Myself

I'm confused. What does any of this have to do with Anna Calvi?

Well, the most obvious interpretation is that it symbolized the desire the protagonist felt finally being unleashed. Since this coincides with the song's climax, the previously still painting coming to life in violent motion served as a visual representation of what she was feeling. If you're interested in seeing how other listeners interpreted the song, check out this thread on ACN: http://annacalvi.net/topic/180-desire/

Don't expect Frankie's to be anything like Anna's. Fair warning. Anna based her cover more on the Edith Piaf version, so if you're curious you could check that out as well. You're right in that Anna's cultural status remains a thing to be seen. I think she has all of the potential in the world though. That, Anna has in spades. I agree that the trappings of a performance can't make up for or diminish the substance of one. I think most of the time in pop music "artists" rely more on razzle dazzle than compelling music to carry a performance. I'm just glad you didn't think she needed to add backup dancers or something.

I've only recently discovered Siouxsie, but even with my limited exposure, I have to agree about the similarities. Interestingly, when an interviewer asked Anna about Siouxsie she said that she hadn't heard of her, so there's no direct influence. They did however have similar influences in Bowie et al, so that may explain the parallel development of their sound. I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about adding other stage elements to her production? Even with her more stripped down performance style, she's still electric in a live setting. All I can say is that if you liked her videos you'd be overwhelmed by a live show. Wow, "Conquest" is almost a direct ripoff of "Jezebel" (the original Frankie Laine version came out a year earlier). You must have a wide breadth of musical knowledge to be able to pull that song out at the drop of a dime. By the way, if you liked Anna's cover of "Jezebel" then you'll definitely want to take a listen to the B-Side of that single, an original song of hers, Moulinette. It has a similar style and tone while being more reflective in its emotion.

Epic is the right word. Her music is very emotionally charged, so I can understand why you wouldn't want to listen to her all the time. She doesn't exactly make for "easy listening." If you get a chance to check out more of her songs, let me know what you think.

If you want to hear the full unleashing of her voice then I'll highlight one of the videos I listed above: Her voice has incredible range and power, although she tends to use it sparingly for a more dramatic effect.

That's one of her defining characteristics. She has an integrity to her emotions and a purity to her approach that would let her reside comfortably in an Ayn Rand novel. I certainly agree with you there.

Hi Everyone, I haven't posted here in a long while, but I thought I'd get started again by sharing an extraordinary new artist I learned about. Her name is Anna Calvi and, well, I'm going to let her music and performances speak for themselves... These songs are from her debut album, Anna Calvi. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb9fAs1AfIM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qobdDWvV9cM These tracks are from her new album One Breath https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnhdFOHrix4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZug1q9ns0I I encourage anyone who's interested to listen to the entirety of both of her albums. You can start with the first one here : https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7FFCD79156FE813D I thought Anna Calvi might appeal to the Objectivist sense of esthetics due to the obvious passion, sophistication, and clarity of her music. I'm really interested in hearing your opinions about her. I'd also like to mention that if anyone is interested in discussing her music more in depth, I created a forum dedicated to her over at annacalvi.net -- we'd definitely welcome some more members there coming from an Objectivist perspective.

I didn't know the Wall Street Journal published self-confessions.

Is there something about the way the forum is currently moderated that you aren't happy with David? Are the current moderators and admins being relieved? It would be helpful if you gave us more information, so we, the forum members, can better assess your offer and what it entails.

Two possible explanations for your situation are: 1) You suffer from a Madonna-whore complex where you can only feel sexual attraction for women you don't love and rationalize this by saying that your girlfriend isn't beautiful enough. Have you ever loved a woman the way you love your girlfriend and found her sexually attractive at the same time? and/or 2) Sexual attraction for you is based purely on physical beauty without any contribution by her personality or mind. If you aren't aroused by what she says to you or who she is as a person, those are good signs you have this problem. Both of these conditions require a competent psychologist or therapist to help resolve.

Chat is broken for me too.

There seems to be some problem with the quote tagging feature, where what is quoted isn't highlighted or made obvious in any way. Right now if you look at a post there's no easy way to tell what or if a person is quoting anything and where his own reply starts. Fixing this would be appreciated. Edit: Huh, quoting seems work with new posts, but old posts are still broken. Any way to fix this?

As far as I can tell there's not one person involved in this adaptation that has any idea what they're doing (based on past credits). Also - a 5 million dollar budget?! And a five week shoot?! That isn't a low budget -- it's a NONEXISTENT budget. I have no doubt in my mind that this is going to go down in flames. There's not a chance in hell that a group of mediocrities can turn Atlas Shrugged in to three films in five weeks with no budget and have it end up being anything other than trash.

That brought a smile to my face. I enjoyed seeing how confident and articulate she was. The kids are alright.

This is the most offensive post I've read on these forums in a long time. Let me see if I've got this straight. Women are just dumb bitches who want to be treated like shit and will jump any guy with body hair? Oh and don't forget, bone fat chicks first for an easy practice lay? There's something seriously warped with your view of sexuality and females if you subscribe to this garbage.

That's Irwin Schiff's "How An Economy Grows and Why it Doesn't." You can download the pdf of it for free (do a google search). His son, Peter Schiff has just come out with a new expanded version that he rewrote with his brother Andrew. You can buy it here: "How An Economy Grows and Why it Crashes"

Who the hell is Stephen Polk? Are they seriously letting a rookie director, with no prior films to his credit, direct something of this magnitude? Just because his daddy was once the chair of MGM? What a great combination, nepotism and Ayn Rand. I'm sure this will turn out well.

This is the problem with trying to instruct the public on philosophy through a political campaign. The minute you say something that contradicts the status quo it will be twisted and smeared into emotional soundbites and appeals to tradition and authority. What's even worse though is Rand Paul's backtracking, it's making it look like he has something to hide, that he's ashamed of standing behind his own views. What a disaster...

Woody Allen never struck me as a fascist, so these remarks are surprising to say the least. I hope this was said tongue in cheek, because besides how scary it is if it wasn't, I'd like to think after watching so many of his movies that I'd be able to pick up on such a disgusting view of the world. Say what you want about him, but a mainstay in almost all of his work is an irreverant, playful dismantling of many societal and personal sacred cows. Whether he was serious or not, I was not happy to see this in the news today.

Does anyone know why Ayn Rand never included a section on poetry in the Romantic Manifesto? It always seemed like a glaring omission to me, seeing as how she apparently included every other form of art under the sun, from dancing to film making. Heck, she even included a section on music even though she admitted that she had no way to objectively judge it. I've read elsewhere (where I can't remember at the moment) that Rand essentially didn't know anything about poetry and never really read much of it, which leads me to think she therefore had nothing to say on the subject. Thoughts?

I'd like to make a serious suggestion to David and the other site admins to consider implementing SSL for site logins. As it currently stands, I use a throwaway password on this site because I know that if I login using a public wifi spot or computer terminal my password could be intercepted. However, I'm sure there are some users here who are less computer savvy who are cross-using passwords from email accounts, banking sites, Amazon, etc, which could be potentially risky. Anyway, I hope this thread serves both as a heads up to other forum members as well as the admin, because sniffing for passwords is becoming alarmingly easy to do -- the world has changed since this forum first started.

I just thought I'd share this interesting Newsweek article on the state of biomedical research and how it's being strangled by bureaucratic red tape: http://www.newsweek.com/id/238078 I have no real commentary to add except that it's a terrible human tragedy that lives are cut short or painfully impaired because power hungry politicians fear freedom too much to allow our best minds to flourish.

Obviously not enough people know or else Ahmadenijad would be dead or in prison. A journalist's job is to expose the truth and report it to the public. Nothing more and nothing less. If that can be accomplished by confronting a man like Ahmadinejad on national television then you do it. I think you'd be singing a different tune if Rose actually took the opportunity to hammer him on his laundry list of crimes to his face and people got to see what a lying murderous scumbag he is first hand.

I don't know who this "we" is that you're referring to. Journalists aren't required to morally evaluate the subject of their investigations. A journalist's job is to expose the truth using whatever means at his disposal. A proper interview with a man like Ahmadinejad can go a long way in revealing his character and actions to the public at large. Unfortunately, Rose did an incompetent job and allowed his subject to dominate the discussion and ended up giving him a bully pulpit instead of a witness chair. Obviously, it was a disaster.