Noisecontrollers - Feel it (2007 remix)
Roughstylers - Don't tell anybody
Kasparov - Magic en Kasparov - Intrusion
Roughstylers - Don't tell anybody
Kasparov - Magic en Kasparov - Intrusion
Uitspraak van DarkElement op maandag 1 oktober 2007 om 17:24:Venom... juist...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBPELDVEmGg
Vette shizzle 
Uitspraak van DarkElement op maandag 1 oktober 2007 om 18:44:Vette shizzle
ik zou daar egt meteen al losgaan
Uitspraak van DeesjuhDat is Venom nietJoey op dinsdag 2 oktober 2007 om 13:48:
Welke dan wel?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQl8ZbLINVI
Deze
Deze
laatste aanpassing
venom is wel cool jah ,
toen ik voor eerst hoorde op you tube dacht ik .... mhoah mhoah, maar nu vind ik em wel gaaf.
toen ik voor eerst hoorde op you tube dacht ik .... mhoah mhoah, maar nu vind ik em wel gaaf.
Snap nou nog niet wat welke track is iop youtube want zelf geven ze er geen antwoord op 
Op dit moment voor mij: SMD - All for the thrill
Against all odds, nog elke dag tettert hij door mijn speakers
Uitspraak van DarkElement op zondag 21 oktober 2007 om 20:15:Against all odds, nog elke dag tettert hij door mijn speakers
sam here,krijg er niet genoeg van
Laten we met z'n alle tevergeefs gaan bidden dat Just like you ooit in goede kwaliteit verkrijgbaar word...
*amen*.
Ik vind Rushroom super!
Ik vind Rushroom super!
Beide zijn weer super platen, maar die ruwheid van rushroom. heeeerlijk!
Venom
2 tegen 1 
Toch blijf ik bij mijn standpunt
Toch blijf ik bij mijn standpunt
Rushroom 
The Babson Task vind ik heel goed gedaan, het koor wat hij in die track heeft gebruikt is briljant en dat samen met de melodieën, de bass en de kicks zit het heel goed in elkaar. The Babson Task staat op de aankomende solo release van Kasparov op Megarave.
Kasparov - The Babson task eindelijk uit
samples?
[MRV103] Kasparov - The Babson task
SIDE A
1. Kasparov - The Babson task
2. Kasparov - Brainproblem
SIDE B
1. Kasparov - Lobster logic
2. Kasparov - Killing fields
Previews: http://shop.rige.net/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=724&products_id=12102
SIDE A
1. Kasparov - The Babson task
2. Kasparov - Brainproblem
SIDE B
1. Kasparov - Lobster logic
2. Kasparov - Killing fields
Previews: http://shop.rige.net/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=724&products_id=12102
Ik blijf bij Wanna Freak You voor beste track.
Voordat ik deze vergeet: Roughstyler - Don't Tell Anybody
Uitspraak van Pithune/Mass Vibrant op dinsdag 13 november 2007 om 19:13:'t zou zo een noisecontrollers track kunnen zijn, met wat downpitch *hint hint*
Ik luister trouwens steeds meer naar je plaat Witchbells, die is zo vet.. maar wat zeggen ze eigenlijk in die track (+ dat hysterische gekreis: oh my god he is dead ofzo )???
)???
Oef moeilijk want alles wat die gasten maken is goed!
Aliens
Gaia
Reinforce
Valt me btw dat (bijna) bij elke track er op ong. 2 minuten een dikke break in het nummer komt. Opvallend
Greetz
Aliens
Gaia
Reinforce
Valt me btw dat (bijna) bij elke track er op ong. 2 minuten een dikke break in het nummer komt. Opvallend
Greetz
Kasparov - Speaker & We Will Dominate
Uitspraak van DarkElement op donderdag 15 november 2007 om 17:03:Ik luister trouwens steeds meer naar je plaat Witchbells, die is zo vet.. maar wat zeggen ze eigenlijk in die track (+ dat hysterische gekreis: oh my god he is dead ofzo )???
Volgens mij echt 2 jaar niet meer gehoord die track. Ik ga hem gelijk opzetten. Vocals zijn volgens mij uit blair witch project/
Welke film of boek/gedicht komem de vocals van Faces want klinkt als een soort bijbelverhaal
Uitspraak van verwijderd op maandag 19 november 2007 om 21:49:Vocals zijn volgens mij uit blair witch
Weet je niet eens waar je je eigen vocals vandaan hebt?
Uitspraak van Pithune/Mass Vibrant op woensdag 21 november 2007 om 16:02:arrangement heet zoiets
klopt
Crump geen twijfel mogelijk
Idd, ik heb ook al een paar keer die tekst geluisterd maar kan er niks uithalen
Tekst is geweldig vind ikéén van de beste van hun in een nummer
Uitspraak van DeesjuhWeet je ook wat er gezegt word dan?
had alle teksten eerder op mijn profiel staan
Uitspraak van Deesjuhjammer dat je ze niet opgeslagen heb.. dan had je het geweten
maanden de teksten erop laten staan duzz je hebt het vast wel keer gezien
THE IMP OF THE PERVERSE -
IN THE consideration of the faculties and impulses- of the prima mobilia of the human soul, the phrenologists have failed to make room for a propensity which, although obviously existing as a radical, primitive, irreducible sentiment, has been equally overlooked by all the moralists who have preceded them. In the pure arrogance of the reason, we have all overlooked it. We have suffered its existence to escape our senses, solely through want of belief- of faith;- whether it be faith in Revelation, or faith in the Kabbala. The idea of it has never occurred to us, simply because of its supererogation. We saw no need of the impulse- for the propensity. We could not perceive its necessity. We could not understand, that is to say, we could not have understood, had the notion of this primum mobile ever obtruded itself;- we could not have understood in what manner it might be made to further the objects of humanity, either temporal or eternal. It cannot be denied that phrenology and, in great measure, all metaphysicianism have been concocted a priori. The intellectual or logical man, rather than the understanding or observant man, set himself to imagine designs- to dictate purposes to God. Having thus fathomed, to his satisfaction, the intentions of Jehovah, out of these intentions he built his innumerable systems of mind. In the matter of phrenology, for example, we first determined, naturally enough, that it was the design of the Deity that man should eat. We then assigned to man an organ of alimentiveness, and this organ is the scourge with which the Deity compels man, will-I nill-I, into eating. Secondly, having settled it to be God's will that man should continue his species, we discovered an organ of amativeness, forthwith. And so with combativeness, with ideality, with causality, with constructiveness,- so, in short, with every organ, whether representing a propensity, a moral sentiment, or a faculty of the pure intellect. And in these arrangements of the Principia of human action, the Spurzheimites, whether right or wrong, in part, or upon the whole, have but followed, in principle, the footsteps of their predecessors: deducing and establishing every thing from the preconceived destiny of man, and upon the ground of the objects of his Creator.
It would have been wiser, it would have been safer, to classify (if classify we must) upon the basis of what man usually or occasionally did, and was always occasionally doing, rather than upon the basis of what we took it for granted the Deity intended him to do. If we cannot comprehend God in his visible works, how then in his inconceivable thoughts, that call the works into being? If we cannot understand him in his objective creatures, how then in his substantive moods and phases of creation?
Induction, a posteriori, would have brought phrenology to admit, as an innate and primitive principle of human action, a paradoxical something, which we may call perverseness, for want of a more characteristic term. In the sense I intend, it is, in fact, a mobile without motive, a motive not motivirt. Through its promptings we act without comprehensible object; or, if this shall be understood as a contradiction in terms, we may so far modify the proposition as to say, that through its promptings we act, for the reason that we should not. In theory, no reason can be more unreasonable, but, in fact, there is none more strong. With certain minds, under certain conditions, it becomes absolutely irresistible. I am not more certain that I breathe, than that the assurance of the wrong or error of any action is often the one unconquerable force which impels us, and alone impels us to its prosecution. Nor will this overwhelming tendency to do wrong for the wrong's sake, admit of analysis, or resolution into ulterior elements. It is a radical, a primitive impulse-elementary. It will be said, I am aware, that when we persist in acts because we feel we should not persist in them, our conduct is but a modification of that which ordinarily springs from the combativeness of phrenology. But a glance will show the fallacy of this idea. The phrenological combativeness has for its essence, the necessity of self-defence. It is our safeguard against injury. Its principle regards our well-being; and thus the desire to be well is excited simultaneously with its development. It follows, that the desire to be well must be excited simultaneously with any principle which shall be merely a modification of combativeness, but in the case of that something which I term perverseness, the desire to be well is not only not aroused, but a strongly antagonistical sentiment exists.
An appeal to one's own heart is, after all, the best reply to the sophistry just noticed. No one who trustingly consults and thoroughly questions his own soul, will be disposed to deny the entire radicalness of the propensity in question. It is not more incomprehensible than distinctive. There lives no man who at some period has not been tormented, for example, by an earnest desire to tantalize a listener by circumlocution. The speaker is aware that he displeases; he has every intention to please, he is usually curt, precise, and clear, the most laconic and luminous language is struggling for utterance upon his tongue, it is only with difficulty that he restrains himself from giving it flow; he dreads and deprecates the anger of him whom he addresses; yet, the thought strikes him, that by certain involutions and parentheses this anger may be engendered. That single thought is enough. The impulse increases to a wish, the wish to a desire, the desire to an uncontrollable longing, and the longing (to the deep regret and mortification of the speaker, and in defiance of all consequences) is indulged.
We have a task before us which must be speedily performed. We know that it will be ruinous to make delay. The most important crisis of our life calls, trumpet-tongued, for immediate energy and action. We glow, we are consumed with eagerness to commence the work, with the anticipation of whose glorious result our whole souls are on fire. It must, it shall be undertaken to-day, and yet we put it off until to-morrow, and why? There is no answer, except that we feel perverse, using the word with no comprehension of the principle. To-morrow arrives, and with it a more impatient anxiety to do our duty, but with this very increase of anxiety arrives, also, a
IN THE consideration of the faculties and impulses- of the prima mobilia of the human soul, the phrenologists have failed to make room for a propensity which, although obviously existing as a radical, primitive, irreducible sentiment, has been equally overlooked by all the moralists who have preceded them. In the pure arrogance of the reason, we have all overlooked it. We have suffered its existence to escape our senses, solely through want of belief- of faith;- whether it be faith in Revelation, or faith in the Kabbala. The idea of it has never occurred to us, simply because of its supererogation. We saw no need of the impulse- for the propensity. We could not perceive its necessity. We could not understand, that is to say, we could not have understood, had the notion of this primum mobile ever obtruded itself;- we could not have understood in what manner it might be made to further the objects of humanity, either temporal or eternal. It cannot be denied that phrenology and, in great measure, all metaphysicianism have been concocted a priori. The intellectual or logical man, rather than the understanding or observant man, set himself to imagine designs- to dictate purposes to God. Having thus fathomed, to his satisfaction, the intentions of Jehovah, out of these intentions he built his innumerable systems of mind. In the matter of phrenology, for example, we first determined, naturally enough, that it was the design of the Deity that man should eat. We then assigned to man an organ of alimentiveness, and this organ is the scourge with which the Deity compels man, will-I nill-I, into eating. Secondly, having settled it to be God's will that man should continue his species, we discovered an organ of amativeness, forthwith. And so with combativeness, with ideality, with causality, with constructiveness,- so, in short, with every organ, whether representing a propensity, a moral sentiment, or a faculty of the pure intellect. And in these arrangements of the Principia of human action, the Spurzheimites, whether right or wrong, in part, or upon the whole, have but followed, in principle, the footsteps of their predecessors: deducing and establishing every thing from the preconceived destiny of man, and upon the ground of the objects of his Creator.
It would have been wiser, it would have been safer, to classify (if classify we must) upon the basis of what man usually or occasionally did, and was always occasionally doing, rather than upon the basis of what we took it for granted the Deity intended him to do. If we cannot comprehend God in his visible works, how then in his inconceivable thoughts, that call the works into being? If we cannot understand him in his objective creatures, how then in his substantive moods and phases of creation?
Induction, a posteriori, would have brought phrenology to admit, as an innate and primitive principle of human action, a paradoxical something, which we may call perverseness, for want of a more characteristic term. In the sense I intend, it is, in fact, a mobile without motive, a motive not motivirt. Through its promptings we act without comprehensible object; or, if this shall be understood as a contradiction in terms, we may so far modify the proposition as to say, that through its promptings we act, for the reason that we should not. In theory, no reason can be more unreasonable, but, in fact, there is none more strong. With certain minds, under certain conditions, it becomes absolutely irresistible. I am not more certain that I breathe, than that the assurance of the wrong or error of any action is often the one unconquerable force which impels us, and alone impels us to its prosecution. Nor will this overwhelming tendency to do wrong for the wrong's sake, admit of analysis, or resolution into ulterior elements. It is a radical, a primitive impulse-elementary. It will be said, I am aware, that when we persist in acts because we feel we should not persist in them, our conduct is but a modification of that which ordinarily springs from the combativeness of phrenology. But a glance will show the fallacy of this idea. The phrenological combativeness has for its essence, the necessity of self-defence. It is our safeguard against injury. Its principle regards our well-being; and thus the desire to be well is excited simultaneously with its development. It follows, that the desire to be well must be excited simultaneously with any principle which shall be merely a modification of combativeness, but in the case of that something which I term perverseness, the desire to be well is not only not aroused, but a strongly antagonistical sentiment exists.
An appeal to one's own heart is, after all, the best reply to the sophistry just noticed. No one who trustingly consults and thoroughly questions his own soul, will be disposed to deny the entire radicalness of the propensity in question. It is not more incomprehensible than distinctive. There lives no man who at some period has not been tormented, for example, by an earnest desire to tantalize a listener by circumlocution. The speaker is aware that he displeases; he has every intention to please, he is usually curt, precise, and clear, the most laconic and luminous language is struggling for utterance upon his tongue, it is only with difficulty that he restrains himself from giving it flow; he dreads and deprecates the anger of him whom he addresses; yet, the thought strikes him, that by certain involutions and parentheses this anger may be engendered. That single thought is enough. The impulse increases to a wish, the wish to a desire, the desire to an uncontrollable longing, and the longing (to the deep regret and mortification of the speaker, and in defiance of all consequences) is indulged.
We have a task before us which must be speedily performed. We know that it will be ruinous to make delay. The most important crisis of our life calls, trumpet-tongued, for immediate energy and action. We glow, we are consumed with eagerness to commence the work, with the anticipation of whose glorious result our whole souls are on fire. It must, it shall be undertaken to-day, and yet we put it off until to-morrow, and why? There is no answer, except that we feel perverse, using the word with no comprehension of the principle. To-morrow arrives, and with it a more impatient anxiety to do our duty, but with this very increase of anxiety arrives, also, a