INTERNET’s Friends and Family

old vox neighbors

nobody@vox.com(Mr.Nice) — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:45:38 -0400

hi! if you are an old VOX neighbor of mine, then please please pleeeeeeeeese drop in and say hi. i miss my old vox neighbors, and it's not because i don't like my new VOX neighbors, it's just that i miss my old ones.

and since you are all nice, hi! to my new VOX neighbors toooo!

i want to send my love to you all.

LOVE, MR.NICE.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Where the Hell is Matt?

nobody@vox.com(Mr.Nice) — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:59:02 -0400

I hope this makes you happy.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Shooting Herzog

nobody@vox.com(Mr.Nice) — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:31:38 -0400

Mark Kermode's terrific interview with Werner Herzog.

Send to a friend

Scissor Sisters

nobody@vox.com(Mr.Nice) — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 11:17:30 -0400

Music for you. Enjoy.

She's My Man

Scissor Sisters

Land of a Thousand Words

Scissor Sisters

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The Velvet Underground By Julian Casablancas

nobody@vox.com(Mr.Nice) — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:50:57 -0400

When you listen to a classic-rock station today, why don't they play the Velvet Underground? Why is it always Boston and Led Zeppelin? And why are the Rolling Stones so much more popular than the Velvets? OK, I understand why the Stones are more popular. But there is also a part of me that has always felt that it should have been the other way around. The Velvet Underground were way ahead of their time. And their music was weird. But it also made so much sense to me. I couldn't believe this wasn't the most popular music ever made.

Listening to those four studio albums now is like reading a good book that takes place in a distant time. When I hear The Velvet Underground and Nico or Loaded, I feel like I'm in Andy Warhol's Factory in the 1960s or hanging out at Max's Kansas City. The way Lou Reed wrote and sang about drugs and sex, about the people around him -- it was so matter-of-fact. I believed every word of "Heroin." Reed could be romantic in the way he portrayed these crazy situations, but he was also intensely real. It was poetry and journalism.

A lot of people associate the Velvets with feedback and noise. White Light/White Heat is the kind of record you have to be in the mood for. You have to be in a shitty bar, in a really shitty mood. But the Velvets created some very beautiful music, too: "Sunday Morning," with John Cale's viola; "Candy Says"; "All Tomorrow's Parties" -- I can't imagine that song without Nico singing it, although I thought Maureen Tucker had a cool voice, as well as being a really cool drummer. She had a femininity. I thought she sounded hotter than Nico.

In the beginning, the Strokes definitely drew from the vibe of the Velvets. I listened to Loaded all the time when we started the band, while I was writing my first songs. For four solid months, it was just Loaded and this Beach Boys greatest-hits record, Made in the U.S.A. A lot of our guitar tones are based on what Reed and Sterling Morrison did.

I honestly wish we could have copied them more. We didn't come close enough. But that was cool, because it became more of our own thing. Which is something else I got from the Velvets. They taught me just to be myself.

-- By Julian Casablancas Posted Apr 15, 2004 12:00 AM

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Warhol and the Beats

nobody@vox.com(Mr.Nice) — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:12:42 -0400

I'm finding that there seems to be some kind of a similarity between the Beat Generation and Warhol. Both were somewhat alike in the sense that they had a different 'outlook on life' compared to the norm. They bought a different enthusiasm which society couldn't and wouldn't handle. Being so much within 'society' means that true expression and the chance to develop your own take on life never takes place. 'Society' forces everyone to adhere to everybody else, to be 'normal', and then claims this as 'freedom' and tells us of 'diversity' which exists in our society. The Beat Genration and Warhol existed quite seperate from society; allowing them to develop and nurture ideas and live in 'harmony'—in the sense that they could hold their own perspectives and ideas without the ideals and niceties of life being forced onto them by 'society'. You would say that the Beat Generation existed within the framework of society—a lot of what they did was together and within the boundaries of the 'norms' set by 'society'. But when explored, you discover they didn't. They partied and socialised not primarily for partying's sake, but to share and explore ideas, and look for new experiences by being with other people. Because they were very much aware of the aforementioned things, their whole intention was different, they were very much outside of 'society'. I guess this is also true in Warhol's case. You see, I don't think that the other people within Warhol's group had the same outlook or even the same ideas as Warhol himself, and I also think that the people around Warhol probably garnered an idea about him and what he was and what he was doing, but I somehow think they didn't really know him. Warhol somehow seems that he was very much his own, and no-one really understood him, and so he played along to peoples perceptions of whatever they thought of him.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Warhol

nobody@vox.com(Mr.Nice) — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:33:34 -0400

I really want to hate him, but I can't. I've seen videos of him, and interviews, and I really want to hate him, but I can't. I have a burning desire to hate him, I really do, but i can't. From what I see, I think he's marvellous. He somehow represents a lot of the 'superficiality' surrounding the modern era, but with him, this superficiality isn't really superficiality, it's some sort of deepness and depth. Yet when a lot of people emulate, idolize or even show deep admiration for him, more often than not, it's superficiality. I think the only way to (truly) understand him and his work is not to show any kind of affection and admiration for him and his work, and to view them with a sceptical eye, as to understand the 'Warhol' behind the work.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

let me tell you...

nobody@vox.com(Mr.Nice) — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:25:40 -0400

...Lou Reed is a fuckin genius!

Send to a friend

indian in the cupboard.....i mean closet

nobody@vox.com(Mr.Nice) — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:26:56 -0400

Not very often do I feel proud of my Indian heritage. As a third generation Indian living in the UK, I somehow feel super duper about my Indian roots. Probably becuase I'm seeing so many great intelligent people coming out of India that it makes me ponder about my heritage. And having the whole world coming to appreciate India, not in the least Wes Anderson and his beautiful film The Darjeeling Limited, I wonder if I overlooked my parents country.

All I can really say is, i'm one happy Indian.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

optimism

nobody@vox.com(Mr.Nice) — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:15:52 -0400

My life could do with optimism. A 'sceptical' outlook on life (in every sense of the word) drains the optimism out of everything I do. I learnt this 'sceptical' view of life through science seen as though it's the driving force behind it, and this scepticism helps in understanding to a greater depth subjects like politics, by questioning the motives behind the actions.

But quickly, and unwarrantably, this scepticism turns into cynicism, and you can understand why. In the world we live in, very few things are done for the right reasons, very very few things. Even people working for the Peace Corps or aid agencies like the Red Cross and Oxfam have an ulterior motive. This ulterior motive is that the majority of people, if not everyone, are self-serving. I guess this is, and encapsulates my cynicism. But then this ceases to be cynicism, or that cynicism ceases to be itself, becuase then cynicism is not an 'attitude' of scornful or jaded negativity, rather all acts 'are' done for the wrong reasons and thus invites cynicism and so it shouldn't be a negative concept, merely a true one.

I digress. So possessing a sceptical and a cynical world view very easily leads to pessimism. Once you learn to question and discover 'everything is wrong', there is nowhere to go but to end up as a pessimist. The whole world then just seems like a whole lot of nonsense and you can't help but point out all the fucked up things in the world—and there are plenty.

Mind you though, I'm not stuck in this 'void of pessimism' and nor am I a depressing soul to be around. It's just that having a sceptically cynically pessimistic view of the world, you find it hard to be 'generally optimistic' in doing everyday tasks and even the simplest of tasks which require no motivation, require a great amount of motivation to get done.

So what is my pledge? This post is rather useless to myself without a pledge. I guess what I really need to do is (as clichéd as it sounds) look at the bright side of life and have a generally positive outlook on everything. If I try to see the good in carrying out certain actions, then hopefully this will also lower the amount of will required to carry out whatever I want to do. Though let's not forget, I do not plan to rid myself of this scepticism and the cynicism, merely alter it.

EDIT 26-03-08: I respect people greatly who work for the Peace Corps and charities like Oxfam. But I share the same view as House (MD), that people who work for charitable causes do so largely for themselves. By this I mean that people work for charitable causes to make themselves feel better by doing something about the injustices of the world. In other words, their convincing themselves that they're at least doing 'something'. Which in itself isn't a bad thing, becuase above this self-serving need, this shows that there is a feeling within their hearts that something should be done.

Send to a friend