Posts by goldenscout14

electricorca112 said:😕

It strikes me as rather curious, doesn't it? From what I can gather, even without a massive title sponsor anchoring the budget this year, ticket prices seem to be holding steady—or perhaps even dipping slightly—compared to previous years when we actually had major sponsors on board providing those supposed "discounts" via those old-school SMS codes. One has to wonder, where exactly is the savings being passed down to the fans? 🤷

Will the ticket prices actually stay where they are? It seems like they’ve made a calculated move to pad their margins by booking a lineup of "budget" acts instead of the heavy hitters we expected. But honestly, why jump to conclusions before we’ve even seen the full roster? I’m not one of those people who just sits around looking for reasons to hate everything—let's be clear about that—because, truth be told, some of the previous festivals have been absolutely stellar. We should wait for the complete list before we start tearing it apart.

swiftbadger73 said:John in Music 🙄🙂

I can already tell this is going to be a total recession-era disaster for the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival, though I highly doubt the ticket prices will actually reflect that reality. What’s next on the agenda, Babylon Zoo? Honestly, all due respect to John, but I think I'll be sitting this one out; for that kind of money, I could probably just enjoy some incredible meals at a high-end steakhouse instead.

Nancy Wilson2 said:🤦

It happened roughly a millennium ago, give or take.
As for who signed the contract? No one—it was forced upon us against our will.
And don't be naive; there are plenty of "holidays"—just ask any Satanist or our dear Illuminati overlords when they hold their ceremonies to summon spirits and invite possession.

I was actually referring to a federal holiday, where we could all just get together and enjoy ourselves.

Ronald Nelson2 said:I agree with you. The music we listen to, the things we buy, politics... essentially, everything is under Satan's domain. Why? Because humanity sold itself to the devil, and that is why so many suffer. I am fully aware of this. We are a part of this machine, and in a way, we finance it ourselves.
But I believe in God. I pray to God, and amidst all this evil, I try my hardest to be good and to do good. And I won't give up, because my faith is unshakable.

But I find myself wondering, at what specific point in history did this actually take place? Who exactly was authorized to sign away our collective rights in some cosmic sales agreement on behalf of every single one of us? And if Satan is truly this dominant force on Earth, why isn't there a single holiday dedicated to him?🤔

You really earned yourself a slap on the wrist from Germany.

A Synthesizer is a Synthesizer in English. The model name stays exactly what it is—so a Moog Model D is still a Moog Model D. A Yamaha is a Yamaha.

A laptop is a laptop. A tone generator is a tone generator. Software is software. A musical instrument is a musical instrument.

Tell the professor that if she actually intended to bridge the gap between learning German and modern music, she completely missed the mark; most modern music is built entirely on English terminology, and even then, English borrows heavily from other languages. It seems like most kids today—unless they’re true enthusiasts—don't even realize what the foundation of modern music actually looks like.

Next time, maybe she should stick to traditional German instruments, like the schäferpfeife. See? Now that's an interesting German word and a legitimate instrument.

hollowsailor48 said:I actually had it right here at my place for about a month or so. 🙂
The beast.

What on earth happened that forced you to part with it—did you need to upgrade to a new car or something? 😁

Did you even get a chance to play it, maybe record some samples so you could keep those sounds forever?

Honestly, I’m convinced more than half of the synth-pop hits from the 80s were born on the wings of that beast...

Daniel Edwards said:There’s also all this other gear out there; modern musicians—the pretentious ones, anyway—use all sorts of high-tech wonders just to prove how cool and "different" they are.

Sure, everything is being manufactured and released these days, but at the end of the day, what I value most is someone who can actually sing their heart out, maybe accompanied by a decent guitarist or someone on an accordion. 😳

Don't get me wrong, those gadgets are interesting and they produce beautiful sounds, and part of me would love to tinker with every single one of them. But I'd need to actually know how to operate them without having to wade through a 500-page manual or seek out some Tibetan monk who claims to be the sole keeper of that instrument's ancient secrets. 😕

casualwolf12 said:says buy me, I'm on sale 👋🤣

I honestly think... Lady Gaga 🤔🤷 has been performing with that specific gear lately...

Heh, well, they're floating around somewhere, but I still find myself leaning toward a solid analog vibe if nothing else can provide that certain charm...

Moog Model D

Just watch where you click when you land on the site so you don't end up making a mess of things... 😁

vividwolf47 said:Give me a break, seriously. 🙂

Just post a few pictures of modern music gear—you know, those instruments actually used at concerts today—and label them. Like I said before, I recognize a few, but I’m sure you lot know way more than I do...

In my own post alone, I listed three modern instruments that serve as the very foundation for almost all rap music, not to mention countless other contemporary genres... And don't even get me started on the turntable; that's no joke. 🙄

Look, here is Kanye West using an MPC. How exactly do you think rap music is produced? Does it just arrive via some FedEx delivery from Mars? Here, take a look and maybe you can learn a thing or two from him. (Note: A certain Phoenix with a great bust isn't exactly part of the standard studio setup).

Kanye West - >

I suppose you could also count the laptop—when paired with the right software, it stands as one of the primary instruments in modern music.

Surprise the professor and drop this right in his lap...



An MPC3000 that was actually used and even bears the original signature of Dr. Dre. I couldn't track down a photo of the adapter, unfortunately...

Just look at this beauty. Wow.



And let's not forget...

I’m actually perfectly content with the phone I’m using right now, so, honestly, my apologies, Nokia!

Let’s not get carried away here. There is an entire spectrum of medications—substances that are perfectly legal and widely utilized in mainstream medicine—that you simply cannot walk into a drugstore and pick up off the shelf; they require a strict prescription from a doctor. By that same logic, just because LSD isn't technically illegal doesn't mean its status is being questioned solely on health grounds, nor does it follow that any random person could just consume it whenever they felt like it and then act surprised when their living room rug starts coming to life right in front of them.

Ladies and gentlemen, we really can't be having this kind of conversation if none of you have even bothered to listen to a single Radiohead track. Honestly! 😁

Honestly, indie music was the single best thing to ever happen to the rock genre! 🙂

The Killers? 😁

redharbor9 said:And what you said... if that MPO stuff actually passed, I wouldn't be shocked at all. I did some digging into how things work over in Europe, and honestly, it's just a total circus everywhere. You've got countries where psychiatrists aren't even allowed to be psychotherapists—only psychologists have the monopoly there. Then you've got places where the psychiatrists hold the whole monopoly. Some spots let anyone who finishes psychotherapy practice, while in others, psychologist-therapists are ranked right up there with psychiatrists in hospitals. It's a mess.

Then you look at America, where psychologists fought their way into being able to prescribe meds. I don't get how or why that happened, or how that even works in practice...

It feels like there isn't a single decent legal model to point to, because the whole system is just a joke everywhere.

Take Canada, for example. Psychotherapy is legally defined there, but it's so incredibly rigid that it’s going to tank the number of available therapists relative to the population. Non-psychology specialists have to finish this massive preparatory course first, and to get certified, you need documented personal therapy, supervision... endless hours of it, and it costs a fortune. They're out of their minds.

Sure, it "professionalizes" the field on one hand, but on the other, it guts the pool of potential therapists, which is definitely going to drive prices through the roof.

My take? They have to pass the same rigorous board exams and earn their licenses just like everyone else. No one is born with that level of expertise; it’s something you have to actually work for and acquire through years of study.

So, it isn't actually about the scent itself, contrary to what is being claimed here. That study involving the men's t-shirts is particularly intriguing, though it leaves a staggering amount of unanswered questions. For instance, how can we possibly generalize results derived from other species? Furthermore, I find it highly questionable how the second study managed to dismiss the possibility that social conditioning during childhood might be the true culprit. Isn't it plausible that the female subjects were simply conditioned by society to view incest as taboo, and thus, upon encountering a similar scent later in life, they subconsciously generalize that aversion, leading them to reject potential partners who share those olfactory traits? Essentially, society conditions us to recognize incest as wrong, we encounter the scent of kin, and subsequently, that scent triggers a reflexive avoidance of anyone who smells remotely similar. We also have to consider that humans are primarily visual creatures, whereas scent—much like other senses—is utilized far less intensely than it is by many other mammals. Given that, shouldn't we be more skeptical about attributing the entire mechanism of incest avoidance, or even mate selection in general, solely to pheromones?

crimsoncanyon2 said:Look, this isn't about some intellectual curiosity for novelty. It's about scent—specifically the kind women sense. And I don't mean a literal "scent" like a perfume you can describe or pin down; it's more like that scentless, inexplicable pull where someone becomes suddenly, inexplicably attractive to you...
Meanwhile, blood relatives—people who are genetically similar—basically radiate an aversion to sexual activity (in terms of half-breeding) through pheromones. They essentially "smell" wrong to us...
So, if you strip away every other personality trait, the most attractive people would be those with genetic profiles as different from ours as possible. If we stick to this animalistic logic, it's like when a gorgeous, fluffy poodle gets bred with another poodle that looks exactly like her, but then she ends up ignoring him entirely to fall head-over-heels for the ugliest dachshund in the park...

As for men, I'm convinced it's mostly down to social conditioning...

To be perfectly honest, I’m at a bit of a loss here. What exactly is a "scentless scent"? Is that just an oxymoron? Are you suggesting we simply don't perceive it on a conscious level? Furthermore, I'm genuinely unsure if there is actually such a stark difference between how pheromones influence mate selection in men versus women, or if such a gap even exists to that degree. For my part, I suspect that men also rely on pheromonal cues when choosing a partner—alongside a massive array of other signals, of course—though I certainly don't believe pheromones act as the sole deciding factor. And what, precisely, is the role of pheromones in the biological mechanism for avoiding inbreeding? Do they play any actual part in that specific aspect of partner selection?

Genetically speaking, our closest relatives are gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos. It’s actually quite a startling fact that even a fruit fly shares roughly 60% of its DNA with us, depending on which specific calculation method you use. What does that imply about the remaining 40%—that massive gap in our genetic makeup? Does it suggest something deeper about what truly separates us from the rest of the biological world?

I recall reading somewhere that > noted how most genetic disorders are passed down through recessive lines, and naturally, incest significantly spikes the likelihood of those traits manifesting in the phenotype. Evolutionary pressures essentially work in direct opposition to the impulse toward incest, which is precisely why humans, as a species, generally tend to avoid it. Is it not simply nature's own way of safeguarding our survival?

Blade Runner

Black Snake Moan

White Heat

Man, what am I even doing...