Shark Sandwich

EJ Clip

Sun, 29 Jul 2012 10:25:47 -0700

EJ Clip

Sun, 29 Jul 2012 10:17:47 -0700

EJ Clip

Photo

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 19:55:30 -0800

Photo

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:00:32 -0800

Photo

Sun, 13 Nov 2011 00:35:14 -0800

Photo

Sat, 12 Nov 2011 13:15:16 -0800

Yes, this is dog

Sat, 15 Oct 2011 16:19:37 -0700

Joel:http://weknowmemes.com/2011/10/hello-yes-this-is-dog/

me: not bad, not bad

“it’s for you, boy”

what do you think he’s talking about?

Joel: that is not the point

the point is, a dog saying “YES? YES, THIS IS DOG”

me: but who is calling?

who needs dog’s views?

Joel: it does not matter! dog is willing and ready for anything

me: i think you’re denying yourself fun if you refuse to speculate

i think it’s the canine defense force

they need him to come to their aide against the evil invading lolcats

Joel: no no

i think it’s roberta from fido, who has some new long distance plans she thinks dog will be very interested in

also she needs to notify dog that this call may be monitored for quality assurance purposes

me: i think it might be dog’s mom, mom dog, calling to let him know that his brother mr. barks will be coming home for christmas and can dog make it too?

Joel: mr. barks is kind of an asshole

did you see what he did to dog’s plants last thanksgiving?

me: he was always the black lab of the family

or it might be an offer to invest in pork belly futures

Joel: short-term i suppose

me: pork-belly tomorrows, they’re called

as in, you get to eat them tomorrow

Joel: finally, dog is becoming a crafty investor!

me: he sees a big future in raw meat and bones

how was he burned in the past?

Joel: on burned meat

no body wants to eat burned meat, not even zoidberg

me: the char-boiled brothers really fleeced him

Joel: in other news: dinosaur comics is particularly delicious today

me: i had the time of my wife

Joel: heh

that’s what i signed up for

me: though i was pretty surprised to find wife on mars

i guess after that whole thing with wife in the fast lane i shouldn’t be surprised

Joel: man, you are a in puntastic mood this morning

i have to run, i am enjoying the classic wife pursuit

me: alright, well have fun

remember

wife is what you make of it

this is totally going on tumblr

Photo

Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:32:53 -0700

Photo

Wed, 21 Sep 2011 21:21:40 -0700

GCRP archive!

Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:19:24 -0700

GCRP archive!

Chapstick archive!

Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:16:00 -0700

Chapstick archive!

Photo

Fri, 06 May 2011 13:42:32 -0700

Photo

Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:18:14 -0700

Photo

Tue, 12 Apr 2011 08:32:40 -0700

Photo

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 22:04:42 -0700

Photo

Wed, 06 Apr 2011 09:05:24 -0700

Thom Yorke and a bear.

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 18:41:13 -0700

Thom Yorke and a bear.

via i.imgur.com

Mon, 07 Mar 2011 19:24:08 -0800

via i.imgur.com

Gimme Sympathy

Sun, 06 Mar 2011 15:57:57 -0800

When Metric asked in 2009 if we’d rather be the Beatles or the Rolling Stones, I thought I understood the question: would you prefer a ten-year run of unrivalled influence and success, or fifty years of consistency and a first-row seat to the bizarre transformation of Keith Richards?

It seemed to me at the time that no one in their right mind could pick the Stones. The duelling songwriting duo of Paul and John would never be topped, and The White Album and Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band were unassailable as the greatest records of all time. The Stones made good music, sure, but could you really compare “Brown Sugar” with “Back in the USSR”?

But the more I learn about the bands, the more their comparison beguiles me. Stones or Beatles isn’t just another version of Barry’s famous query about burning out or fading away. It wraps everything from sex to artistic authenticity to band-member deaths to Mick Jagger’s awesomely weird dance moves. Let’s review the scorecard:

Authenticity: The most abiding image of the Beatles is the Fab Four crooning about teenage love, clean-cut and conservative in their grey suits. This gentrified image is a fiction. The Beatles hailed from the industrial port of Liverpool, grew up working-class, and paid their dues in the rough clubs of Hamburg.

The Stones did the exact opposite. Before the band hit it big, Keith Richards went to art school and Mick Jagger studied accounting at the London School of Economics. But their steadfast devotion to the blues and aura of sex and violence is more blue-collar than bohemian.

So, what’s stranger, the rich pretending to be poor, or the poor pretending to be rich? This is a clear tie.

Visuals: The Beatles gave the world the drop-T logo, Ringo with a moustache, and the cover of Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. On the other hand, they also gave us John’s sideburns and circular glasses combination, and they couldn’t even be bothered to make a cover for The White Album.

The Stones benefitted from having not one but two genuine peacocks in the band, Richards and Jagger. Though he started out normal-looking, ol’ Keith quickly evolved into a Victorian dandy, then a professional wrestler, then into someone wearing a badly-fitted Keith Richards Halloween mask, then into a pirate.

Jagger, with his pouty lips and androgynous tendencies, always looked like a bit of an alien.

The Stones are undeniably more fun to look at today, sure. If Harrison and especially Lennon were alive, I think it would be too close to call. It really comes down to logos: the Lips or the T? I say Lips.

Sex and drugs: Stones by a mile. I think Mick Jagger has more kids than all of the Beatles combined. The Beatles’ later music contains lots of drug references, sure, but there’s no way they did more drugs than Brian Jones, let alone all of the Stones.

Band-related deaths: Brian Jones died under mysterious and rock-star-ish circumstances, found floating in his swimming pool in 1969. Jones likely died of some kind of drug overdose, but might have been murdered. He’s also a member of the 27 club, along with Robert Johnson, Kurt Cobain, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix and Jim Morrison.

Is that enough to top the Beatles? On top of Lennon’s legendary demise, they’ve got Harrison and Brian Epstein’s barbiturate overdose in 1967. Plus, Jones wasn’t technically a member of the Stones when he died. Mick Taylor replaced him a month before he died.

Until Mick Jagger and Keith Richards die of rockstar lifestyle overdose in 2022, the Beatles have this one sewn up.

Actual music: Though it seems a side-issue at this point, I suppose their actual artistic output merits some discussion. Both the Stones and Beatles made their name re-interpreting the blues to white audiences, one band with a raunchy, badass edge and the other with Ringo Starr.

The Fab Four eventually moved on and explored other genres and traditions of music to wild success. Psychedelia and sitars and chamber orchestras and pre-metal permeate their later albums. As McCartney and Lennon grew apart, and Harrison came into his own as a songwriter, the Beatles made their best music. “Help!” is a great song, but also a fairly shallow one. “Dear Prudence” or “Dig A Pony” or “A Day In The Life” all reveal a group of staggering talent at the heigh of its powers. The progression from saccharine sentimentality to mature and brilliant artistry is one of the most satisfying things about the Beatles.

The Stones don’t hold up quite so well. Sure, they branched from straight blues-rock into new territory, but never to the same artistic success as the Beatles. At the end of the day, their best songs are still “Brown Sugar,” “Sympathy For The Devil,” and “Gimme Shelter.” (I’ve also got a strange soft spot for “Beast of Burden.”)

The Beatles win, and it’s not close.

So the final score, according to this arbitrary and unfair comparison, is two wins for the Stones, two for the Beatles, and one tie. Going to the coveted slow motion replay review, the edge goes to the Beatles by a hair. Why?

Because they’ve got Ringo, of course.

via upload.wikimedia.org

Thu, 03 Mar 2011 19:36:38 -0800

via upload.wikimedia.org