Avg rating:
Your rating:
Total ratings: 3309
Length: 3:13
Plays (last 30 days): 0
Somewhere cold and caked in snow
By the fire we break the quiet
Learn to wear each other well
And when the worrying starts to hurt
And the world feels like graves of dirt
Just close your eyes until you can imagine this place
Yeah, our secret space, at will
Shut your eyes, I'll spin the big chair
And you'll feel dizzy, light and free
And falling gently on the cushion
You can come and sing to me
And when the worrying starts to hurt
And the world feels like graves of dirt
Just close your eyes until you can imagine this place
Yeah, our secret space, at will
Shut your eyes
Shut your eyes
Shut your eyes
Shut your eyes
Shut your eyes and sing to me (Shut your eyes and sing to me)
Shut your eyes and sing to me (Shut your eyes and sing to me)
Shut your eyes and sing to me (Shut your eyes and sing to me)
Shut your eyes and sing to me (Shut your eyes and sing to me)
Catchy as hell.
Not the most complex music, but I like this band quite a bit. Not all music can be as complicated and crafted as Beatles or Pink Floyd or Porcupine Tree, but in the world full of garbage pop music, we need more bands like this. They are overdue for a new album.
Very well said!
Nice run of songs here tonight...
Tonight too...
simple riff, bordering on boring, but nicely produced
"Bodering on", but NOT boring!! Excellent tune!!
What a superb line. Plenty of others in this poem, too.
Yeah!
bump...
Maybe that's why I like it so very much, despite it being "not my style".
Interesting. Now I do too.
Oh also I hear parallels in the vocals with some Mutton Birds songs or am I just going a little (more) nuts?
If the two worse things about socialism are a couple of bands you don't particularly care for, then sign me up.
Agree totally! I like this band, btw!
If the two worse things about socialism are a couple of bands you don't particularly care for, then sign me up.
yes.
fusion7891 wrote:
fusion7891 wrote:
huh?
In what way?
In that the tone of the guitar and voice are similar to my ears.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EacQEhrbBQ
teodora wrote:
tell it to the Beatles
Or to their sound engineers
Seriously. Pop songs aren't often known for their amazingly complex forays into musical theory.
tell it to the Beatles
unclehud wrote:
No, it isn't.
in this thread.
I don't think that makes it unworthy of listening. Complexity is an independent variable from likability. I've heard songs with very complex chord progressions (some on this very radio station!) that don't engage me half as much as this one.
Seriously. Pop songs aren't often known for their amazingly complex forays into musical theory.
I don't think that makes it unworthy of listening. Complexity is an independent variable from likability. I've heard songs with very complex chord progressions (some on this very radio station!) that don't engage me half as much as this one.
WonderLizard wrote:
Your point? I mean, other than general snarkiness. Really, if you could play this well after only a week's lessons, you should drop everything and let us know when your band is signed to a major label.
That's probably why I've never learned how to play guitar...
I like this song more every time I hear it, but I find a mysterious dark element in this (and much of their other music) that is intriguing.
Your point? I mean, other than general snarkiness. Really, if you could play this well after only a week's lessons, you should drop everything and let us know when your band is signed to a major label.
danmcminn wrote:
Hehe. The song's from four years ago. I don't think that counts as much of a blast. More of a short pass from the past. Or slightly-stretching hand-off from the past.
Fun song tho, I agree.
This song is really not bad - has some groove,
still and overall I find their albums not too appealing!
Maybe I compare with "THE THE" too often?
Hehe. The song's from four years ago. I don't think that counts as much of a blast. More of a short pass from the past. Or slightly-stretching hand-off from the past.
Fun song tho, I agree.
Ditto - except that I'd say 'slowly but surely - and maybe not so slowly'.
huh?
In what way?
in this thread.
Wow, is Bill in your pocket?
to the post's below.....cool your jets and mellow
Then why did you repost his entire screed?
jools wrote:
And you too? You reposted the entire message?
Idjits!
westslope wrote:
Koan and Horstman:
Bush II is not a 'country boy'. He is about as rich and spoiled as they get, witness some of the expensive, bad self-medication habits he developed prior to being 're-born'.
Bush II has the Messiah Complex and is willing to cater to just about every wealth-destroying special interest group that comes knocking in order to achieve his goals.
There is an interesting comparison to be made with Canada's former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. One of Canada's most successful prime ministers in recent memory, he came from modest beginnings, a large Roman Catholic family in a small, forest industry town called Shawinigan Falls.
Chrétien had a reputation as a street brawler. He once severly choked a demonstrator that got too close. He served for years under the charismatic and very public intellectual former prime minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Chrétien was viewed as a highly effective cabinet minister.
Chrétien spoke lousy English and even worse French. He was the little guy from Shawinigan Falls. The image was 100% home-spun populist. He was charming and self-deprecating. He may not have been as imaginative as other quebecois intellectuals of his era but anybody who knew him understood that his mind was one the sharpest knives in the drawer.
Chrétien believed in talking to people and co-opting them into win-win arrangements. The discourse for quebecois nationalists was sometimes tough and uncompromising but outside of the limelight he was willing to make significant concessions.
Trudeau, Chrétien and company were all Canadian federalists but proud to be québécois and in the tradition of a once colonized people, anti-militarist, suspicious of all imperial powers, and fiercely multi-lateralist (e.g., pro-NATO, pro-UN). Chrétien tamed Canada's galloping deficit/debt situation in the mid-1990s by slashing defence expenditures following the collapse of the Soviet Union and a number of high profile scandals (as well as less publicized high-level corruption).
Chrétien kept Canada forrmally out of Iraq, and suffered much wrath at the time for this decision. In this respect, he was a much better friend and ally to the USA than others who should have known better (Great Britain, Israel) but kept silent or encouraged the folly. Canada has been running solid fiscal surpluses continuously since the mid-1990s.
Funny how the styles of the two leaders, Pres. Bush, Jr., and former Prime Minister Chrétien, are in some respects so similar but the policy outcomes are so different.
The current prime minister Stephen Harper taps into a different constituency that is much more comfortable with the aerial bombing of ordinary civilians and the use of military might to take resources in the Middle East.
Koan and Horstman:
Bush II is not a 'country boy'. He is about as rich and spoiled as they get, witness some of the expensive, bad self-medication habits he developed prior to being 're-born'.
Bush II has the Messiah Complex and is willing to cater to just about every wealth-destroying special interest group that comes knocking in order to achieve his goals.
There is an interesting comparison to be made with Canada's former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. One of Canada's most successful prime ministers in recent memory, he came from modest beginnings, a large Roman Catholic family in a small, forest industry town called Shawinigan Falls.
Chrétien had a reputation as a street brawler. He once severly choked a demonstrator that got too close. He served for years under the charismatic and very public intellectual former prime minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Chrétien was viewed as a highly effective cabinet minister.
Chrétien spoke lousy English and even worse French. He was the little guy from Shawinigan Falls. The image was 100% home-spun populist. He was charming and self-deprecating. He may not have been as imaginative as other quebecois intellectuals of his era but anybody who knew him understood that his mind was one the sharpest knives in the drawer.
Chrétien believed in talking to people and co-opting them into win-win arrangements. The discourse for quebecois nationalists was sometimes tough and uncompromising but outside of the limelight he was willing to make significant concessions.
Trudeau, Chrétien and company were all Canadian federalists but proud to be québécois and in the tradition of a once colonized people, anti-militarist, suspicious of all imperial powers, and fiercely multi-lateralist (e.g., pro-NATO, pro-UN). Chrétien tamed Canada's galloping deficit/debt situation in the mid-1990s by slashing defence expenditures following the collapse of the Soviet Union and a number of high profile scandals (as well as less publicized high-level corruption).
Chrétien kept Canada forrmally out of Iraq, and suffered much wrath at the time for this decision. In this respect, he was a much better friend and ally to the USA than others who should have known better (Great Britain, Israel) but kept silent or encouraged the folly. Canada has been running solid fiscal surpluses continuously since the mid-1990s.
Funny how the styles of the two leaders, Pres. Bush, Jr., and former Prime Minister Chrétien, are in some respects so similar but the policy outcomes are so different.
The current prime minister Stephen Harper taps into a different constituency that is much more comfortable with the aerial bombing of ordinary civilians and the use of military might to take resources in the Middle East.
Errr - you do know that this is a MUSIC message board??
Koan and Horstman:
Bush II is not a 'country boy'. He is about as rich and spoiled as they get, witness some of the expensive, bad self-medication habits he developed prior to being 're-born'.
Bush II has the Messiah Complex and is willing to cater to just about every wealth-destroying special interest group that comes knocking in order to achieve his goals.
There is an interesting comparison to be made with Canada's former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. One of Canada's most successful prime ministers in recent memory, he came from modest beginnings, a large Roman Catholic family in a small, forest industry town called Shawinigan Falls.
Chrétien had a reputation as a street brawler. He once severly choked a demonstrator that got too close. He served for years under the charismatic and very public intellectual former prime minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Chrétien was viewed as a highly effective cabinet minister.
Chrétien spoke lousy English and even worse French. He was the little guy from Shawinigan Falls. The image was 100% home-spun populist. He was charming and self-deprecating. He may not have been as imaginative as other quebecois intellectuals of his era but anybody who knew him understood that his mind was one the sharpest knives in the drawer.
Chrétien believed in talking to people and co-opting them into win-win arrangements. The discourse for quebecois nationalists was sometimes tough and uncompromising but outside of the limelight he was willing to make significant concessions.
Trudeau, Chrétien and company were all Canadian federalists but proud to be québécois and in the tradition of a once colonized people, anti-militarist, suspicious of all imperial powers, and fiercely multi-lateralist (e.g., pro-NATO, pro-UN). Chrétien tamed Canada's galloping deficit/debt situation in the mid-1990s by slashing defence expenditures following the collapse of the Soviet Union and a number of high profile scandals (as well as less publicized high-level corruption).
Chrétien kept Canada forrmally out of Iraq, and suffered much wrath at the time for this decision. In this respect, he was a much better friend and ally to the USA than others who should have known better (Great Britain, Israel) but kept silent or encouraged the folly. Canada has been running solid fiscal surpluses continuously since the mid-1990s.
Funny how the styles of the two leaders, Pres. Bush, Jr., and former Prime Minister Chrétien, are in some respects so similar but the policy outcomes are so different.
The current prime minister Stephen Harper taps into a different constituency that is much more comfortable with the aerial bombing of ordinary civilians and the use of military might to take resources in the Middle East.