Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About nemophilist

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

977 profile views
  1. nemophilist

    Tower House

    I love to see how Jimmy has kept the house so true to its creation. Most people would modernize with a bunch of sterile looking crap all over the place. I hate seeing people take amazing architectural marvels, and older houses with so much character and just remove all of the timelessness from it; basically making it a facade.
  2. nemophilist

    Interview with Jimmy Page - GQ Magazine

    I thought that was one of the better interviews I've read. A couple of things I appreciate the most about the members of LZ is how much they value their privacy (don't have to feed their egos by putting their personal lives on display) and the fact that they don't constantly glorify their drug use or the amount of women they've slept with in order to maintain or build some phony badass, false persona; basically the media image of the "rock star" or person in a band. Like Steven Tyler for instance, he talks about it almost every single interview i've seen him in. It gets really old and people that do that seem to care more about their persona than their music, it's all about making sure you grab headlines. Plus does your family really want to hear about the random girls or women you sleep with or have slept with all the time? Probably not. I think Page just doesn't want to say something that people will take out of context or the wrong way, then it'll come up continuously in the media, in interviews and probably in some personal interactions. I think he could be a tiny bit looser at times, but I understand why he's not. What's the use of it really? The reason anyone even knows of him is music, thus it should be about the music for the most part.
  3. nemophilist

    Greta Van Fleet

    I agree. I'm not saying it to knock them as no one else is truly anything like Led Zeppelin, but they are nowhere near the comprehensive style of Led Zeppelin. I truly hear more ACDC and other 70's bands than Led Zeppelin in their music. The feel, the styles and the approaches are all quite different from Led Zeppelin for the most part. Greta is pretty much a straight forward rock band with very little influence from any styles outside of the blues. I obviously don't think it's Greta. They didn't market themselves as the next LZ. I think it's more so the media and everyone else who hears a guy sound like Robert Plant in a song or two, sees them dressing like their from the 60's and then brands a band with headlines such as "Are ________ the next led zeppelin?" How many times has that happened? Wolfmother comes to mind after their first album. Good album, actually I love the album but still nothing like Led Zeppelin. I actually think that musically their first album was more like Zeppelin than anything I've heard from Greta outside of one of their covers of a zeppelin song. Although I think that technically speaking the guitarist for Greta is a better player than Andrew from Wolfmother. Didn't Robert Plant recently say something along the lines that he doesn't think most of their fans actually understand Led Zeppelin's music? I definitely agree with that when everyone talks about how much a band like GVF sounds just like Led Zeppelin.
  4. nemophilist


    It's hard to have "better leaders" when there are those who threaten or coerce them into selling their people out. That's why people believe in libertarianism, because power corrupts so it's better to decentralize and have it closer to the individual. Our leaders are quite smart, they do things that seem stupid because it's not for the benefit of their constituents. It's for the benefits of special interests. Essentially when government has power, or any individual, then those with the resources to purchase that power will do so for the own agenda time and time again. It always happens and it always will. The reality is that there is no utopian system. But things should be voluntary. I believe communism can only work when it is voluntary, as it does quite often in communal living scenarios where everyone is working towards a common goal on a small scale. Libertarian political philosophy is a moral system because it isn't predicated on force or violence through the state. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a state, as that takes a population of very high consciousness and morality; but I'm saying people shouldn't be forced into a communist system as it is predicated on violence through the state. It should be voluntary and it would keep society from collapsing like every single totalitarian communist system does. In my opinion from my research it's a phony political philosophy that was made more prominent through the funding of wealthy interests (like the league of just men) who funded people like Marx. It's a parasitical system that is sold to people under the guise of helping the downtrodden. The state (which they call "the people") just parasites the population until they're all poor and thus "equal." Then the wealthy political class who funded the politicians no longer have any competition and then we have a virtual monarchy again. Not rule secession outside of election, but I just mean power is put into the hands of the very few who are extremely wealthy while the rest of the country are a bunch of peasants (essentially). But I do truly believe that communism can work on a voluntary level with those who believe in it, on a very small scale. Not forced on an entire nation, or an entire state or community. And to lpman: I do pretty much agree with what you're saying. I wouldn't say it's a joke though, and I always question what goes behind the scenes even as a far back as that though. But on the surface I do agree with you. I very much agree with you on your first paragraph as well, we've never been truly free market even right after the Revolution. And as I actually said above there would need to be a very moral and extremely aware populace to actually have a truly libertarian system.
  5. nemophilist


    Lol Okay, I guess you're all knowing. What's that supposed to scare me away from my beliefs? I think I'm right based off of my research and If you think I'm wrong then good for you. First of all you would probably never even be taught anything like that in community college or any educational establishment. All they do is preach democracy (which I know is a superior system to most) without even considering what I stated. You have no clue how much time I've dedicated to reading numerous kinds of history books. I form my thoughts from my own research not what some programmed teacher regurgitates out of a corporate text book full of revisionist details. I learned the same info, repeated every year for like 12 years. It's programming. Essentially refuting my point kind of proved my point especially by attacking me instead of actually making a counter argument. If you don't think elections are charades where people are lied into accepting a candidate, and that the ensuing presidency is more of the same then well I'd say you're being manipulated because you're not looking at the actions of those individuals when they step away from the podium. Nor do you see the policies of their bureaucratic agencies which aren't often given too much time on air and you'd have to take your time finding and reading the policies themselves, or find an article on them. Democracy is by nature collectivist as it is majority rule through voting (the illusion of choice), the collective. Without proper restraints put on government (like the Constitution and Bill Of Rights in the US; although those documents are of a republic, not a democracy. They do have some democratic principles which are I do think are beneficial as I said) it will incrementally march towards a totalitarian system or one which doesn't respect or honor the liberty of the individual. Essentially The 51% can vote away the "rights" of the other 49% in a democracy. We see it happening in the US every time someone votes for a candidate that promises to make us "more safe" by eroding some vital liberty while just giving the masses the illusion of security by creating a surveillance state.
  6. nemophilist


    Totally true. I think that's the entire point of "democracy" though. It's pretty collectivist in its base principles (it really becomes majority rule, yet as we see the majority is continuously manipulated) and thus ends up doing little to protect the individual without putting constraints on government. It's really just a gateway to totalitarianism. It really just pushed the monarchy to behind the scenes (where they still rule through corporations, silicon valley and mega-banks; although in England the Queen is still head of state on numerous issues) and gives the people the illusion of choice. Democratic principles or features are obviously great though. But I totally agree with you, especially on how organized religion suppresses true spirituality. Then you have academia and mainstream science pushing this illusory debate of organized religion vs. Darwinism (which If im remembering correctly was pushed by the Royal Society and other very nefarious royal elites who went on to basically build the world we see today) while trying to suppress a whole century of studies which show in various ways that we are just spirits or waveform energy having a physical or human experience. That we can only see a small frequency spectrum which is dubbed visible light. Which is known as quantum physics and just becomes more credible by the year. But yeah media outlets have always been corrupt or bias even going back to the 18th century but when you have something so central that the masses focus their attention such as TV and social media it makes the control and consolidation of media both much more prevalent and much more important for wealthy elites who have the resources to continuously engineer society towards their own desires and needs. This is why all the media we outside of the internet is owned by just six corporations.
  7. nemophilist


    I actually didn't know that about him. The guy makes the absolute worst arguments against free markets or libertarian principles.
  8. nemophilist


    If any news outlet takes money or influence of some sort from NGO's, governments, intelligence agencies, or any large corporations (such as big pharma, big agriculture, military industrial complex, tax exempt foundations) then you're (at least partially) a biased propaganda outlet and not truly independent journalism. There will always be a a conflict of interest and a lack of independence when it comes to key issues. One example is war and the alleged justifications of military action which almost always comes from "official" sources as if "official" sources have no conflict of interest of possibility of becoming corrupted. As if the military-industrial complex isn't one of the most powerful and prominent lobbying groups out there. There are a host of other topics and issues that all mainstream outlets align on at one time or another but that would probably lead to discussions on other topics. But whether it be BBC, MSNBC, FOX, CNN, Infowars, Al Jazeera, The Young Turks (Cenk was on MSNBC himself, thus he's not anti-establishment and certainly isn't intelligent or trustworthy) it doesn't matter they are all totally untrustworthy at the end of the day. For instance Alex Jones has a major trump bias while attempting to present himself as a principled libertarian who questions everything (he isn't and no longer truly questions everything). But people actually are totally oblivious to the fact that Alex Jones essentially just goes over news articles from numerous mainstream sources on his show (the guardian, daily mail, breitbart, reuters, FOX, msnbc, etc), he doesn't sit there and people stuff out of his rear all day. Personally I think he is just there to give the masses the false perception that those who question official narratives are totally crazy and illegitimate. Trump sort of does the same in his own limited way as he now calls them the fake news media even though the guy has been a msm darling since the 80's. Now if you say the mainstream media fabricates you're synonymous with Trump. Additionally All of those major news outlets are just there to keep the masses locked into the false left-right paradigm and keep us under the false perception that republican and democrat are any different. Sure, in rhetoric they are but in action they're basically the same and this is why everything is continuously regressing for individuals and thus society as a whole. The middle-class in the US (and elsewhere really) has been dwindling since the 1960's (from centralization of power, excessive spending and taxation), war is endless with its justifications based in lies and manipulations (when you actually do your own research), natural rights are incrementally eroded and the whole technological surveillance state (data analytics, facial recognition) which will get a major boost with the internet of things is continuously advanced. Those are important issues for all individuals as they pertain to liberty and individual well being. Yet they are all incrementally advanced by politicians on both the left and the right.
  9. nemophilist

    Wow! It finally happened!!!

    Does your station play You Shook Me, For Those about to rock, and Highway to Hell 100 times a day for each song?
  10. I've had that moment so many times over the last 11-12 years of constantly listening to Led Zeppelin that it's hard for me to remember the first time. I've had it on so many songs of theirs. I feel like when I first listened to Led Zeppelin I for the first time it was Dazed and Confused that really made me appreciate the band even more than I had prior to that (when I would just hear Rock N' Roll or Whole Lotta Love here and there on the radio). The inclusion of the bow and the way the song slows down and builds back up in a climax gave me a significant moment of intense appreciation. It made me really interested in hearing all I could by Led Zeppelin but I don't think it quite gave me that moment you describe. But the energy is so deep on that track, especially when you first intently listen to it or haven't listened to it in a while. When that transitioned into 'Your Time is Gonna Come' I was even more amazed with the enchanting beauty of that track and the way it went from a heavier song to another track that was so beautiful and enthralling. Two stark differences energetically. Most bands don't do that. I think it especially impressed me as they opened the album that way with Good Times Bad Times into Babe. Once again most heavier bands never pull those changes the right way and make it sound so organic and timeless. I know for a fact the first time I ever thought "Led Zeppelin is genius, and by far the best and most important band ever" which was synonymous with "Jimmy Page is an absolute genius" was the first time I watched their show at the Royal Albert Hall on the Led Zeppelin DVD. It was actually one of the first bits of Led Zeppelin merchandise I was given. The energy on that performance is so intense it just sucks you in from the start with We're Gonna Grove. That show (regardless of set list, I mean most of their material wasn't released yet) is just as good as any other great performance by them on any tour. For instance I think it's just as good as Blueberry Hill but just in a slightly different way. It was that show that really inspired me to get all of their albums which then further confirmed that moment of "Jimmy is genius, Led Zeppelin is the most important band ever." Once having all of the albums I had that moment many times. But prior to that I believe I only had Led Zeppelin I and MAYBE led zeppelin II. Both of which had already amazed me and made me think of Jimmy as a genius. But that performance at the Royal Albert Hall hit me so much harder that it honestly changed my life and my outlook at both music and guitar, that's how amazed at the performance I was; it made me appreciate them significantly more than I had prior to that.
  11. nemophilist

    Is Jimmy Page done making music?

    I agree. The difference is huge. I have an old Tascam multi-track recorder that I use from time to time and the way it captures my tone is perfect. Sounds just like it does when I'm in the room. On the other hand due to convenience for transferring things on to cd and internet I also use Audacity (and have also used Cubase) and it's unbelievable how much of the dynamics are sucked out of my tone. All computerization sucks the spirit and essence out of everything, but especially in music. I just don't understand how these musicians with so many resources at their disposal just go into some "state of the art" recording studio when it's only considered that because it has a lot of the latest tech. Modern doesn't mean improved but it is a false perception many hold. These days modern seems to mean sterile and soulless.
  12. nemophilist

    Is Jimmy Page done making music?

    Or slightly different speculation.
  13. nemophilist

    Is Jimmy Page done making music?

    Yeah I think we are too for the most part. I hope you don't think I was trying to be argumentative. I was just adding a slightly different perspective.
  14. nemophilist

    Is Jimmy Page done making music?

    One more thing to add; The best thing Aerosmith could do (or any folk, rock or metal band) is to just stay away from pro tools. Just my opinion though. I think computerizing sucks a noticeable amount of the energy and rawness out of the music. The more you mess with certain tools during production, the more you diminish the way the music actually sounds when you're in the room. Less is more if you're using computer processed recording, in my opinion.
  15. nemophilist

    Is Jimmy Page done making music?

    Yeah Brad is great, not really a great songwriter though if you know what I mean? Awesome player, just doesn't seem to come up with too many great songs though outside of a few here or there; or maybe they're just not used on albums because they weren't "hits." The problem with Aerosmith is that they started letting in outside writers thus they stopped really writing their own material a long time ago. They're always appeasing others opposed to themselves (at least the 4 of them outside of Steven). They started letting in outside writers at behest of their record company in order to build their brand by getting hits after becoming a bit of an afterthought after Joe and Brad left the band. Once the hits came Steven Tyler essentially became the popular kid in school and just couldn't let go of that feeling. Steven essentially supplemented is drug addiction with hit singles and attention addiction. It seems that he loves the attention from making music just as much or more than he actually loves making music these days. This is why he has that whole mentality of "I don't see any hit songs here, maybe we should bring in some other writers." That and Steven Tyler is seemingly so subconsciously insecure that he needs everything perfect by industry standards; meaning everything must be overly compressed and thus over produced. It sucks all of the dynamics and sound out of the natural tone of the guitars and drums. Joe and Brad have both come up with some really good riffs over the past thirty years but it's always buried under a bunch of over-production when they should be minimally produced like they were in the 70's.