the public value of the stamp or coin will be given to the Olympic Committee. Further than that, money is not made but rather saved by electing hundreds of volunteers to participate in making the Olympics work, and making the host city and country pay for a LOT.
Any surplus money made from the Olympics is given to sports programs and similar things.
 It'd be so much cooler if half the price of say a ticket went to various charities.

 The International Olympic Committee will spend most of their investment on running the Olympics themselves, and spend about 10% of the money on administrative costs and other things. Now, we are talking HUNDREDS of millions of dollars after all streams of money pour in and all is said and done. I can recognize, yes, it does cost a lot to stage Olympics, but you would think almost all the money from the committee would cover the costs. This is not the case. A ton (usually the majority) of the money has to be footed by  taxpayers and the host country's government itself,as kinda mentioned before.

Wot a shitty logo

So let us take the current London 2012 Olympics in case. It cost 11.3 BILLION British pounds!! £9.3 billion from that is all taxpayer and British government money! The local London Olympic committee spent about £2 billion to round it out. They in turn had their money channeled in from the International Olympic Committee and local sponsors, ticket sales, and merchandise.

The gist is, the local government and taxpayers pay for all the new buildings to come up and public transportation upgrades and security and so forth. The local Olympic committee pays for the actual running of the events, and pretty much all their money more or less comes from the International Olympic Committee.  The breakdown seems reasonably fair, though it'd be nice to have the International Olympic Committee pitch in for more of the share. It'd also be nice if the Olympics weren't so damn extravagant that the cost would be so extreme. Some say it's worth it as it helps local tourism and so forth, but I'd like to venture that the payoff is smaller in comparison. According to 'experts' Lloyds Banking Group, the boost for London's economy should be £16.5 billion by the year 2017.

They should be throwing paper money inside the flame to enhance the idea of what the spending is like...

Ok, so you are telling me that something that cost £11.3 billion for a few weeks ALONE will make £16.5 billion after five years? It means the costs will be recouped years later for one. And who's to say they didn't just pull that number out of their ass? How many still standing Olympic venues and Olympic themed investments will be as relevant once the Olympics are over? Just say there's a giant new stadium. Are more people going to go there just because the Olympics happened there once upon a time? Or would the numbers be the same regardless? Then that just leaves you with a stadium that might as well have nothing to do with the Olympics..and for all it costs..how long to pay it off?

 I'm not an expert statistician or economist, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out a fuckload of money is spent on the Olympics, much of it in extravagance, and to recoup the money may take a while. We're living in a world where the whole economy is uncertain and recessions and bailouts have been happening left and right. Many countries are all connected through trade and if one country suffers the others do in turn. Almost every country is in massive debt. Staging a large event like the Olympics is one thing, making sure it's frugal enough is clearly another.

Party up motherfuckers!

What about the athletes themselves? They don't really make too much money, or so I've heard. They get to party a lot and compete for their country and maybe 'have their dreams come true' if they win a gold, silver or bronze medal. Durex, the 'Official Condom' of the Olympics, hands out free condoms for them. Because we know they all love to compete in the bonus event of sportfucking right? Target shooter for the USA Josh Lakatos has said "I've never witnessed so much debauchery in my entire life" when talking about recent festivities in London. That's right, party hard. Stay up all night. And then try to compete with a clear head and enough rest. It boils down to the individual self discipline of the athlete, I guess.

But what about the CRYBABIES? To be fair, there are probably many competitors who are not only good at what they do, but are good sports with nice attitude. However, it seems I've seen no end to people crying and bitching, because, ferfucksakes, they were 2 milliseconds/inches/(*substitute whatever measurement here) behind a bronze!  It's stupid really. I may even be so bold to say these sore losers look like they are at a funeral. They should all be happy to even know they are competing among the elite of the world in their sport category. Years ago, the mechanic down the road would train hard and go for weekend runs and such and then he would have a crack at being in the Olympics! They were more amateur friendly, and to me that's more interesting. There can be more of a gap between winners and losers that way.

Remember this? Angel Matos kicks ref in face for giving what he thought was a bad call...

 
Now, it is all so hyperspecialized that you have all these richie rich athletes (I said they might not make a ton competing in the Olympics..that doesn't mean they weren't well off to begin with) with 12 personal trainers who shave every hair off their body to minimize resistance of wind/water/whathaveyou. They probably go inside wind tunnels and get computerized scans and readouts of the possible resistance and drag created. Their equipment and clothing cost a fortune. They'll prolly accent it with 'bling' when they can. Yes, a far cry from the hardcore naked bruised and bloody Ancient Greek Olympics. I know they worked so hard to get where they are, but the odds are usually against them. Did any one of several dozen competitors really think they were the destined SOLE person to get gold? I bet so many others shoulder to shoulder with them think the same. And it's not a difference of much, the gold winner was 5 milliseconds ahead of the 7th place guy. WTF. On a different day the gold winner could be 14th place!! It doesn't mean they are much better than their competition at ALL. Some want to win so bad they will risk performance enhancing drugs and doping, which usually creates scandal. Sometimes it's not the athletes who are being scum but the judges, with allegations of bribery and cheating with actual scores and so forth. And who judges the judge?

Wah! Go home and put a skirt on..

Think of how many events there are now too. Sure, variety is nice, but it won't be long before we have Olympic pea shooting and Olympic handstand marathons. Fuck! The original events had PURPOSE, though it was usually gory. Now it's just a showoff fest to show you are good at something that is almost entirely useless in everyday life. I want to see the headlines 'Olympic Runner Makes Mad Dash To Save Child From Burning Building'. Something like that. For the most part though, seriously, what are these skills USED FOR?

Everyone thinks you're the shit. Except me. And millions like me.

The Ancient Greeks put aside most of their wars to hold Olympics.  We kinda do that now too, but kinda don't. Sometimes a country boycotts the Olympics because a rival is there, or they may show up and tensions do not disappear. There's a lot of political junk going on in the sidelines. Sometimes there are even threats of terrorism.

Trouble is the name of this London brew....

Who asked the local public? Many of them will be gung ho for the Olympics but many have absolutely no interest. There'll be no escape from the tacky ads and mascots and annoying kitsch, increased traffic, plowing over beautiful environmental lands, and nonstop TV coverage when you'd rather just see something else. If you're actually at the events, the corporate hold is so tight that you can only buy certain food or items from select companies. Security will be up your ass if you don't be a total compliant sheep and there's really just no room for individualistic expression, or even basic human rights. In Beijing 2008 1.5 million people were displaced just for the Olympics! In Vancouver 2010 Native land was being encroached upon for some piece of turd highway, and that's only the beginning.

I could go on and on, the Olympics really nauseate me.  I can appreciate countries coming together and some friendly competition and staying fit and having fun and all that, but I think the Olympics have become bloated beyond that level and all the good stuff seems to be hiding in the shadow now created.

Giant Geodes

Geodes are like those semi hollow rock thingies with trippy crystals when you cut them in two. I know, it's a ghetto ultra layman's non-scientific definition. Most geodes are only big enough to fit in the palm of your hand. Here are some pics of GIGANTIC geodes..and some crystal caves etc.

These would make good baths or coffins!

 

Forget the Sprite..I'd chill my beer in this thing...

Some neat close-ups

 

Much, much better than TV!

New house!