this or that

DJI Mavic 4 Pro

MSGmMKM.gif


DJ Music

~~~or~~~

Live Band?
 
I LOVE NYC diners! Even though the only one I really know is Murray Hill Diner which is awesome. Anyway, back to the game, I think I’d definitely go for:
Tick Tock Diner (I looked it up and looks very appealing, as is the pic you posted!)

Yummy lobster

or

Yummy steak
 
I was recently wondering to what degree Romantic era ideas and the Byronic hero lore still provides a narrative that draws artists, authors, and musicians to alcohol and other drugs, and makes abuse of these substances more socially acceptable, even romanticized, when done by creative icons.
grmphH5.png


Band substance

Wristbands
QG4HpZk.jpeg


~~~or~~~

Headbands?
lbsaY1u.jpeg
 
Mike Bulgakov said:
I was recently wondering to what degree Romantic era ideas and the Byronic hero lore still provides a narrative that draws artists, authors, and musicians to alcohol and other drugs, and makes abuse of these substances more socially acceptable, even romanticized, when done by creative icons.
grmphH5.png


Band substance

Wristbands
QG4HpZk.jpeg


~~~or~~~

Headbands?
lbsaY1u.jpeg
Click to expand...

I am Spanish, and here, in the city of Madrid, my father once saw an engraving a long time ago that read: ‘Lord Byron would have been a customer of Galerías Preciados (the best chain of fashion stores in Spain at the time)’. So come and shop at Galerías Preciados, because if Lord Byron picked up a suit from the tailor’s and found the slightest fault with it, he would return it and get a full refund; and who knows, he might even take something else with him.

Nowadays, advertising using the image of Byron would lead any business to immediate bankruptcy.

The cliché of the perfect aristocrat. Arrogant, with no material concerns, distant, an extraordinary expert in the arts, music and painting, a connoisseur, well educated in the aesthetic dimension of personality and above social conventions (homosexuality, incest).


But he is an aristocrat of a different kind. He is not a stiff. He is not a typical aristocrat, who wanders around his castle with his dogs and talks to no one. Byron talks to no one else because of his own personal arrogance, his disdain for those below him, and the common interests of humanity in the face of those higher interests he claims to serve. He supports the Luddites. He exiles himself from his class because he sees it as short-sighted, limiting, stuffy and full of minutiae; it is a class in extinction.

About 'visionary substances' in Lord Byron. Let’s give him the floor in one of his well-known letters.

It is a letter he wrote to one of his friends in March 1817. Byron is 19 years old and in Milan. He is bored and goes to libraries to study languages.

I do not have the text of this brief letter with me, but it is part of my memory, and I translated it and sent it to various friends who are poetry enthusiasts. Nowadays you have to pay for everything on the Internet, whereas not so long ago you had free access to this type of material. He wrote something like this:

“Among other things in Milan, one paticularly pleased me. The correspondence, the most beautiful love letters in the world from Lucrezia Borgia to Cardinal Bembo, whom you describe as an excellent cardinal, and a lock of her hair, and some of her verses in Spanish, the beautiful blonde lock. I took a strand of hair as a relic, and I would have liked to get a copy of one or two letters, but it’s forbidden. Not that I care, but it proved impractical to do so. All I have left are the letters in my memory. They are kept in the Ambrosiana library, which I often visited to read them, much to the scandal of the librarian, who wanted to educate me with various valuable, erudite and pious manuscripts, but I clung to the Pope’s daughter and wished I had been a cardinal.”

Byron ‘clings’ to a lock of hair and fills it with immaterial substance to sustain his passion for the Pope’s daughter. And I feel and think that this is neither modernism nor romanticism, nor decadent, nor can it be interwoven into any artistic school, let alone a literary one.

What is the only living thing left in the Ambrosiana library for Byron? The hair, not even the lock to which it belonged, of a young woman who loved a cardinal.
 
Last edited:
I get cramps said:
I am Spanish, and here, in the city of Madrid, my father once saw an engraving a long time ago that read: ‘Lord Byron would have been a customer of Galerías Preciados (the best chain of fashion stores in Spain at the time)’. So come and shop at Galerías Preciados, because if Lord Byron picked up a suit from the tailor’s and found the slightest fault with it, he would return it and get a full refund; and who knows, he might even take something else with him.

Nowadays, advertising using the image of Byron would lead any business to immediate bankruptcy.

The cliché of the perfect aristocrat. Arrogant, with no material concerns, distant, an extraordinary expert in the arts, music and painting, a connoisseur, well educated in the aesthetic dimension of personality and above social conventions (homosexuality, incest).


But he is an aristocrat of a different kind. He is not a stiff. He is not a typical aristocrat, who wanders around his castle with his dogs and talks to no one. Byron talks to no one else because of his own personal arrogance, his disdain for those below him, and the common interests of humanity in the face of those higher interests he claims to serve. He supports the Luddites. He exiles himself from his class because he sees it as short-sighted, limiting, stuffy and full of minutiae; it is a class in extinction.

About 'visionary substances' in Lord Byron. Let’s give him the floor in one of his well-known letters.

It is a letter he wrote to one of his friends in March 1817. Byron is 19 years old and in Milan. He is bored and goes to libraries to study languages.

I do not have the text of this brief letter with me, but it is part of my memory, and I translated it and sent it to various friends who are poetry enthusiasts. Nowadays you have to pay for everything on the Internet, whereas not so long ago you had free access to this type of material. He wrote something like this:

“Among other things in Milan, one paticularly pleased me. The correspondence, the most beautiful love letters in the world from Lucrezia Borgia to Cardinal Bembo, whom you describe as an excellent cardinal, and a lock of her hair, and some of her verses in Spanish, the beautiful blonde lock. I took a strand of hair as a relic, and I would have liked to get a copy of one or two letters, but it’s forbidden. Not that I care, but it proved impractical to do so. All I have left are the letters in my memory. They are kept in the Ambrosiana library, which I often visited to read them, much to the scandal of the librarian, who wanted to educate me with various valuable, erudite and pious manuscripts, but I clung to the Pope’s daughter and wished I had been a cardinal.”

Byron ‘clings’ to a lock of hair and fills it with immaterial substance to sustain his passion for the Pope’s daughter. And I feel and think that this is neither modernism nor romanticism, nor decadent, nor can it be interwoven into any artistic school, let alone a literary one.

What is the only living thing left in the Ambrosiana library for Byron? The hair, not even the lock to which it belonged, of a young woman who loved a cardinal.
Click to expand...
Byron’s aristocratic contemporary, “Lady” Caroline Lamb, infamously summed him up as “mad, bad, and dangerous to know.” Russian literary icon Pushkin was heavily influenced by Byron, who was an inspiration for Eugene Onegin, the superfluous man. Lermontov was also inspired by the Byron lore. Pechorin, the protagonist in “A Hero of Our Times,” was created as a Byronic hero.

Opium was used medically and recreationally at the time, and Byron, Keats, Shelley, and de Quincey were addicted. The Romantics were trying to tap into realms beyond the conscious rational mind, and claimed opium opened the gates. Byron, Keats, and Shelley all died young.

Freud’s ideas of the unconscious mind wouldn’t come around until the end of the century. Interestingly, Freud saw cocaine as a medical solution for curing opium addiction, and prescribed it. Freud hadn’t yet known that cocaine was also very addictive and destructive, and he became addicted to cocaine.
 
Mendel

Spinning "scientific" narratives to serve ideology:

Trofim Lysenko (Lysenkpoism)

When the Soviet Union Chose the Wrong Side on Genetics and Evolution
Sarah Zielinski
February 1, 2010

Whenever I hear that some political figure has attempted to legislate science to suit the convenience of their political beliefs—and this happens fairly frequently, even here in the United States—I think back to biology class and the story of Trofim Lysenko in the early years of the Soviet Union.

Lysenko, Joseph Stalin's director of biology, was head of a group of animal and plant breeders who rejected the science of genetics—particularly as developed by Gregor Mendel and Thomas Hunt Morgan—as being foreign, impractical, idealistic and a product of "bourgeois capitalism." Instead, these Soviets promoted the work of fellow countryman Ivan V. Michurin. Michurin believed in a neo-Lamarckian form of evolution. You may recall the classic example of Lamarckian evolution that held that giraffes stretched their necks into such long lengths and then passed on that trait to their direct offspring. Michurin's system was an advanced form of that.

Michurinist biology, which later morphed into Lysenkoism, was convenient for a Soviet government trying to engineer the perfect social utopia. Under this system, they thought they could quickly force plants and animals, even the Soviet people, into forms that could serve practical requirements. For example, Lysenko claimed that he changed a species of spring wheat into a winter wheat in just a few years. Of course, this was impossible—particularly since the spring wheat species had two sets of chromosomes and the winter wheat had three—and more likely his experiment had been contaminated. But Lysenko held great power and his claims were rarely challenged.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-the-soviet-union-chose-the-wrong-side-on-genetics-and-evolution-23179035/

~~~or~~~

The husband of Cheryl Hines?

4Kyjup6.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Arvydas Sabonis, OG.

Bronny James
or
Ronnie James (Dio)




* I haven't seen Bronny play live, but I've seen Ronnie live. What a majestic vocal performance.
 
Last edited:
Composition notebook (always have one handy)

Compositions:

Noel (once a roadie for the Spiral Notebooks Carpets) Gallagher's "Don't Look Back in Anger"

~~~or~~~

Dimitri Shostakovich's "Symphony No. 7"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

a_2c+
Being an audience member of: Dr. Phil's show. (my experience...)
Replies
21
Views
7K
LuckyR
LuckyR
seffina
Twenty Questions
2 3
Replies
101
Views
5K
SystemicAnomaly
SystemicAnomaly
retlod
Classifieds That Drive You Crazy
Replies
2
Views
926
MAXXply
MAXXply
Dilettante
The TTW Dictionary
2 3
Replies
127
Views
21K
Harry_Wild
Harry_Wild
RaulRamirez
The Rublev "DQ", etc - Lessons Learned and Your Proposals?
Replies
12
Views
914
Pandora Mikado
Pandora Mikado
Back
Top