ChromaticaGa performs "Bloody Mary" for festival

[DESTROY UR DISEASE 20,748]

alright I'm going to sleep, if this thing gets locked before I wake up I just want you to know that it was absolutely no pleasure clowning with y'all

[bxr 2,431]

16 minutes ago, DESTROY UR DISEASE said:

alright I'm going to sleep, if this thing gets locked before I wake up I just want you to know that it was absolutely no pleasure clowning with y'all

I hear you sleeping, is it because of pleasure or toil … ?

Dream in technicolor! 

[bxr 2,431]

23 hours ago, NUTELLA said:

For anyone wondering, the above songs ^ are NOT Bloody Mary (the live BTW version comes closest, but it is still just a muddied, water-down ATTEMPT at Bloody Mary)

Only the *studio version* is Bloody Mary

Case closed, death penalty for dissenters 👨🏻‍⚖️

Bloody Mary lives or dies on the clarity of / ability to hear two very specific elements (the bass guitar & LG's distorted background vocal)

22 hours ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

Live music music’s natural habitat, performance is where music comes alive etc etc.

But I do love how willing you are to die for an aggressively unpopular opinion. Good on ya. We all gotta die for something, ig!

7 hours ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

But I think the best way to frame it at the end of the day is that you see music like film and I see it more like theatre. You think the music is done once it’s recorded, I don’t. 

6 hours ago, gagacabana said:

Coming back to this because it's such an interesting way of putting art in the age of reproducibility. Maybe, also, it's like seeing through the lens of studio music as if it's a painting, and live music as if it's a photograph?

@bxr i'd love your inputs here 

Wait … I actually just caught up on the first comments  … so, it feels like it sort of falls into the general framework for biblical exegesis (“The Three Worlds of the Text”) … where NUTELLA takes the “of the text” approach (seeing the “text” (song) as a picture) , and Ladle takes the “in front of the text” approach (seeing the “text” (song) as a mirror) … but, again, this may or not be aligned … it just sort of felt synonymous in a way …

Spoiler

Not to get theological (again), but just take the framework for what it is … and Bloody Mary / BTW / Music as the “Bible” and the artist as the creator … and so on, and such forth …

In Brief
The world behind the text is a window. Through this window we look to the past, to the time of the author who produced the text, and to the time sometime earlier in which the text was set. The general approach is historical.

The world of the text (also known as the world within the text) is a picture. This picture shows us the text as it is and what it says now through its literary features. The general approach is literary.

The world in front of the text is a mirror. In this mirror the reader sees oneself within the text, and sees other readers, the believing Church over many years, challenged to respond to it now and into the future. The general approach is theological (‘faith seeking understanding’).

The window, picture and mirror are ways of seeing the one beautiful scene. All ‘three worlds’ overlap and interact with each other. Biblical interpretation is incomplete if one world is unduly emphasised to the neglect of the other two. We bring our questions to the Biblical text and it – the Word of God – in turn questions us.

 

[NUTELLA 28,211]

16 minutes ago, bxr said:

Wait … I actually just caught up on the first comments  … so, it feels like it sort of falls into the general framework for biblical exegesis (“The Three Worlds of the Text”) … where NUTELLA takes the “of the text” approach (seeing the “text” (song) as a picture) , and Ladle takes the “in front of the text” approach (seeing the “text” (song) as a mirror) … but, again, this may or not be aligned … it just sort of felt synonymous in a way …

  Reveal hidden contents

Not to get theological (again), but just take the framework for what it is … and Bloody Mary / BTW / Music as the “Bible” and the artist as the creator … and so on, and such forth …

In Brief
The world behind the text is a window. Through this window we look to the past, to the time of the author who produced the text, and to the time sometime earlier in which the text was set. The general approach is historical.

The world of the text (also known as the world within the text) is a picture. This picture shows us the text as it is and what it says now through its literary features. The general approach is literary.

The world in front of the text is a mirror. In this mirror the reader sees oneself within the text, and sees other readers, the believing Church over many years, challenged to respond to it now and into the future. The general approach is theological (‘faith seeking understanding’).

The window, picture and mirror are ways of seeing the one beautiful scene. All ‘three worlds’ overlap and interact with each other. Biblical interpretation is incomplete if one world is unduly emphasised to the neglect of the other two. We bring our questions to the Biblical text and it – the Word of God – in turn questions us.

 

Advil PM is kicking in hard, so this may sound dumb but all I know is that the Bloody Mary instrumental is a rare, freakish, precious creation. Does that qualify as appreciating is "as the text" ? biblically, I mean

 

The intentional, deliberate decisions made by LG&co (most importantly: the distorted vocal) make the song feel like a living, breathing, snarling animal.

I feel like any attempts to “remix” it or to perform it live (with or without added flourishes) only do it a disservice & strip it of what make it so unique & special. 

On 1/15/2026 at 7:52 PM, NUTELLA said:

The Distorted Vocal (37:05 - 37:44)

The devil could play THIS on a boombox...

& I would willingly follow her into hell

[bxr 2,431]

8 hours ago, NUTELLA said:

Advil PM is kicking in hard, so this may sound dumb but all I know is that the Bloody Mary instrumental is a rare, freakish, precious creation. Does that qualify as appreciating is "as the text" ? biblically, I mean

 

The intentional, deliberate decisions made by LG&co (most importantly: the distorted vocal) make the song feel like a living, breathing, snarling animal.

I feel like any attempts to “remix” it or to perform it live (with or without added flourishes) only do it a disservice & strip it of what make it so unique & special. 

The devil could play THIS on a boombox...

& I would willingly follow her into hell

In the most biblical sense … I actually kept feeling like you were in the “behind the text” window camp … your staunch defense and stalwart rigidity in regard to the Bloody Mary studio version‘s sole verity as canon, was like so spot-on with the tone of historical exegetes (in my experience) … but, then, when I revisited the three approaches for what they were on paper, I was like … you really do operate from within the song itself … and it really reflected a lot of what defines “Formal Analysis” which deals specifically with the form  of the text, first and foremost

[Look, NUT—breaks!]

So, I hadn‘t thought about it before, but it seems like as time progresses, the form of the text (song) itself naturally becomes that of an artifact, so to defend the veracity of the “form” of a studio recording, an exegete (one who practices exegesis, you) would naturally shift to a more historical analytical position, if only because of the logic of time … you‘re approaching the “form” of a song that was once a contemporary piece, but/and now is becoming a historical artifact, and so your position will begin to stand against emergent forms of that source material (if any of this makes any sense)

[Section Break Act II: Electric Boogaloo!]

Fundamentally though, you are operating “within the frame” of the song as a picture … when you reference the distorted vocals and the instrumentals (ex. The intentional, deliberate decisions made by LG&co (most importantly: the distorted vocal) make the song feel like a living, breathing, snarling animal. … I feel like any attempts to “remix” it or to perform it live (with or without added flourishes) only do it a disservice & strip it of what make it so unique & special.), you are definitely operating within the formal structure and canon characteristics of the text (song)—as it is—within the frame of that studio production, full-stop. Yes, you acknowledge there are derivations and reproductions, but/and, when it comes to interpreting the text (“Bloody Mary”)—if it didn‘t exist in the “frame“ of the studio “form” it doesn‘t exist in your plane of analysis … if any of this makes any sense?

[Callback the thrice—but, wait: even more break!]

But in the cultural sense … I don‘t know if this made any sense … but some of the characteristics of the approach might resonate from a cultural critique vantage … maybe, even if only operating from the position of the “genre” of the studio recording as canon “form” … but/and I would probably exercise some independent study/due diligence before you jump in the exegete ring with any theologians … as, in my experience, they weren‘t always the biggest fans of my interpretive style in the classroom  

Spoiler

Bit of a bullet-point touchpoint on “Formal” … just fwiw:

Formal analysis in exegesis is the section of an exegetical paper that examines how a biblical passage is structured, including its genre, literary form, and internal movement.  Unlike detailed analysis, which scrutinizes individual verses, formal analysis looks at the macro-structure to identify themes, repetitions, and the author’s organizational patterns. 

Key components of this process include:

Identifying Genre: Determining if the text is narrative, poetry, epistle, or parable to understand its structural conventions. 

Creating an Outline: Mapping the flow of thought to ensure every verse fits into the larger logical or narrative progression. 

Spotting Patterns: Looking for key words, chiasmus, inclusio, or parallelism that highlight the author’s emphasis. 

Assessing Movement: Analyzing how the text transitions between ideas, such as from conflict to resolution in a narrative or argument to application in an epistle. 

This analysis serves as a bridge between historical/literary context and detailed verse-by-verse commentary, ensuring the interpreter understands the text’s intended shape before diving into specific word meanings.

 

Edited yesterday at 12:36 PM by bxr

[NUTELLA 28,211]

1 hour ago, bxr said:

[Look, NUT—breaks!]

So, I hadn‘t thought about it before, but it seems like as time progresses, the form of the text (song) itself naturally becomes that of an artifact, so to defend the veracity of the “form” of a studio recording, an exegete (one who practices exegesis, you) would naturally shift to a more historical analytical position, if only because of the logic of time … you‘re approaching the “form” of a song that was once a contemporary piece, but/and now is becoming a historical artifact, and so your position will begin to stand against emergent forms of that source material (if any of this makes any sense)

[Section Break Act II: Electric Boogaloo!]

Fundamentally though, you are operating “within the frame” of the song as a picture … when you reference the distorted vocals and the instrumentals (ex. The intentional, deliberate decisions made by LG&co (most importantly: the distorted vocal) make the song feel like a living, breathing, snarling animal. … I feel like any attempts to “remix” it or to perform it live (with or without added flourishes) only do it a disservice & strip it of what make it so unique & special.), you are definitely operating within the formal structure and canon characteristics of the text (song)—as it is—within the frame of that studio production, full-stop. Yes, you acknowledge there are derivations and reproductions, but/and, when it comes to interpreting the text (“Bloody Mary”)—if it didn‘t exist in the “frame“ of the studio “form” it doesn‘t exist in your plane of analysis … if any of this makes any sense?

[Callback the thrice—but, wait: even more break!]

I must emphasize how helpful the breaks are; for me, they make the difference between glassy-eyed, mouth-breathing incomprehension..... & minimally-successful absorption.

Operating within formal structure, I arch my back, shake my ass & shimmy my shoulders to one of the greatest instrumentals of all time.

Amen

[BeyonkaAte 970]

@NUTELLA @Ladle Ghoulash you two should be paid for the entertainment value you bring to this forum

[DESTROY UR DISEASE 20,748]

oh, so miss Haroon 2.0 didn't discover this place yet, cool

[DESTROY UR DISEASE 20,748]

26 minutes ago, BeyonkaAte said:

@NUTELLA @Ladle Ghoulash you two should be paid for the entertainment value you bring to this forum

so you DO agree with Controversialgal's take that we should be getting paid for being here? 

[BeyonkaAte 970]

2 minutes ago, DESTROY UR DISEASE said:

so you DO agree with Controversialgal's take that we should be getting paid for being here? 

tbf in a way i do be getting paid to be on here (blog during work hours idjfcdjfhdshd)

but yah i mean considering all the ads and banners plastered all over this site, SOMEONE has to be getting paid 

[bxr 2,431]

1 hour ago, NUTELLA said:

I must emphasize how helpful the breaks are; for me, they make the difference between glassy-eyed, mouth-breathing incomprehension..... & minimally-successful absorption.

Operating within formal structure, I arch my back, shake my ass & shimmy my shoulders to one of the greatest instrumentals of all time.

Amen

Problem identified, solution realized—communication is key! Teamwork makes the dream work; bless up, lil‘ exegete starseeds 

[DESTROY UR DISEASE 20,748]

I'll dance, dance, dance

With my ass, ass, ass

Above my legs, legs, legs

[gagacabana 7,807]

15 hours ago, bxr said:

the reader is the very space in which are inscribed, without any being lost, all the citations a writing consists of; the unity of a text is not in its origin, it is in its destination; but this destination can no longer be personal: the reader is a man without history, without biography, without psychology; he is only that someone who holds gathered into a single field all the paths of which the text is constituted.

I think about the death of the author pretty often but I couldn't name it before: it's the birth of the reader what's really captivating for me. Thank you for bringing this up!

15 hours ago, bxr said:

the studio recording was the seed and then each subsequent live interpretation was like a branch or fruit stemming from this seminal source …

then it sort of pivoted to a genome, where the studio recording was this strand of DNA with its own source code, and then each replication or duplication and/or mutation still carried this primordial code / sequence, but in that, also sort of established its own character or identity, even if only because of the specific conditions of its emergence and existence (if any of that makes any sense … so like Bloody Mary … as it was on the BTW album, is the source … but even that source is the formal progeny of the studio sessions, which carried an identity only known to the performer, producers, etc. … then the prime source (studio recording) which is the formal canon and the “standard” as understood by the audience and artist

Wait this is also so very real. 

15 hours ago, bxr said:

Aboriginal Dreamtime, where past present and future all coexist in a perpetual present … and that, honestly, is how music feels at its radical core … a time and space void of twain where all iterations exist in the space of that source standard, and all iterations/interpretations are understood to be native to their own operative point of perspective or distinct orientation …

(EXACTLY THAT!!!!!!!)

15 hours ago, bxr said:

the studio recording sort of appeared as this sonic iteration of the film negative—there is the event that existed in its own reality, and this experience or moment was captured on film, that negative is the source code, but/and every reproduction is unique in its own distinct variation of that negative, and incorporates all of the nuanced intricacies of its own development process, and further, these various developments take on the identity of the audience to which they are presented in their own unique conditions … so even which audience share the experience of when/where/how they witnessed the developed work establishes a new identity in its own way … but again, the negative as the prime source is embedded across all representations/reproductions …

Another brilliant way of putting it, thank you!!!!

15 hours ago, bxr said:

Apologies on the verbose, and I have no idea if this was relevant at all to the topic at hand, but fwiw I thoroughly enjoyed venturing through the looking glass with you all!

  Hide contents

 

Girl, no need to apologize at all, ever. Thank god you're like this because I'm motivated to continue being like this and then we'll always be two intelligent bitchws telling each other "exactlyyyyyy" 

Muito obrigada, mana 

[bxr 2,431]

3 hours ago, gagacabana said:

I think about the death of the author pretty often but I couldn't name it before: it's the birth of the reader what's really captivating for me. Thank you for bringing this up!

Wait this is also so very real. 

(EXACTLY THAT!!!!!!!)

Another brilliant way of putting it, thank you!!!!

3 hours ago, gagacabana said:

Girl, no need to apologize at all, ever. Thank god you're like this because I'm motivated to continue being like this and then we'll always be two intelligent bitchws telling each other "exactlyyyyyy" 

“ … ‘til they fxxkin’ close the coffin—so that you can all be yourselves” 

 

Spoiler

[ ~ 33:31 ]

 

3 hours ago, gagacabana said:

Muito obrigada, mana 

Mana cósmica 

Spoiler

[Wombat 401]

no because the way @NUTELLA and @Ladle Ghoulash just HIJACKED @Starmie25’s thread needs to be studied
 

what kind of fvckery is this