Seriousky son...Hexum aside...

the god Dave Grohl is mad good son...he was an star player on two legendary groups plus mad other shit...

If there was no Nick Hexum ever born...then Grohl or Hendrix would have the title, son

Any Thoughts?

It's hard for me to come to terms with that but I guess I have to get used to it if that's how people feel, same with RHCP...

and neither are the luke warm chili peppers.

jesus fucking christ.

.

>It's hard for me to come to terms with that but I guess I
>have to get used to it if that's how people feel, same with
>RHCP...


He was already legendary after Nirvana....What he pulled off with the Foo Fighters (the *drummer* starting his own group and KILLING it) was a coup, even if some folks think he's too mainstream...

And the Peppers? It's easy to make fun of them because they have become a bit cliche...But from the late '80s to the early '90s they were pretty dope...

I'm a music snob (for example...Nickleback is HORRIFIC)...But I'm not much for shitting on everything just because it's popular...Some of these responses in this post are kind of wildly over-the-top...lol

GOAT of his era......long live Prince.....God is alive....

Is Dave rock GOAT of this era? No...

Does he kick ass? Yes...

Again, it's two different debates here......

And for the record, I don't listen to 311...

GOAT of his era......long live Prince.....God is alive....

.

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

.

that said, even though im not the biggest fan, there is no denial at how huge & popular he is...and its well deserved. Dudes been putting in work for 20 plus years.

much of a clue.

And he was serious too

R.I.P. Loud But Wrong Guy
Dec 29th 2009 - Dec 17th 2017

while you were looking thru Lexus Nexis fapping to Alexis Texas...

you MAD!

Hexum got tha Big dick swag

Like, at all.

but clearly

music isn't really your thing.

thats an oxymoron if I've ever heard one
dude is nic tho

__________________________________________
CHOP-THESE-BITCHES!!!!
------------------------------------
Garhart Ivanhoe Poppwell
Un-OK'd moderator for The Lesson and Make The Music (yes, I do's work up in here, and in your asscrease if you run foul of this

But your not going to see to many "legends" any more so its a difficult baseline to compare.

The rock genre has splintered so much, and the rise of independent scene in the last few years has kind of created so many niches that those legendary to some have no relevance to others.
Is Of Montreal legendary? Wilco? Certainly proliphic enough but are they "rock gods".?

Example, to me, Beck is easily legendary status, so is Jack White. Throw in Billy Corgan.
So is John Frusciante.
And objectively speaking I'd have to throw in Thom Yorke.

But is Coldplay legendary?
At a certain point Rock stars have kind of softened up, in that those that have the wide Pop appeal that would garner them legendary in the hearts and minds of many people all over the world don't necessarily "Rock as hard" (if you can allow me to be so cliche).

-------------------
village.fm/okayplayer | @delajoo
"Whether you're a rock star or a garbage man, if you think about yourself all the time, you won't be very good at what you do." - Frusciante

but Foo Fighters are mediocre and have persevered by merely writing decent, inoffensive, middle-of-the-road rock in an era when nobody seems to know how to do that any more. In any other time in the history of hard rock, they'd be also-rans at best. During the heyday of grunge and alt rock they would have been also-rans - I don't think they compare favorably at all to Soundgarden, Nirvana, Mudhoney (underappreciated band), Afghan Whigs, or even Pearl Jam (who I'm not that fond of).

Legendary? No. Way.

For superior rockers that are of roughly the same vintage and still going, I'd take Isaac Brock (Modest Mouse), Jack White (and I'm not really even a big fan, to be honest), Wayne Coyne (the Lips' three best albums since 1999 alone absolutely smoke the Foo Fighters' whole output), and the Radiohead collective (if we're counting them as rock still).

For me, Grohl's best post-Nirvana work has been popping up in odd session man type roles. He drummed on Killing Joke's self-titled CD in 2003 and it was monstrous. Probot was also a fun album though it didn't stick to my ribs as a Serious Metal Fan (tm).

--

>but Foo Fighters are mediocre and have persevered by merely
>writing decent, inoffensive, middle-of-the-road rock in an era
>when nobody seems to know how to do that any more.

They've written some very good songs in their lane; Long Road To Ruin, for example, is an excellent song, as is Pretender. Calling them "decent" is a smack in the face- to say nothing of the great songs that permeate their 90's output. I will say their albums as a whole have ranged from yes, decent, to very good, and IMO they've actually gotten better at crafting whole albums as time has gone on. IMO their singles output is excellent, though that lane may not be the most exciting.

>For me, Grohl's best post-Nirvana work has been popping up in
>odd session man type roles. He drummed on Killing Joke's
>self-titled CD in 2003 and it was monstrous. Probot was also
>a fun album though it didn't stick to my ribs as a Serious
>Metal Fan (tm).

Well This is a big part of his legacy though, isn't it? I don't think OP limited it to his "big two" output.

>Calling them "decent" is a smack in the face-

It's not, coming from me. I use my adjectives pretty carefully. They're enjoyable songs and well-written, they're just not anything I really need to hear that often. I certainly rate them over most less-than-decent modern rock contemporaries like Train, Creed, Matchbox 20, 311 (ugh), etc. Decent to me means "pretty good, more than workmanlike, certainly not annoying, but also not awesome." For instance, let's talk "Long Road to Ruin." The verse is an amazingly basic alternation between a 1 and 4 chord. The melody is unmemorable and just kind of meanders along (because at this point in rock's long life, it takes a lot of creativity to sing something interesting over 1-4, 1-4). The chorus is more interesting but fundamentally slick and by-the-numbers in all the areas where it counts: chords (it throws one small twist at you, the patented-by-Boston major two chord - as heard in the chorus of "Rock & Roll Band"), melody, production. It's very straight-up power pop hanging out in the space between Boston, Nelson, and something a little cooler - let's say Matthew Sweet or Fountains of Wayne or something. I really feel like a hundred different bands could have (and actually HAVE) written this song.

>Well This is a big part of his legacy though, isn't it? I
>don't think OP limited it to his "big two" output.

Agreed on that point, but considering my substantially lesser opinion of Foo Fighters, basically Grohl's entire case comes down to being an awesome sideman. My point is that that simply isn't enough to get him in the conversation. He's a much more substantial figure in rock than I would have ever expected circa 1992-93, and I give him loads of credit for making his main post-Nirvana gig work out so well. But that's as far as it goes.

--

I always find it really odd when someone gets on a song for its technical aspects just because, from gear to how it's played, I've never really cared. I just care how it feel to me.


Even though I have no idea what you were talking about in this post, I agree with your general sentiment that this is a "decent" song. Dozens of bands churn singles out like this every year, nothing about it feels new, unique or most importantly exciting. It doesn't take much to surprise me, I'll always consider "Everlong" an excellent song for example. But that's a song I feel like I've only ever heard when "Everlong" is playing even if it feels equally simple (I couldn't tell you if it actually is).

"Long Road to Ruin" seems like modern rock by numbers.


~~~~~~~~~
"This is the streets, and I am the trap." � Jay Bilas

http://www.last.fm/user/NodimaChee
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/archive/contributor/517
http://rateyourmusic.com/list/Nodima/run_that_shit__nodimas_hip_hop_handbook

>I always find it really odd when someone gets on a song for
>its technical aspects just because, from gear to how it's
>played, I've never really cared. I just care how it feel to
>me.

I had the feeling this might be brought up. For me, music is about my gut reaction first and analysis second (or never) - but the lingo is there so that if both parties happen to know it, it makes it a lot easier to talk in concrete terms. The main thing I thought was fascinating when I got around to learning music theory was that it let me understand why I had been hearing things a certain way for so long. It lets me explain why something bores me (if it's a beat-into-the-ground chord sequence) or rubs me the wrong way (if it's harmonically unsound for no clear reason), etc. Those were things I heard in music before I ever knew the words to articulate them; I just happen to know the words now.

I do understand that most people here aren't versed in music theory, but it's actually a bit of a shame. It means that most music discussion boils down to "This is boring and cliche"/"No it isn't"; "This is wack (or fire)"/"No it isn't." That's why, as much time as I spend on this board, I infrequently post in those kinds of threads - I can't understand why anyone would bother having that same argument over and over, with zero chance of convincing the other person or even making a case other than "This is how this song affects me, and me only." Theory lets you explain WHY the song affects you or doesn't, even though the other person may still disagree. Some people seem to think it spoils the magic of art to think about it on a technical level, but - no offense meant whatsoever - I usually find that opinion comes from people who haven't ever pursued that knowledge. People who do know theory don't usually spend much time bitching about how they liked music better before they learned the circle of fifths.

>Even though I have no idea what you were talking about in this
>post, I agree with your general sentiment that this is a
>"decent" song. Dozens of bands churn singles out like this
>every year, nothing about it feels new, unique or most
>importantly exciting.

Yep, pretty much. It's a pleasant-enough tune but I really think there are a lot of bands that could crank that out in their sleep.

--

for me, all art/creativity is just sort of baffling. for a while I did a lot of poetry/short story writing, but it was one and done writing, editing or pouring over whether I was fitting a meter/rhyming never crossed my mind. mentors told me to get serious about it and I could easily make a career out of it but...

even now that I've been around enough to KNOW how much effort goes into making a TV show, movie, song, album...whenever I'm experiencing it, I can't help but feel like everything is happening all at once in the same take. If I listen to, say, a Tool or Organized Konfusion song, despite all the evidence to the fact those guys had to spend a LOT of time perfecting what's eventually made it to my ears, my imagination says they just stepped in the studio, sat in front of their equipment and made x, y, and z happen in five minutes of spontaneous creativity. Even exceptionally nuanced stuff like The Wire that I've obsessed over for a decade now, when I'm actually watching the show I feel like every take is the final take, that it was all filmed in the sequence I'm currently experiencing it in and the writers cranked out the entire episode in a sixty minute flurry and what we're getting is their first group of ideas rather than constantly refined, perfected set.

because of that I've tried several instruments and never been able to stick to them (and by proxy never learn/care for theory), I can't get over the fact that I'm not a prodigy just because I imagine everybody else is. if I'm being honest I wish I could. but at the same time, I'm not sure how I'd feel if the reality of things suddenly clicked because then I might develop tastes or something. I have a friend that dabbles around but basically only listens to ten or twelve artists, and constantly asks me why there is no good music out there when those artists aren't releasing albums, or he doesn't connect with their new one like he did their older ones. and I'm like, man that must be really awful to actually know what you like.

~~~~~~~~~
"This is the streets, and I am the trap." � Jay Bilas

http://www.last.fm/user/NodimaChee
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/archive/contributor/517
http://rateyourmusic.com/list/Nodima/run_that_shit__nodimas_hip_hop_handbook

Honestly, I've talked to a lot of people about music/movies/books/etc. but that particular point of view is one I've never heard expressed. Yet you can't possibly be alone in it. Really interesting, thanks for sharing. As one of those intermittent "creative types" who has played and written music, written a book, and more, let me tell you - it almost never happens the way you experience it. Every so often if you get a group of really experienced and educated artists in a room together, and the chemistry is right, they will spontaneously create something magical. But usually even the best work of those types of guys comes after weeks or months of effort and intense thought; it doesn't just pop out fully formed.

--

>Some people seem to think it spoils the magic
>of art to think about it on a technical level, but - no
>offense meant whatsoever - I usually find that opinion comes
>from people who haven't ever pursued that knowledge. People
>who do know theory don't usually spend much time bitching
>about how they liked music better before they learned the
>circle of fifths.

There are several aspects of music where the appeal or even straight-up sound cannot be explained in theoretical terms and I do feel that historically, people with knowledge have dismissed those things as irrelevant. For example, the classical establishment initially deemed jazz as primitive and inferior. Why was that? Because the melody and harmony in the sense it could be theoretically explained with the language available was simplistic compared to classical and since rhythmic studies in classical focused mainly on note-values (quarter-notes, pauses etc.) and horisontal patterns (triplets etc.), the whole swing-and groove-aspect of jazz was neglected as well. So basically: it had nothing to offer and was primitive. People without the knowledge obviously didn't have that problem and were actually faster in general with accepting the music, even complex stuff like Be-bop

Same with rock'n'roll obviously-how do you explain the brilliance of Little Richard in theoretical terms? You can't really and therefore he's not brilliant.

EDIT:Hip-Hop too of course (duh!)

I don't think that aspect should be overlooked...

but it clearly gives you a leg up in being able to express yourself about music. Usually the players of new genres rush to fill in the gaps of the existing vocabulary too, which is why it's helpful to have both traditional theory and genre expertise under your belt. Jazz is a good example, having introduced the notion of swing - which is something that as of today, any serious music head worth his salt ought to have something of a grasp on (even if the concept has never been sufficiently clarified even after years of trying).

I agree with the general point made often on this board that it's still much easier to talk about melody and harmony than about complex rhythms or timbre, but that doesn't negate the value of the former or mean that we should stop trying to come up with better means of doing the latter.

Also, I don't think the point you're making really contradicts mine. Just because certain classical snobs dislike rock, that doesn't mean that knowing tonal harmony lessens your overall enjoyment of music. The implication I often hear stated is that dissecting art takes away its "magic," as if knowing how a song was written surgically removes that thing that makes you want to sing along with it. That's never been true for me or for my musician friends, so I just wanted to emphasize it.

--

Checking out music-theory on the side to learn about what you are listening to and how to explain it is a bit different IMO to people who went to music-school and stuff; at least in sweden, I think they have a tendency to be very snobby towards stuff that is simple in terms of chord-progressions, musicianship etc. and that comes with the knowledge. For the record, I have read a lot of music theory too even if it was a long time ago (when I played bass and a little piano in my mid-late teens) and I don't think it has had a negative effect on me but i cannot lie, I was a bit snobby too for a while even if I personally never ahd any problems with Hip-Hop, it was just so far removed.

I also think a knowledge about theory (actually, they don't have to know theory for this but still, an increased technical skill can also fuck up here) can affect artists badly in the sense that it leads to an "awareness" about what they are doing (and by extension, what they should not do) which IMO is often actually a bad thing in music as weird as that may seem, especially if you are doing/writing simple music and your theoretical knowledge is more than functional. It takes a certain type of discipline here which theoretically untrained songwriters/musicians/whatever don't even need to bother with (the types of discipline they need to work on is a different one)

>Checking out music-theory on the side to learn about what you
>are listening to and how to explain it is a bit different IMO
>to people who went to music-school and stuff

Yeah, that could be. Personally I had a parallel upbringing - I was taking piano lessons and music classes at the same time as I was getting an informal education in rock and punk from friends. It helped me to keep an open mind, I think, and to spend some time thinking about why certain bands worked even though what they were playing was dead simple. (For instance I still love the Ramones, whose music couldn't be any simpler, but a lot of bands that aped them are just boring.)

>I also think a knowledge about theory (actually, they don't
>have to know theory for this but still, an increased technical
>skill can also fuck up here) can affect artists badly in the
>sense that it leads to an "awareness" about what they are
>doing (and by extension, what they should not do) which IMO is
>often actually a bad thing in music as weird as that may seem,
>especially if you are doing/writing simple music and your
>theoretical knowledge is more than functional.

I hear you, but I'm not sure how true that works out to be. Lots of trained pros have played simple music effectively - actually I think that's a big key to the success of one of my favorite groups, Bad Brains, because they played "dumb" hardcore punk but used their theoretical grounding and playing experience to introduce some cool twists that eluded more primitive bands, and also be tight even when playing at light speed. I have found for myself that even though I know what I "should" play when I pick up a guitar - where the chords and scales are, in other words - a lot of times I write more interesting stuff by just sliding my fingers around and making noise until something catchy starts happening. In those cases I usually work out the theory behind what I'm doing later - surprisingly often, it's something that is harmonically sound but maybe has just a few weird suspended notes or inversions that make it sound a little alien and off.

--

I've always defended that aspect here in the lesson to a certain extent and I used to give props to the Damaja for *that* aspect of his postingstyle (not sure he actually knew much but he made the posts about more theoretical aspects). I think the problem with both knowing *and* not knowing theory (or having technique for that matter) is if/when your musical ideas becomes too informed by your lack/wealth of knowledge. I was more thinking about some examples of how a theoretical knowledge *could* be bad and also change the appreciation.

Actually, I always had a theory on that one of the reasons people don't *want* to know and even take pride in not knowing ("I'm all about feeling-theory is not soulful!") is because if you find out that something you love is just some simplistic cliches, that *can* be quite depressing for some people, you know? I think a lot of people are opposed to knowing because they are scared that the magic will disappear and that may happen, just like many people who studied movies can never watch movies the same way again or people who been in writing class with books etc. . I don't really think people are wrong because of that; for everything that can be gained in terms of a larger vocabulary in terms of discussing music, things can get lost too...

Sometimes seeing behind the curtain can change your perspective pretty radically. For me, I've always welcomed it, but I guess I can understand that there are legit reasons to resist.

I do get a little tired of that weird anti-snob snobbery that comes up a lot though, as if just by mentioning some basic technical information like chord changes, I obviously only listen to prog rock and have no soul.

--

.

I don't know if you heard Fred Estby's (ex-Dismember) solo-album but I got the same vibe from that one; not that the music is similar but rather that making metal-albums with a bunch of different vocalists and styles on every song just don't work. I dug the Probot-song with Lemmy though; that's how I wish the drumming would sound on the modern Mot�rhead-albums, I have no idea why a rock'n'roll lover like Lemmy work with a stiff metal dude like Mikkey Dee who was great with King Diamond but utterly useless in Mot�rhead...

EDIT:I really liked the QOTSA album with Grohl though, last great album they did IMO...

>I don't know if you heard Fred Estby's (ex-Dismember)
>solo-album but I got the same vibe from that one; not that the
>music is similar but rather that making metal-albums with a
>bunch of different vocalists and styles on every song just
>don't work.

I didn't hear it but that's not really a strong endorsement! Yeah, I agree. It's the kind of thing that can be fun on a track-by-track basis but when it's done you usually end up feeling like it would have been better if he'd just picked a single vocalist and done a real side project.

>EDIT:I really liked the QOTSA album with Grohl though, last
>great album they did IMO...

Yeah, I'm not a huge Queens fan but that was good. Grohl's generally just a good guy to plug into a lot of different quality rock bands.

--

What the hell?

I actually had to google Nick Hexum, who I assumed was some dubstep flavor of the month or something, which would have made more sense than claiming that 311 is something other than an absolutely terrible band that reflects everything that was awful about the '90s.

Dave Grohl was in Nirvana, the Foo Fighters are mediocre, and the Foo Fighters catalog shits all over the 311 catalog.

And mentioning either of those two in the same sentence as Hendrix is offensive.

>Dave Grohl was in Nirvana, the Foo Fighters are mediocre, and
>the Foo Fighters catalog shits all over the 311 catalog.

that sums it up nicely

The Foos will be legendary actually...not because of the actual band and it's music alone, they will be legendary in association to Dave Grohl, who is already legendary hands down and he doesn't even seem close to retirement yet. GOAT though? Prob not.

<--- Big Baller World Order

i even think foo fighters should get the AOTY grammy over adele, but i wouldnt call him legendary. he's very good and charismatic, and knows how to craft a rock song.

___________________________
Add me on:
www.gooseohio.bandcamp.com
http://smallkidbigcity.wordpress.com/
http://smallkidbigcity.tumblr.com/
www.facebook.com/zgase
www.facebook.com/pages/Goose/207963479294713
www.twitter.com/gooseohio
www.dwightschrutebeetf

the fuck is wrong with y'all?

V.

---
http://confessionsofacurlymind.com
https://soundcloud.com/confessionsofacurlymindredux
https://soundcloud.com/generic80sbadguy
https://soundcloud.com/miles_matheson

DROkayplayer™

*i* think he's legendary anyways.

V.

---
http://confessionsofacurlymind.com
https://soundcloud.com/confessionsofacurlymindredux
https://soundcloud.com/generic80sbadguy
https://soundcloud.com/miles_matheson

DROkayplayer™

also

listen to the new podcast!

the foof fighters in any other era are at best a middle of the road 2nd tier act and in the 90's era of grunge they would be best a 3rd tier act and Dave knows that, i hope he does.

being catchy and have a few hits ain't making you no legend.

in all honesty i just don't think his true talents lie in being a front man either IMO.

but he can play in his zone.

mistermaxxx R.Kelly, Michael Jackson,Stevie wonder,Rick James,Marvin Gaye,El Debarge, Barry WHite Lionel RIchie,Isleys EWF,Lady T.,Kid creole and coconuts,the crusaders,kc sunshine band,bee gees,jW,sd,NE,JB

Miami Heat, New York Yankees,buffalo bills

you & I are on exactly the same page about something.

--

Because he pretty much is an institution...rather then breaking the mold he's just put up solid ass numbers *consistently*

Is he a Chris Cornell in his prime?
Was he as swagged out as Jack White was in the 00's?
Does he come off as an insane genius like Thom Yorke?

Nope.

He's just done it differently and imho that's where his genius comes in. There's no Caligula swagger like Axl in his prime, there's no tortured artist vibe like Cobain or Ian Curtis, there's no superhero presence like Bono. Dude has branded himself as the FRIENDLIEST guy in rock...he's someone who you feel is used to popping out of private jets with model chicks under each arm...but wouldn't be surprised if you ran into him at your local dive bar with him buying you a round. He's the guy that makes it big but you still root for him/still find him approachable. It's something that country singers DIE to maintain(since that cred is basically their whole career) but he does it effortlessly and it resonates across genre.


Just because he's the nice guy doesn't mean he isn't fucking shit up. He's still a phenomenal musician and still puts in serviceable (but not shitty) populist mainstream rock fare.

>Because he pretty much is an institution...rather then
>breaking the mold he's just put up solid ass numbers
>*consistently*
>
>Is he a Chris Cornell in his prime?
>Was he as swagged out as Jack White was in the 00's?
>Does he come off as an insane genius like Thom Yorke?
>
>Nope.
>
>He's just done it differently and imho that's where his genius
>comes in. There's no Caligula swagger like Axl in his prime,
>there's no tortured artist vibe like Cobain or Ian Curtis,
>there's no superhero presence like Bono. Dude has branded
>himself as the FRIENDLIEST guy in rock...he's someone who you
>feel is used to popping out of private jets with model chicks
>under each arm...but wouldn't be surprised if you ran into him
>at your local dive bar with him buying you a round. He's the
>guy that makes it big but you still root for him/still find
>him approachable. It's something that country singers DIE to
>maintain(since that cred is basically their whole career) but
>he does it effortlessly and it resonates across genre.
>
>
>Just because he's the nice guy doesn't mean he isn't fucking
>shit up. He's still a phenomenal musician and still puts in
>serviceable (but not shitty) populist mainstream rock fare.


Church^^^^

GOAT of his era......long live Prince.....God is alive....

this is a tough place to say that you think Grohl will end up receiving more acclaim than 'did some decent tunes'.

he's not randy newman with the lyrics
he's not CSN with the song structure
he's not Talking Heads with the style
he's not (bill in the flank)

he's mad decent. prolly will be for about 30 straight years.
-you start talking about legendary figures in american rock & roll and dude is gonna be in that conversation asterisks be damned*...

*he didn't have a lot of competition
*he had a lot of duds
*his ceiling was 'decent'
*not innovative
*sucks
*phil collins

POEM-CEES
KOKAYI/CAESARZ
SPP WAXWORKS (DC)

THAYLOBLEU: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=701fChgN9H4

i haven't followed their output much.
i think we all like Dave because, outside of him being a seemingly very cool guy, he is one of the few relics of the grunge era that hasn't really become an embarassment or shadow of himself.

i don't think he is a legend.
but i think his work is very respectable and will be remembered as such.
it sounds simple, but not many bands will be able to say that about themselves 20-30 years from now.

---
www.ikirejones.com
FW16: After Migration.

--

http://twitter.com/collazo
http://www.reverbnation.com/livesociety

i only know the popular songs though.

“So back we go to these questions — friendship, character… ethics.”

means the guy is pretty much a legend. he's in the upper echelon of being instantly recognizable for his songs.

His best foo stuff is great, the rest is alright i guess.

he's got a lot of duds, but his great stuff is as good as it gets.

He accomplished what Ringo never could. And for that, he's a legend.

********************************************************************




"I *always* quote myself. I'm the only reliable source on *most* subjects" - OKP's First Lady of Knowledge, Janey

that probably seals it in itself.

(c) Jack Black

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOXzkkAYuo8

i wonder how many people commenting here actually saw foo fighters live, especially post-'one by one' lp, cause i'd tell you - there aren't better rock frontmans out there nowadays.

____________________________

<--- One of those days...

*backs away from poast*



http://twitter.com/collazo
http://www.reverbnation.com/livesociety

i'm going to listen to it right now.

“So back we go to these questions — friendship, character… ethics.”