Ladies & Gentlemen, It’s our pleasure to present to you ComputeHer’s latest musical opus, “Modemoiselle!” A sensational mix of exotic and electric sound tapestries with jubilant, throbbing rhythms. Each song adds to the canvas with the most dynamic and rich colours possible. Let go and indulge yourself in this aural world of pure lo-fi sensuality and mischief! But don’t take our word for it, have a peek for yourself…
1. Introducing Modemoiselle
2. SysOp
3. New York
4. Heart Beeps
5. Burlesque Show
6. Naughty Bits
7. Twilight Byte
8. Dark Pub
9. Sugar Cube
10. New York Demo
11. SysOp Demo
I love the artwork!
I am scandalized! :P
The heinous cover art is a disgrace to chip music. Shame on you, ComputeHer. I won’t even listen to this… her first album was trash anyway.
Either you are a heavy troll, or a close-minded idiot who cannot discern an artistic rendering from genuine smut. You maybe have introduced some articles to us in the past, but I can’t really justify posting a link to your blog on TCTD anymore based on your current censoring/bad mouthing/insane bullshit streak.
Hope you have better luck finding chipmusic that fits your world view elsewhere.
Thumbs up to Peter. The last few links to Feryl’s blog had me scratching my head and wondering if they were bad jokes.
I was guessing either that, or at least interesting points of discussion.
Wait.. this – this – is the “extremely inappropriate” “photograph”? Ahahahahahmmscuse me.
Alright, let me explain. The first time I saw the cover, I only looked at it for a split second, because there was a HUGE picture of it on ComputeHer’s site. Now I see that it’s not *as* inappropriate as I originally thought it was. Still disagreeable to me, but getting a better look at it now has slightly changed my opinion. I *did* see a huge picture of the cover on ComputeHer’s official site though, and that’s what ticked me off.
I refuse to change my censoring attitudes, however. Those are my princicples, and if you have problems with them, so be it.
You’re a flipping wussy, you know that right?
*Edited
This whole expressing opinion thing turned out to be far bigger and nastier than I could have originally expected. Sorry.
y0
I don’t really know you, but I have to say that you have been the highlight twice this week for sounding like one of them old church-addicted ladies that get offended when they realize there are things out in the world which their preacher didn’t tell them about, and thus it must be the work of the devil.
There is nothing wrong in having principles and upholding them; it’s all in the way you say it.
If you had said “I disagree with the use of nudity when I feel it’s for the sole purpose of hyping a product. I strongly believe society needs to outgrow the imprint of sexuality as a selling device (blablabla)” then, indeed, you are fighting for your cause and expressing your opinion.
Unfortunately, you sounded more like someone who gets HIGHLY offended by seeing the artistic rendition of a 50?s pinup’s nippleless’ side boob, even willing to disregard the artist’s entire musical effort because you cannot appreciate beauty.
While I am not a prude person (at all) and would as well go out naked, I can understand that not everyone is the same. You seem, however, a bit too sensitive and this cannot be good for you (my opinion). You qualified it of being heinous… the only hatred I felt was your own.
Go visit a museum some day, you’ll see we’ve been drawing chicks naked since forever.
Why? Because women are amazingly beautiful. I would ask for you not to let your repulsion interfere with what is only natural for the rest of us.
oh, also, your explanation only manages to make me believe that you got SO offended by seeing a woman that you closed the window before you even got time to see anything at all. Seriously, what drove you there?
I agree with Feryl, WON’T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN?
“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before you. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world.”
Jn 15:18-19
“Then the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of the earth. “Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him that we may preserve our family through our father.” So they made their father drink wine that night, and the firstborn went in and lay with her father; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. On the following day, the firstborn said to the younger, “Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father.” So they made their father drink wine that night also, and the younger arose and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.” Gen. 19:31-35
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
The road of the outspoken is a long and rocky one.
How can an innocuous album cover generate so many comments? One immature individual found it offensive. So what? 10% of the populace believe that Elvis is alive and well on Mars. Are their opinions worthy of comment? Hardly not. I happened to like the art work, but I buy albums for the music. If I like the album cover it is a bonus. Focus on the music.