Jamie Davis9 said:Yeah—that guy from the link tried correcting me on that too, but he was totally wasting his breath. 🙄 😁
Looks like Libra... and I mean not just the end of the sign, but literally the very last day!!! Of course. Right before Scorpio. Still, I’m leaning toward the first one. What about you guys?
On that final day (astrologers love saying "the last degree"—here we're talking the 29th degree, which I'm guessing is your day, Oct 22nd), you either get a purebred representative of that sign or someone who's basically already the next sign. Keep in mind the Sun doesn't enter or exit a sign at the exact same hour, or even the same day, every single year.
And generally speaking—people born on the cusp of two signs, usually within a 5-day window, carry traits from both, except for that specific 29th degree situation. Hell, Fish 1968 was actually talking about this on the Music thread last night—correct me if I'm wrong on that bit.
Astrology might not be a science, but it's a perfect system—like a crystal, everything is based on multiples, everything is analog. 12 signs, 12 houses, 4 quadrants in a natal chart, 4 elements, 3 modalities, 2 polarities...
The only time I actually looked up astrology was because Scorpio is in every single damn house of my chart—including my rising sign—and apparently that means the tenth house is basically just me and Hitler. 👎
You can't just have one sign taking up every single damn house—it's more like you can have multiple planets sitting in one house. Usually, a sign occupies one house, maybe two, or even gets nested depending on the Earth's axial tilt and whatever else—but let's just say one sign per house is the average. If you have multiple planets clustered in one house, that’s called a stellium—basically means all that energy is hyper-focused in one area. It creates this massive intensity in that specific part of your life, and honestly, most famous people have at least one stellium. I’ve got mine in Sagittarius with four planets—which explains why everyone loves me so much, even when I’m being a total asshole.😁
So, if I'm reading you right—you're rocking MC in Lion? Yeah, me too. Man, the sheer amount of effort I have to put into fixing my hair because of it... honestly, it’s a struggle. But yeah, I definitely have it—I'm a total hairball, for real.😁🙂 An MC at the Lion—that’s a dignified gig. It's definitely not like working at Berkshire Hathaway emptying dumpsters—but even if it were, the guy just radiates authority. People actually respect him... he's basically the king of local code enforcement. Saturn in the 10th? Honestly, that's solid—it’s right where it belongs, just pure grind and career obsession. It's like having Hitler's level of ambition—if he hadn't kicked the bucket, we probably wouldn't even be here today.😁
Lisa Davis46 said:Alright, you caught me off guard there. 😁
The tricky part is having to handle every single aspect solo—especially the paperwork, which (in this country) is no joke. But honestly, the worst bit is feeling like I’m pulling double the hours compared to before, and it’s not even about the money—not for me, anyway. The only real perk is being able to handpick the gigs, the projects, and the clients you actually want to work with, which does feel pretty good...
But you really had to tap into those small business grants to make it happen. Right, Dennis Hall41? 😁
Anyway, which country in Scandinavia started doing that 6-hour workday + free/boozy Fridays thing?
Not just those, but also the ones meant for cultural production and helping out struggling artists—as you can tell, I'm in the rap scene making G-funk beats.😁
"A life spent reading would be enough for me." — Houellebecq
Work is just this soul-crushing category of existence. Unless you're part of that tiny sliver of artists, optimists, or true vitalists—though honestly, who knows how many are actually real versus just lying to themselves—it’s pretty much true that "work made man from ape, and now work makes a horse out of man" (Borivoje Todorović, "Hot Wind"). Seriously, everywhere I look—especially in folks over 50, and sadly more and more in my own generation—I see people who are basically walking ruins. They're spiritually hollowed out and mentally drained, just dealing with constant back pain and varicose veins. All because of this whole liberation through labor nonsense.
Most of those massive icons dropped their absolute best stuff right after hitting their initial peak—it always felt to me like they’d reached their full evolutionary potential with those records. Sure, there was more searching later, more experimenting, or even revisiting old sounds—maybe even better albums—but in terms of reaching that ultimate summit relative to their journey up to that point? That was it. They stayed on that mountain—sometimes finding a little valley or hidden treasure, sometimes just stumbling through the woods, or occasionally taking a hard fall. So, honestly, arguing about quality feels pretty pointless. I know a guy who swears > is the best of The Rolling Stones, and it’s tough to argue with him—I mean, it isn't my pick, obviously, but every single track on there is killer. Same goes for >, >, and a bunch of others.
(Oh, forgot the ultimate example—> with >.)
We totally misread each other on >—those three albums are legendary, for sure, but I actually think his best work came before them. Or at least something along the lines of >—for me, nothing really tops that.
And yeah, one thing's for sure—Speaking in Tongues wouldn't even exist without Remain in Light, though I’ve got some seriously mixed feelings about that record.
Isn't the whole point here about blending elements from both worlds? Sgt. Pepper feels like this total break from the system—it’s like the logical step after Revolver before you even get to the White Album. That Afrobeat vibe on Remain in Light is basically just music hall energy applied to Sgt. Pepper, and honestly, that album feels more like a stylistic excursion too. I don't really get the sense that it's a peak with RiL, in any way that matters. Basically, if both bands had called it quits right after Fear of Music or maybe after Rubber Soul/Revolver—let's throw in something like Blonde on Blond, Exile on Main St., or London Calling for good measure—you'd still walk away feeling like their artistic journey was complete. I don't get that same feeling with Nick Drake, though—to my mind, he never actually managed to nail his absolute best record.
And just to be clear, when I mentioned the critics, I wasn't aiming that at you.
Lisa Davis46 said:And who was it that said they didn't like Fear of Music?
I don't get this part—can you explain it to me? 😵
Honestly, you could say so much more about the essence of Talking Heads... I could easily move this over to their thread—but honestly, I’d love for you to expand on that part first... why do you think that?
I was just bringing that up because of this right here.
I know plenty of people who swear by RiL—but they either haven't actually sat down with FoM, or they just assume it’s somehow worse—probably because critics basically told them they had to love RiL to be considered "real" fans.
Why essence? Because it’s a transitional record—just like how Rubber Soul was a turning point. It’s that sweet spot where you can see the early stuff and the later era colliding. Honestly, if you ask me, it’s their absolute best—no filler at all. Though, I gotta be in just the right mood to listen to RiL—otherwise, it feels a little suffocating.
Just jumping in here—if you truly love Heads, you’ve gotta be into Fear of Music. Look, saying you love Remain in Light but don't care for Fear of Music—that’s just a way to signal good taste, or maybe even just being trendy—it doesn't actually make you a real Talking Heads fan. It's like claiming you love Sgt. Pepper but haven't really gotten into Rubber Soul, which is basically the most Beatles-sounding record they ever made.
Fear of Music is the absolute essence of Talking Heads—it's basically everything that defines them as a band.
I’m good with everything—as long as the beaches and the churches stay open. I'm not a big fan of grocery shopping, but honestly, being in church helps me clear my head and find some peace through prayer.
Honestly, the only thing on this list worth a damn is Run The Jewels - Run The Jewels 2. I went with John Foxx—mostly because I just couldn't stand the thought of Hendrix winning with an album that's mediocre even by his own overhyped studio standards.
Lisa Davis46 said:man, you couldn't be more wrong:
"I didn't know about that until Jarboe introduced me to Nick Drake in the 80s. I was blown blown away, I listened to him constantly, for a long time. For better or for worse, I'd be hearing him and revisiting early Dylan convinced me that it was time for me to start trying to write songs on acoustic guitar. (...) Drake was inspirational to me in thinking about the simplicity and about creating something that has genuine power and truth in it, with very simple means, as opposed to Swans, which relied on volume."
Check out his top 13 albums too—it's killer. 🍿
+
black eyed dog
Yeah, solid list. Honestly, though—didn't see the David Bowie and Bob Dylan picks coming at all.
OT: It's Alright Ma ha ha ha
For the next bootleg release, I'm either looking for those '93 shows from The Blue Note—or even better—something from '65.
Patrick Martin said:it's basically Sodom and Gomorrah☕
I'm not talking about those kinds of clubs—I mean the spots where guys like Woody Harrelson or Michael Shannon show up just to hang with some long-haired, tattooed rednecks dealing crack and hitting on girls. You've got fans whirring, everyone's sweating, there's probably even flies buzzing around, and some redneck is just sitting there sipping a Budweiser.😁
They definitely deserve more credit, yeah. They aren't exactly part of my "all-time greats" pantheon—but you're right to bring them up. As far as I can remember, Tres Hombres is an absolute classic, and honestly, Tush and La Grange are probably their best stuff.