Cameroni

Watch the video. She's in a protective bubble.

As always, you are wrong.

What an arousing picture they chose.

She's been molly cuddled all her life by her parents. Her mother still shields her and tells her when to go to bed, her daddy does all the DIY for her. To this day. Her brother writes her music with her. She's an interesting and original artist, but only thanks to a massive support system she clearly depends on. She does not seem like a strong character.

You got to be joking or you just don't know Chiang Mai very well, you can't even go to Central Festival without a concernt outside with a band, or a busker inside, there's tons of live music places in Chiang Mai. You can't even get into some cause they're so packed. most of the time.

You take Billie Eilish out of her support system, she would crumble like a 3 week old unwanted Apple Strudel. Even her concert sets are produced for her by a third party. By contrast, you could drop me in Cagayan de Oro and in no time I'd be self-sufficient. It's not even close.

Allright, maybe she has more experience in having millions of fans and performing on the beach as an artist. But in almost all other areas my life experience dwarves hers considerably.

That's often true, but the real conundrum is why do we marry some women and not others? What makes us want to run the risk of marriage with this particular woman? What are we really after? What are we seeing in this particular one?

You are, as always, very mistaken.

I strongly agree, Billie Eilish's persona is seriously cooler than Swift and a lot of fun. Some of the music is the best we get these days. However, while she is about transgender bisexuality with blue hair and an extreme abortion agenda and her politics are absolutely abhorrent, this need not deter us in any way from enjoying her original and sometimes sublime music. Clearly she has no real life experience, having grown up in a Hollywood bubble since birth, but she's an artist, not a political savant. As an artist she is above average, as a political animal she's a lost feminist transgender puppy in the wilderness howling at the abortion moon.

In terms of politics Billie Eilish is as deplorable as is possible, a transgender blue haired abortion extremist. Clearly her life experience is close to zero and what there is was in a Hollywood bubble, she's fantastically removed from normal life ever since birth really. One can't take her politics seriously really. But in terms of writing music, she and Finneas have real talent, one has to admit it.

The Pet Shop Boys have done some good tracks. By "techno" crap I meant real techno music like Acid House and all that vile <deleted>e. If there's one music I hate above all it's techno, ie acid house and all that <deleted> that came in the late 80s, early 90s.

Lovely piece of music. I do miss a human voice a bit.

It's true that Birds of Feather feels "unreal", not genuine, and more like a contrived pretense. Like much of Billiy Eilish's whole persona. However, in essence that is what all "love talk" is really pretense. When someone is really in love it feels more genuine, on account of their delusion being believed by them as well, but you can enjoy the song on the basis that most talk of love is not genuine anyway. it's a fair criticism though, clearly at her age she would not have loved in that way yet, it is an artistic piece after all, not a realistic one. I certainly agree the song feels somehwat unreal, not genuine. She does write her own lyrics though, with her brother Finneas. They're both quite creative and original. I would say her voice is certainly quite pleasant, even if it lacks the distinctiveness of Lennon, Starr and McCartney, who actually were also pretending to be Americans most of their lives. Where she really shines is in the harmonies, the belting, her singing is rather more accomplished and ambitious than Lennon and McCartney, though obviously less intense. Clearly the percussion is produced electronically, and real instruments are always preferable, but in this song the elecronic music is produced well and fits the song perfectly. It's rather the opposite, this song shows that even with modern instrumentalisation you can still produce good music. She does cultivate the creepy vibe a bit, but she was not born a boy, come on...

So Elvis Presley was not a good artist then. Hmmmmm.....

He's an exceptional singer and performer, but that song has terrible lyrics and the music is among the most boring he's put out.

Bieber is not that bad, he has some classics actually, Not a great songwriter obviously.

That's what really makes this scary and believable. Who'd flee to Russia, unless they're genuinely in fear of their life.

If you're trying to scare small children, yes. But the aim here is to enjoy the music and be elevated in terms of psychological well being.

Swift has nowhere near the lyrical craft of this song. Though Cruel Summer has some passable harmonies, one has to admit.

But the harmonies!!

I just feel bad for you that you are not open to the genius of Billy. Really, it breaks my heart.

The first ever heavy metal record ever made. Nicely played, Sir. A droning and heavy sound, this record first struck me as dragging its knuckles on the floor like a Neanderthal, quite boring. But as you grow up you appreciate the psychological depth of the lyrics, also honest and raw, about loss. This one is a contender. However, it has a simple ABBA format, the instrumentalisation is heavy rather than complex. It certainly lacks the airy lightness and beauty of Bird of a Feather. But it is original too, for sure. It's a contender. I will accept it.

Not at all, I share the nostalgic memory or Rick myself. Going to the club, wearing a custard cream jacket, shiny gold brown checked trousers, fox brown shoes. What a time it was. Then the rabble with their wife beater t-shirts came along and their god awful techno crap and ruined everything.

Clearly you would have to switch to another woman, though your initial investment in the cheater would have been a waste of your resources. That's why men prized loyalty so, in order that their resource investment was not wasted. And that is how monogamy was born, and subsequently marriage. You raise a very interesting question about polygamy. We can safely assume that polygamy was the original state of early human society, obviously social polygamy not marital polygamy. According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of 1,231 societies noted between from 1960 to 1980, 588 had frequent polygyny, 453 had occasional polygyny, 186 were monogamous, and 4 had polyandry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy So clearly a majority of primitive societies are still polygamous in modern times. "Anthropologists characterize human beings as “mildly polygynous” or “monogamous with polygynous tendencies.”" The average pre-historic man with modern descendants appears to have had children with between 1.5 women (70,000 years ago) to 3.3 women (45,000 years ago), except in East Asia. The genetic record indicates that monogamy increased within the last 5,000-10,000 years,[24] a period associated with the development of human agriculture, non-communal land ownership, and inheritance. Recent anthropological data suggest that the modern concept of life-long monogamy has been in place for only the last 1,000 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy Clearly as man had to spend time in the field doing agriculture, a loyal partner in whose exclusive sexual access you could trust and who would cooperate with you was useful, and as land inheritance became an issue, monogamy, family and property started to become issues. Indeed some say inheritance was crucial in the emergency of monogamy and marriage. Intrestingly researchers found that the Southern Han Chinese had a male bias (45% female, indicating that women were likely to reproduce with multiple men). This region is known for its lack of a concept of paternity and for a sense of female equality or superiority. This seems to be the way our own socities are going, allowing women to reproduce with multiple men, serial monogamy as was standard in China, leading to a sense of female equality or superiority. As for prostitution the earliest records of it are in Sumerian records dating to about 2400 BC. This was a temple brothel, so it raises the possibility that priests invented prostitution. "This kakum, or temple, was dedicated to the goddess Ishtar and was home to three classes of women. The first class of women was only permitted to perform sexual rituals in the temple: the second class had access to the grounds and catered to visitors; and the third and lowest class lived on the temple grounds. The third class was also free to find customers on the streets." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_prostitution Clearly a more believer friendly religious marketing than hellfire. Prostitution was also common in ancient Israel and is mentioned in the bible. By no means did it require money, women in Israel would accept a kid goat as standard payment. Striking however is the near total prevalence of prostitution in all societies, from China to the Aztecs, India, Japan, Africa, etc, only Muslims are a notable exception since Mohammed prohibited prositution. I