I haven't read through all ten pages, so I'm not quite sure what the consensus is just yet.

Let me just say......

OH MY FUCKING GOD!???!

I've been involved in some shit projects before but sheeesh!

I just want to run up to the singer, Curtis, and give him a big old bear-hug. He seems so friendly--in fact, all of them do.

"Let's split a 24-pack of Miller Lite, Broseph."

Rick Reuben wrote:

tmidgett wrote:I don't like hearing people think. If I can hear the thinking, small chance I'll really like it. I like hearing people go for it.

I think most people would rapidly get sick of a diet of music that was made by people not thinking. And I don't believe that Complete are not thinking about the music they are making. I think they are thinking about their music as hard as their substandard brains will allow. This seems obvious. Hands moving guitar picks and drumsticks are being moved by a human brain. They *are* thinking, but you're telling yourself that you're not hearing them think, to excuse the inferiority of what you're hearing. It's like reverse anthropomorphism: you're stealing human characteristics away from Complete and classifying them as animals.

Complete is the strenuously-executed manifestation of total unoriginality, masquerading as originality.

Your Logic is Impeccable, Rick. Thanks!

Rick Reuben wrote:If we were talking about puppies and dogs instead of songs that sound thought over and songs that don't, would you claim that you could tell a dog from a puppy, but not claim that you could tell when the transition occured?

1) We are not talking about dogs. Your analogy is labored at best.

2) I suppose you could choose an animal at a point in its development where puppy/dog status would be unclear. Otherwise, the answer to your question is 'yes.' I can tell a dog from a puppy, but I would not, were I watching a given puppy 24/7, be able to tell precisely when it became a dog.

Development is a process. It may be marked with identifiable milestones, but it rarely moves in discrete steps.

3) That's the best I can do. Truly, I fail to understand what you are on about.

Allow me to state once more:

My point is not that Complete is mindless. I do not think they are mindless.

My point is that they have put enough thought into what they do to do it the way they want to do it. And then, by this evidence, they just get up there and go for it.

I believe this balancing act to be essential for any reasonably good rock band. Any reasonably good performing artist, for that matter.

Again, I haven't claimed to be able to pinpoint anything or read anybody's mind or have X-ray vision or any of the other, retarded exaggerations you've made.

What if a dyslexic with perfect pitch was trying to knock a cat out of a tree by throwing a book about Mozart, and he missed the cat and hit a guitar?

Would that be stupid or advanced?

Rick Reuben wrote:

Complete is the strenuously-executed manifestation of total unoriginality, masquerading as originality.

No, you're thinking of Cocorosie!

Kinda like the Shaggs. Almost exactly like the Shaggs, actually.

Did they ever make a record? Or is this it? I hope someone is researching this. We need answers.

Rick Reuben wrote:

tmidgett wrote: Truly, I fail to understand what you are on about.

Forget it, but maybe this will help. You claimed that you can recognize two species of songs: songs that sound like they are still being thought over, and songs that do not sound like musicians thinking.

Wrong.

I never claimed anything remotely like that.

I never broke anything down into 'songs' of one type and another. You are the one who has some kind of fetish for discrete pieces.

This is a telling leap in logic on your part. Songs are one part of a band's contribution to the world. Performance--presentation, method and manner of reproduction--is another. In a live setting, the latter is more important. This is why the Fluid were great in one area (live) and absolutely nothing special in another (record), and this is why the new Iggy Pop or Stooges songs seem like "Search and Destroy" when you see him/them live.

I would go so far as to say that in rock music, performance is the equivalent of songwriting, and that it is counterproductive at best and misleading at worst to try to analyze one w/o the other.

I wouldn't have and haven't equated Complete's songs with anything at all. I wouldn't bother to separate the songs from the overall experience of listening to them. I think that's a pointless exercise in most cases, but especially when the music isn't something you can ever reproduce adequately outside of the band playing it--by playing it on a piano or strumming it on an acoustic guitar or whatever.

I said, in essence, that I don't like hearing people think about what they are doing. If someone is going to be onstage rocking, or committing the rock to tape, I like to hear them going for it.

To go for it, one must have a direction in which to head. Once one is moving, one can and ideally should forget the map.

I suppose Uzeda and Bellini and Shellac may meet your trumped-up "math rock" test, as I adore those bands and have seen all of them play with utter abandon. If not, then I guess I have no use for math rock.

Anyway, this got tedious a long time ago. As you say, forget it.

Benadrian and I have determined that most mundane daily tasks must all be completed with vocals mimicking the singer of Complete.

"canyoupassmethose greeeEEEEN BEEEEEAAAANNNNS!"

"I'dliketheketchupandthemustard when you GIT THE CHANNNNNNNCCEEE!!!"