@victim,

Do you not realize that you’re creating an entire argument for yourself so that you can dish out some really refined zingers about Foucault while blathering about Marx (they are not refined zingers)?

I didn’t suggest that you knew what “Power” is. How fucking absurd can you be talking about a “diversion to draw attention away from economic exploitation and really existing social conditions?” I wasn’t talking about ANYTHING Foucault has argued about or written about other than his fairly apolitical take on different types of discourse (polemics and dialogues). In this particular case, and that is the ONLY thing we’re talking about here, he is simply saying that there are some ways of carrying out a discussion that are particularly unhelpful, intellectually lazy, combative, and not invested in coming to some sort of understanding.

You can’t say that I don’t know what words mean when I refer you to someone famously outlining the word in the very same way that I used it. But fine, you reject my use of the term “polemic” to describe what the reviewer of the new Loved Ones EP did in his attempt to liven up the review. Whatever. But that doesn’t mean you have to go into a long diatribe about how you define yourself and Marxist theory. Again, I didn’t suggest that you knew what “Power” is. If you read what I’ve said closely (and I think this might be a larger more general problem for you), you’ll see that I was suggesting that outside of the debated definition of a word I used, you can understand what I was saying about the review, knowing what definition I was using.

Stop sounding the fucking trumpets and playing whatever word/theory association shit impresses the folks around you and just pay attention to other people and things that you read.

my butt sex comment being a reference to the greek philsophers, not homophobic. i mean,these two dudes arguing should just get their ancient greece on and bone each other while arguing who has studied more useless shit than the other

wow, there's some dudes in here that are seriously lame as shit, need to take this conversation to a coffee shop, or continue it over a game of D&D, or just have butt sex with each other and be done with it

A yellowcard troll account that's new...

Das Kapital like almost everything Marx wrote is a critique which is not the same thing as a criticism. Further, it is Marx unmasking the explotiation that is the true bedrock of capitalist social relations (private property)

Further, yes Marx's work was scholarly and at times involved theory -- but it wasn't "theoretical". Besides, that's not the same thing as saying Marx is some ghostly academician who never leaves the university halls. Marx was, above all, a revolutionary

He cared about CHANGING the world, not espousing it. Its the social conditions of men that make their consciousness and not vice versa, remember?

Or as Hegel put it (paraphrase): the Owl of Minerva flies at dusk.

Post-modern? Ha, wipe away the grimy yup-tastic scales from your eyes and tell me how things look. It makes a world of difference.

All I am telling you is the obvious: however much you think this drama plays out in your head -- or the heads of theorists -- it doesn't. it always comes back to the hard ground and muck of the earth.

I'm not trying to articulate my ideas, read Marx for yourself and see if he doesn't say exactly this. (try Theses on Feuerbach since its short, or any of his commentaries/critiques of Hegel)

yellowcard sucks.

Yellow_Card: now you're being truly pedantic which isn't doing your argument any favors... to me, you sound more post-"Ocean Avenue" than anything, which is ironic. You come off to me sounding very much like an arrogant fanboy who has all these new ideas about the music world yet is unsure how to articulate them yet. it's nothing but semantical nonsense to engage in a debate about exactly what constitues a 'goodt' yellow card comparison. and if you think that Yellow are fundementally the best band ever, then you are out of your mind - and i'd bet my life on the fact that your familiarity with it does not extend beyond liner notes and wikipedia articles.

Victim: now you're being truly pedantic which isn't doing your argument any favors... to me, you sound more post-modern than anything, which is ironic. You come off to me sounding very much like an arrogant first year student who has all these new ideas about the world yet is unsure how to articulate them yet. it's nothing but semantical nonsense to engage in a debate about exactly what constitues a 'theorist' or a 'scholar'... and if you think that Das Kapital is not fundementally economic (crisis) theory, then you are out of your mind - and i'd bet my life on the fact that your familiarity with it does not extend beyond textbook extracts and wikipedia articles.

On my scale of Yellowcard releases (which is a bit tricky since they all KICK ASS), I'd compare this Loved Ones release to....."Where We Stand". It's no "Ocean Avenue" but it's better than "Midjet Tossing" (not a good name, Ryan didn't come up with it).

i feel that you are being far too black and white, you can't just dismiss entire theories and theorists in one swift sentence.

That's exactly what I'm doing. What is a "theorist"? Marx wasn't no theorist and neither were Engels or Lenin. Gramsci, on the other hand, was a quintessential theorist

It ain't about ideas, it ain't about being being right, it ain't about ego, it ain't about the Meaning of Life, it ain't about what I think..or what you think.

All that stuff means jack in the long run. "Mistakes" get made all the time, mistakes are avoided all the time (and I'm speaking of the USSR in particular here). Some theorist's prescriptions and weighing in on all things ain't worth shit.

All that matters is the real movement of the working class, the rest is so much self-involved twaddle on our parts. Enter, Marcuse, Foucault, Gramsci, every Trot ever born, and a sea of others

Student revolutionaries (SDS hint hint) are as conservative as the next group when you really get down to it, and that is a list that includes sideline socialists (ie academic Marxists)

I dismiss them not because I take exception to their scholarship but because I question if it IS scholarship in the first place and, most importantly, it is ALL beside the point.

William Zebulon Foster was the greatest socialist in US history and I doubt he read a word of Marx (may not be true since he had ties with the commies, but you get the point). John Brown was one of the most important socialists and he was a crazy religious zealot. Nat Turner, the Messianic slave revolt leader, the German immigrants in St Louis who fought in the Civil War (some of them may have read Marx as well). The list is endless.

Theorizing is just a yuppified outlet for ennui, I'm telling ya

Go Gramsci!

Victim, i was on your side until you called Marcuse a 'shithead'... surely as a self-proclaimed 'Marxist' you can see the worth in many of the Gramscian concepts presented in one-dimensional man? And on Foucault I pretty miuch agree with you, although he can be useful for power / discourse analysis... i feel that you are being far too black and white, you can't just dismiss entire theories and theorists in one swift sentence.

i liked this ep a lot more than build & burn.

also

it's weird that i just finished reading the chomsky-foucault debate on human nature for the second time last night and now people are discussing foucault in this review. ooooeeeeeooooo.

I mean, punknews always gets off topic, but come on?

Beats the hell out of me.

What does ANY of this have to do with the Loved Ones?

Although the people blasting Foucault, I bet you haven't read him all but you just know he pissed on the Marxist bonfire and it was really funny

I've read him. The reason hes crazy is that he tries to pathologize everything from "Power" to the "Other" to "Knowledge" and a never ending litany of other concepts. As though the world revolves around his head.

Its pseudo-scientific at best and at the end of the day its still an academic yarn hes spinning that has little caceht outside of "scholarly" circles.

What the fuck is "Power"? Autosuggestion can suggest that I "know" what it means but I don't because it doesn't mean anything. Or it means everything to everybody. Same difference. its just a squishy diversion to draw attention away from economic exploitation and really existing social conditions. There is an endless stream of this liberal clap-trap all of which invariably leads nowhere..which is exactly the intent.

Foucault fancies himself an enigma who "problematizes" everything until everything is problematic.

Well, I have a problem: Foucault is the quintessential bourgeoisie apologist with his mopey crap about totalitarianism and ideology and..shit, am I talking about Foucault here or Althusser?

They might as well be the same guy, n'est-ce pas?

I was referring you to the source of my usage, which is widely accepted.

WIDE-ly accepted? I think you mean hardly excepted. You, some lameass primitivists, and Michel Foucault isn't a very wide demographic

I will say it again, you don't leave Paint It Black to make this crap. I wish the Explosion would get back together.

This is fun.

Although the people blasting Foucault, I bet you haven't read him all but you just know he pissed on the Marxist bonfire and it was really funny

Consider Peter Griffin: I find it all shallow and pedantic.

I didn’t unnecessarily name-drop Foucault. It was done for the simple and detached reason of referring to an entire commonly accepted usage and understanding of the phrase “polemic,” while you went and flipped your shit over the guy and his name and how you categorize him because you’re a Marxist (an irrelevant namedrop) or something, without simply just saying, “okay, I know what he meant.” Yes, words matter and so do their definitions and usage. And when you jumped on me for improper usage, I was referring you to the source of my usage, which is widely accepted.

While you’re certainly becoming too polemical and pedantic now, that wasn’t what I initially claimed, as I was talking about the reviewer’s attempt to liven up the review. I’m not covering my ass. I’m talking about the fucking topic at hand and you’re trying to show off by playing identity politics.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with Foucault on all sorts of things (not a prerequisite for using a term he used), you’re blanket rejection of his argument comes off as really confused. I’m not sure you understand what he’s saying about polemics and even if you don’t agree with some of his larger points, it seems like that would exist independent of not wanting to be guilty of some of the things he describes, because those are pretty neutral from his larger “philosophy” so to speak, as he’s basically talking about simple categories of discourse.

There’s no real way to say it other than that I don’t think you understand what you’re talking about. And you clearly haven’t been paying much attention to content of the things either you or I have said.

Ha. How can you expect to be taken seriously?

You name-dropped Foucault! How can you expect to be taken seriously? Hell, how can you get up in the morning?

You are basically claiming I am being too polemical and too pedantic. Let me know when you remember your posts in this topic -- y'know, the ones that were ironically polemical and pedantic

Like you said words matter and so do their definitions and usage. The fact that you don't know the correct usage, while sternly lecturing others, is humorous. The fact that you chide me for complaining about "changing the subject" -- when your attempt to cover your ass involved invoking Foucault of all people -- is preposterous.

You're prototypical of everything I complained about, although only in a blithering, oblivious way.

Further, I am PROUD to be guilty of all those accusations Foucault lobs because he is completely wrong about the import of polemics or even wronger about what they are. Basically, he's a schmuck whereas right now you're just full of it. Quit before you join him is my advance.

oh i forgot this site is now www.philosophynews.org

@victim,

Ha. How can you expect to be taken seriously?

Discrediting me by saying that I’m invoking “dreamy (dopey) French twits” who you discredit by silly namecalling will get you nowhere. Why don’t you actually take the time to have your responses to relevant to what I was saying instead of resorting to what you accuse Foucault and thousands of other “latter day ‘philosophers’” of, namely doing “very little other than changing the subject by pointing and shouting ‘look over there.’” Your entire response was blather and misdirection. Sure, you can try to be anal and disagree with my use of the term polemic, and go on and on about how you don’t like someone who also used that definition to present a pretty sound model, but it’s just lazy. You know what I meant, even if you wanted to dispute a particular phrasing that is pretty commonly accepted, and you ignored the actual content of the point I raised…. that the writer presented the only possible response to something as one of two deeply divisive positions and then said he was kind of casually leaning towards one side. I thought it was either sacrilege or complete genius.

Though you do get some credit for eventually looking it over and recognizing that you were guilty of what Foucault described, yet it’s kind of hilarious to consider that your response is just that he’s full of shit and clueless. Excellent rebuttal! Humorously enough, I never said that you were guilty of the judiciary model. That was in reference to the review. But you don't seem too interested in the actual arguments that people make, just namecalling and talking about something that's only mildly tangentially related. Good luck with that.

Foucault is a trick ass HO!

Everyone be sure to tune in next week, when we discuss how New Found Glory's Not Without a Fight responds to Hegel's Rise of Social Theory.

Not to be a smartass but the book is Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory, written by another shithead, Herbert Marcuse.

Right Said Fred's "I'm Too Sexy" was originally supposed to be an audio display of Nietzsche's The Gay Science until they found out that it actually had nothing to do with being gay.

I like how, of all bands, a fucking Loved Ones review triggered the discussion below.

Everyone be sure to tune in next week, when we discuss how New Found Glory's Not Without a Fight responds to Hegel's Rise of Social Theory.

PS and yes I am guilty of everything Foucault said I am (see below). All of Foucault's fancy rhetoric and "problematizing" doesn't change reality. The reality is he was fucking clueless about everything and his off-the-wall bullshit doesn't hold up very well

I think you have to punch yourself in the balls as a pre-requisite to reading this guy:

Perhaps, someday, a long history will have to be written of polemics, polemics as a parasitic figure on discussion and an obstacle to the search for the truth. Very schematically, it seems to me that today we can recognize the presence in polemics of three models: the religious model, the judiciary model, and the political model. As in heresiology, polemics sets itself the task of determining the intangible point of dogma, the fundamental and necessary principle that the adversary has neglected, ignored or transgressed; and it denounces this negligence as a moral failing; at the root of the error, it finds passion, desire, interest, a whole series of weaknesses and inadmissible attachments that establish it as culpable. As in judiciary practice, polemics allows for no possibility of an equal discussion: it examines a case; it isn’t dealing with an interlocutor, it is processing a suspect; it collects the proofs of his guilt, designates the infraction he has committed, and pronounces the verdict and sentences him. In any case, what we have here is not on the order of a shared investigation; the polemicist tells the truth in the form of his judgment and by virtue of the authority he has conferred on himself. But it is the political model that is the most powerful today. Polemics defines alliances, recruits partisans, unites interests or opinions, represents a party; it establishes the other as an enemy, an upholder of opposed interests against which one must fight until the moment this enemy is defeated and either surrenders or disappears.

Of course, the reactivation, in polemics, of these political, judiciary, or religious practices is nothing more than theater. One gesticulates: anathemas, excommunications, condemnations, battles, victories, and defeats are no more than ways of speaking, after all. And yet, in the order of discourse, they are also ways of acting which are not without consequence. There are the sterilizing effects. Has anyone ever seen a new idea come out of a polemic? And how could it be otherwise, given that here the interlocutors are incited not to advance, not to take more and more risks in what they say, but to fall back continually on the rights that they claim, on their legitimacy, which they must defend, and on the affirmation of their innocence? There is something even more serious here: in this comedy, one mimics war, battles, annihilations, or unconditional surrenders, putting forward as much of one’s killer instinct as possible. But it is really dangerous to make anyone believe that he can gain access to the truth by such paths and thus to validate, even if in a merely symbolic form, the real political practices that could be warranted by it. Let us imagine, for a moment, that a magic wand is waved and one of the two adversaries in a polemic is given the ability to exercise all the power he likes over the other. One doesn’t even have to imagine it: one has only to look at what happened during the debate in the USSR over linguistics or genetics not long ago. Were these merely aberrant deviations from what was supposed to be the correct discussion? Not at all—they were the real consequences of a polemic attitude whose effects ordinarily remain suspended.

Victim just took that shit to a whole new level!

@victim

Incorrect. Consider Foucault's judiciary model instead of the Wikipedia page.

It's fine to offend someone's dainty sensibilities. But it's silly to feel like you need to arbitrarily establish terms of heightened drama if you're just going to betray them. Why go through the trouble in the first place? Why not just write clearly and simply about the record and your opinion?

I think you are the only one who arbitrarily established terms of heightened drama.

Foucault? I could consider the model of any shithead..why his?

I'm a Marxist buddy, I think Foucault, Nietzsche, Deleuze, Sorel and the 1000s of other latter-day "philsophers" do very little other than change the subject by pointing and shouting "look over there!"

And no, you don't get to say "Sure I arrogantly attacked others while not knowing the correct usage of my own words, but if you just read Michel Foucault..". Foucault is a sieve and you can ascribe any position you like to him since at one time or other in his life he TOOK every postion imaginable, many of which he *ahem* made up himself.

Sorry but invoking dreamy (dopey) French twits will get you nowhere..good thing the review didn't comment on the record's elan vital or you could dig up Henri Bergson while you're at it..

Good good, I think. To me, a lot of their songs start to sound the same. Good songs but the same....

wait, is there a different demo that has "Spider"? I have the brown demo and never heard that song until the Fat comp.

There were two demos. I think "Spider" was the only one that hadn't been released on a record until now. I think. I need to go back and listen. Man, I fucking played those demos and the EP to death while I was waiting for Keep Your Heart to come out.

Hmmmm. Now I need to find that other demo.
I played the demo and first EP to death waiting for KYH.

"Consider Foucault's judiciary model".

considered.

that being said/considered, i listened to this album the other day and was pretty underwhelmed. time between cover and original aside, i thought the covers were pretty weak in general. guess it's better that they do them on an ep than a full length though.

wait, is there a different demo that has "Spider"? I have the brown demo and never heard that song until the Fat comp.

There were two demos. I think "Spider" was the only one that hadn't been released on a record until now. I think. I need to go back and listen. Man, I fucking played those demos and the EP to death while I was waiting for Keep Your Heart to come out.

Will jean jackets always be punk?

@victim

Incorrect. Consider Foucault's judiciary model instead of the Wikipedia page.

It's fine to offend someone's dainty sensibilities. But it's silly to feel like you need to arbitrarily establish terms of heightened drama if you're just going to betray them. Why go through the trouble in the first place? Why not just write clearly and simply about the record and your opinion?

I disagree -- "Last Call" is by far the best song on the record and one of the best songs The Loved Ones have ever written. I can't stop listening to the first three songs on this EP, but IMO the covers are largely unmemorable and somewhat boring. First three tracks, though, are classic, killer Loved Ones songs.

You chose to establish something as a passionate polemic and then kind of shrugged and went with what you kind of liked. I know you're just trying to make the review lively, but words matter. It just isn't good writing and at 5:07am, that sort of thing is irritating.

A passionate polemic? If anything, you just wrote the polemic not him. A polemic is not a debate, and since "words matter" it is worth noting that "passionate polemic" is -- generously -- awkward and not very accurate phraseology

Sometimes trying to liven up a review is just that and if somebodys dainty sensibilities get offended I guess thats a necessary evil

Sheesh..

people who think there are moronic, anal rules that dictate the timescale as to when individuals can be inspired to cover another song and put it on an album are obviously a) fucking idiots and b) not at all creative / musical / able to understand the concept of inspiration. open your mind!

i have never gotten into bruce before. what would be a good record to start on?

great release, great band.

Have you seen the picture of Dave with Joe Strummer?

They both look very ill.

Have you seen the picture of Dave with Joe Strummer?
http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage& friendID=5161449&albumID=1211180&imageID=10772398

Not bad. This band still needs to get over their "boring" tendencies, but they're always solid to me.

Oh, and who the fuck cares about covers?

Due to a label delay (and MMB getting a way-advanced copy), The Mighty Mighty Bosstones cover of "Enter Sandman" was released BEFORE the original by Metallica.

As for this release, a 6 or 7 seems dead-on. The first 2 tracks are good, "Spy Diddley" is fucking awesome, and the covers are decent.

Because I'm in a decent mood, I'll post it with a "7".

You're welcome!

Well I don't know anymore. I guess it doesn't constitute my statement.

well then what about the Chuck Ragan TLO split where they do For Broken Ears and he does Pretty Good Year??

or that fact, what about the NoFX / Rancid Split? How do you factor those into the 10 year wait period??

Good EP. Definitely feels like a continuation to Build and Burn.

And this whole talk on covers, I think it's alright to cover a band if they aren't around anymore (case in point Bouncing Souls doing Avoid One Thing) OR if the band is still around, wait for at least 10 years.

actually, yeah...as a big souls fan (with a tattoo and everything) i thought it was kind of dumb to have that on the album. it didn't make a ton of sense to me.

So the Bouncing Souls covering Lean On Sheena was too soon as well?
I never would have heard that song if it wasn't for them.

it can definitely be too soon to cover a song for an album.

the idea that it can be 'too soon' to do a cover version is idiotic. there are no fucking rules when it comes to being inspired by something! jeez

So true.
Plus, the Coma Girl cover is pretty damn good so whatever.

"also, anyone else think its too soon to cover coma girl? at least if you're a somewhat serious/known band?"

The Pixies covered "Head On" only 2 years after the Jesus and Mary Chain's original.

"also, anyone else think its too soon to cover coma girl? at least if you're a somewhat serious/known band?"

The Pixies covered "Head On" only 2 years after the Jesus and Mary Chain's original.

wait, is there a different demo that has "Spider"? I have the brown demo and never heard that song until the Fat comp.

Well, it shows that The Loved Ones aren't good on trying cover songs.

"Spy Diddley" appeared as "Spider" on the demo, "Spy Diddley" on the EP, and now again on here. Enough already.

"Spy Diddley" has never been formally released at any point. It was "Spider" on the demo, as you said, then Fat released it on a Christmas compilation a while back, and now it's on this record. Their original EP did not have that song on it.

I love the first three tracks on this EP, though only the first two are new to me. "Distractions" is by far the best song. I like the covers, but I'm not a fan of the originals so I don't have anything to bitch about.

I think all the cover of Lovers Town Revisited proves is that Americans can't and never should attempt to say the word bloke.

they should've called this "identity crisis"

also, anyone else think its too soon to cover coma girl? at least if you're a somewhat serious/known band?

i've never really 'got' the loved ones. i've not heard this in its entirety but going by the title track it's not really my kind of thing. maybe when i was 17 or 18 i would've dug it a bit more. interested to hear the version of 'coma girl' though..

"Spy Diddley" appeared as "Spider" on the demo, "Spy Diddley" on the EP, and now again on here. Enough already.

needs more cowbell.

I don't mean to be a language harpy, but if you present something as a deeply divisive ultimatum ("it’s either sacrilege or complete genius for the Loved Ones to play Billy Bragg’s “Summer Town Revisited” like it’s a Screeching Weasel song"), you can't take a half-assed deferential preference for one ("Discount already proved that Bragg works in a pop-punk setting, so I’m leaning toward the latter"). You chose to establish something as a passionate polemic and then kind of shrugged and went with what you kind of liked. I know you're just trying to make the review lively, but words matter. It just isn't good writing and at 5:07am, that sort of thing is irritating.

And your take on Keep Your Heart is fairly inaccurate. That's how most people (at least on the 'Org, at the time of each release) felt about the demo and first EP on Jade Tree, not the first LP.

oopps, i did get it backwards bummer. I love the boss but cash's is better!

I see how it is: staff reviews get published over mine. No biggie. I gave it the same score and said essentially the same things. Only, I liked Johnny 99 and thought Coma Girl was bad.

Um, Pudd, you got it backwards: Cash covered the Boss.

For the records Johnny 99 is a Johnny Cash song The Boss just covered it.

i absolutely love Spy Diddley. Have that from the FAT Christmas comp.

Pretty good.