To pay via paypal fill it out to look like this, questions can go to the paypal email. all other forms of payment see http://www.everythingnotrelated.com/shirtorderform.htm

Random notes: Yes, the original sketch had them more off-center and possibly wrapping around the side. This would be extremely difficult to do on a conventional screenprinting jig, I’m told, and the seams would create a bump and the ink would end up places it wasn’t supposed to be. So, we did our best. Never fear! It’ll definitely look very cool to have an octo-monica on your belly! As you can see from the gorgeous model above (me), the tentacles do sorta wind their way around, when the glorious shirt is worn. The shirts on display are both S, the shirt I’m wearing is XL (tres grande!) The shirts are Gildan for the boys and the girls are by Desert Wash. Both are 100% cotton, of the preshrunk variety. My printer guys tell me these are the brands they use most frequently. Basically, they’re good, solid cotton shirts. No, I am not making any money on these. I just want to cover expenses. Yes, it is a very good deal. Buy one as a little treat to yourself! Get one to sleep in, and have pleasant /orate dreams! Wear it to shows and introduce yourself to fellow boardies! Show your mysterious/whimsical/hipper-than-thou side! It’s a great souvenir to remind you of all the hours you’ve whiled away have here at the D-Luxe Message Board!

Moon has an affinity for vintage rock and roll. From the cleverly placed ’stereo’ on the cover, to the numerous pictures of vintage amplifiers and guitars, it’s not hard to guess that these guys listened to bands like the Byrds or the Beatles. However, while their influences may seem obvious, Moon takes their music in at least somewhat of a new direction.

On the opening track “Flight Logs” a 60’s pop riff gets buried underneath fuzzed out guitars more reminiscent of late American punk than the British invasion. The combination works, at least for most of the tracks. Some cuts, like the long “Featherweight” never really take off and on the track “Faith Healers” the weight of fuzzed guitars obscure the songs core. However, tracks like “Yesterday’s Coming” a feisty and ecstatic rock number outweigh the bands missteps. Unlike many revivalist bands, like Jet, Moon manages to both utilize their influences and move beyond them, creating an energetic and enjoyable, if slightly spotty, album. Rating 6.5/10

Luca may not be a familiar name, but the guest artists on this album are among some of the more recognizable names in independent alt-country music.  M. Ward, Howe Gelb, and Joey Burns and John Convertino all make contributions to this album.  But despite the impressive guest list Sick of Love never achieves the depth or texture of the works of the contributors.

If anything Sick of Love sounds like something slightly out of its time, an album that looks back to 90’s alternative music more than anything else.  The tracks are slightly nuanced rock numbers for the most part, but even with the work of the impressive artists on the album none of them ever diverges from their predictable paths.  “Melody” stands out as one of the album’s more memorable numbers, using the predictable soft/loud formula of alt-rock, but holding itself up with well done vocals and some interesting instrumentation.  The other standout is a cover of Rainer Ptacek’s “Loosin’ Ground,” which one of the more subdued tracks and benefits from more varied sounds than most of the tracks.  It’s not that the album is poor, it’s simply a dissapointment coming from the cast of musicians arranged here.  Nick Luca’s songs simply aren’t as original or interesting as those of M. Ward, Calexico, or Howe Gelb, but for fans of these artists this album is one to consider listening to–if only for hearing how the guest stars perform outside their regular formats.

5.2/10

Opener “Sometime Somewhere Someone Should Say Something” features an unfortunate drum machine - something the mars this and a couple otherwise excellent tracks - but otherwise is a catchy number that well represents the album. Full of the big, sweeping orchestration that sets them apart from their peers (and seems more appropriate for arenas than the typical indie foul-smelling cafe), the chorus gets stuck in your head and the sound manages to be like several bands without truly aping any.

Overall this bit features some catchy tunes, interesting ideas, and is certainly worth a listen. A solid beginning for a potentially fantastic band, 6.9/10.

I did find one good thing. A Google Image Search for “Amy Phillips” returns a predominance of attractive women. Bonus! Meanwhile, a Google Image Search for “Pitchfork” returns nothing but uglys.

1. Aquila Rose This band was completely unknown to me until I listened to their promo. One of those pleasant surprises that came out of nowhere, a band without a label, with a cd that was both handsomely and professionally packaged…and with a sound that was equally interesting. The music is dreamy and drifting, guitars floating and flowing along with almost jazz-like qualities at times. Occassionally the songs are punctuated by the bands female singer, but mostly they stick to their instrumentals. The first three tracks are great–and while the rest of the album doesn’t quite live up to the same degree of quality it is certainly not bad and definitely worth listening through. Take a listen to “In the Bed of a Balladeer” to get a good sense of this band. http://www.aquilaroseband.com/aqraudio.htm

2. Elizabeth Harper An artist to emerge out of the garageband.com website who is definitely worth listening to, particularly if you enjoy 60’s pop/folk music. She has a very nice voice, and the music is soft, well-produced, and friendly to the ears. While it’s certainly not the most innovative music out there, it is really quite good and something that will pass underneath most people’s radars, which is too bad. http://www.elizabethharper.net/music.html

3. Happy Apple Innovative, fresh, and brilliant jazz music does a really good job of escaping popularity. Sure most people have heard of some of the big jazz greats (Coltrane, Davis, etc.)–but how often does a new jazz ensemble get hype like the Arctic Monkeys? Happy Apple is more than deserving. Their music is loveable, all over the place, and always moving forward. Their drummer (who also happens to be in better known band, The Bad Plus) is constantly changing up styles, while their bass player and saxophonist work their instruments masterfully without being pretentious or too obscure to enjoy. While they are best live, their music is definitely worth checking out (Pitchfork even gave their debut a 9.5, though they haven’t received that much press since). http://www.happyapplemusic.com/index.htm

The internet is a scary place, particularly when it comes to finding the gems of unsigned or overlooked music–so stick to your favorite sites, occassionally poke your head into the madness, and listen to your college radio station. Rock may be dead, but good music isn’t–it just sometimes takes a little more work to find it.

View it after the break:

And then a thing like the internet comes along and fucks everything up.

Social gatherings on the internet have essentially destroyed social gatherings in the real world, primarily because it’s easier, and safer, and also because a lot more people can be involved with people they never would’ve been involved with in the first place. Behind a textual mask, the rubbery-faced 16-year-old boy can schmooze with the ridiculously attractive 23-year-old woman and no one will question how, or why, this happened. When stripped of our visual and aural senses, we are left with only what we type, and that is a sense that I feel we have not understood yet.

But this isn’t really a dissertation on the sociology and psychology of internet society, it’s a question. If I befriend someone on Myspace, should I also friend them on Facebook? People have now becomes faceted, and not in that fun human way, no, now we are broken by social internet coteries, the foundations of which make little to no sense. In the real world, cliques are clearly established, so much so that they are almost universal. American cliques, for instance, are easily recognized here, but also have enough truth in them to be recognized across the world. When I say someone is a “jock,” a very clear image enters the head, of letterman’s jackets and rugged good looks, captains of the football team and all that.

Again, on the internet this is demolished. Cliques are founded primarily by website — are you a MySpace person, or do you prefer Friendster? Do you frequent Facebook because you have a lot of college friends, or are you into Purevolume because of it’s music scene?

As you can already tell, these cliques quickly become something else, as the websites themselves turn into specialty sites in their own right. I won’t go into each site and it’s clique, partially because they’re all stereotypes that are demeaning to the sites themselves, and partially because it will probably be wrong to you, since everyone has their own view of what each website represents.

So I wonder, when people join various friend-related websites, if they are creating separate personalities for each site. Is the person you friend on Myspace the same person on Facebook? Yes, in real life. But on the internet, where everyone is essentially a glorified version of themselves, you have the ability to put a certain type of you on Myspace, and another type on Facebook. On LiveJournal you can express your deepest desires, while on Friendster you can be light and jovial, and each incarnation is not really you, but you as you’d like to be.

Even LiveJournal isn’t you, despite being a journal, simply because people are reading what you write. So you spend extra time spellchecking and making sure your friends clearly understand what your journal entry is about. Diaries don’t work like that, they thrive on poor spelling and grammar, of spontaneous tangents midsentence, of words darkened by pushing your pen on the paper, of doodles and crushes and heartbreaks. Things that can be written on LiveJournal, but aren’t really there.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve read many LJ entries that hit me right in the gut, and I’ve written some, too, but it’s never the same. It’s like, when you’re alone in your house, really alone. This is when you dance the silliest dances, shout the dumbest things, make faces in the mirror, walk around naked. But as soon as one person is even in the vicinity, you’re done. Pants are on, mouth is closed, and your free-wheeling dances are saved for another day alone.

So what does this all mean? In part, it means that the internet is a lifeless extension of life, where words become more powerful than actions, and that’s frightening in a sense, because actions are the only thing by which a person can be judged. It also means that a person might friend you on Facebook but not on Myspace because they’re a different person there. The internet persona is nothing more than our id come out to play. It’s our super-us, the person we see when we close our eyes and visualize ourselves. Very different from our real us, who looks in a mirror and counts our flaws.

I don’t know the answer to the question I presented in the title of this long and rambling entry. I feel weird friending one person on multiple sites. Sometimes I do it, sometimes I don’t. I feel bad if I don’t do it for some people, and for others it makes no difference. I have friends on Myspace that I wouldn’t consider friends, yet I don’t want to unfriend them because I feel bad. The internet dissolves truth like that.

I find internet culture fascinating, especially our American internet culture. America, as a country, is sorely lacking in its own traditions and its own culture (really, the only traditions we have that are truly our own and not from England/Europe are 4th of July and Thanksgiving). The internet is more than making up for that, creating a lot of traditions and a lot of culture, but really, it means nothing, and while we languish in our caricatured internet life, we are sucking away our real life.

I guess that’s the point I wanted to make.