#roland bailey

[winterfieldfrontiers]

His range need to be study.

[jbaileyfansite]

JONATHAN BAILEY Attending in the court of Roland Garros French Open in Paris (June 11, 2023) | 📸: Stephane Cardinale

[the-hottest-band-tournament]

Round Two

Queen

Defeated opponents: Green Day

Formed in: 1970

Genres: rock, glam-rock, hard rock, pop-rock, pop, disco

Lineup: Freddie Mercury- vocals 

Brian May- guitar 

John Deacon- bass 

Roger Taylor- drums 

Albums from the 80s: 

The Game (1980)

Hot Space (1982)

Flash Gordon (1982, movie soundtrack)

The Works (1984)

A Kind Of Magic (1986)

The Miracle (1989)

Propaganda: “HAVE YOU SEEEEN THEMMMM???? these men never lost their looks as they aged. smoking hot 20 somethings to smoking hot 40 somethings. in their own words, "we was glam" and "we were all stunning". all four had impeccable style choices 99% of the time, from leather jackets and wraps to monochrome to undone blazers and ties to brightly coloured /everything/. Deacon changed his hair style every few years and even in just tshirts and booty shorts, never missed. Roger had a sleazy mullet and sunglasses for what felt like forever, hot Persian dad, did not miss. Brian forgot how to fully button shirts. bell bottoms. same hair for 50 years. no misses. even after Freddie got sick and started wearing makeup and had to grow a beard to cover up, MAN NEVER FUCKIN MISSED. he was beautiful to the day he died. and thats not even touching on the leather daddy look from the early 80s.king shit. we love wrinkles and laugh lines in this gd house. if they don't sweep I’m blowing this whole website up we was glam”

“a few years back i was obsessed with these guys and i would find it hard to not have a crush on all of them. in the 80s especially brian was GORGEOUS.. BEAUTIFUL”

Earth, Wind & Fire

Defeated opponents: Midnight Oil

Formed in: 1969

Genres: R&B, pop, funk, post-disco

Lineup: Maurice White - vocals, kalimba, drums, percussion

Verdine White – bass, backing vocals

Philip Bailey – lead vocals, conga, percussion, kalimba

Ralph Johnson – percussion, backing vocals, drums

Roland Bautista - lead/rhythm guitar, vocals

Larry Dunn - keyboards, synthesizers, minimoog

Andrew Woolfolk - flute, saxophone, percussion

Fred White - drums, percussion

Johnny Graham - lead/rhythm guitar, trumpet, percussion

Albums from the 80s:

Faces (1980)

Raise! (1981)

Powerlight (1983)

Electric Universe (1983)

Touch the World (1987)

The Best of Earth, Wind & Fire, vol. 2 (1988)

Propaganda:

Visual propaganda for Queen:

[eightratsinatrenchcoat]

Millennials are killing the “I hate my wife” industry

[hardfloor]

This is the timetable for the Techno Legends Floor

at MAYDAY 'united'

30. April | Dortmund / Germany

In total:

4 stages, more than 30 acts & 12 hours of pure energy

[unproduciblesmackdown]

hooray gilbert l. bailey ii summer stock (impromptu reunion) posting!!

Last summer, I ventured into the woods and made something new with this talented gang of gems. When I returned to the city, I realized that I hadn’t taken enough photos. So, at our impromptu reunion tonight, I made up for it by taking a bunch of selfies. My Summer Stock (a new musical comedy) Fam. What can I say? When I see you, I get happy! 🍒❤️🍒

[kdlavs]

Here's this precious bean living his teenage dream 🥹🫶🏼

Manifesting he visits Australia next yr to complete the Grand Slam Quartet ✨️🕯

[fandom]

Web Celebs

Minecraft streamers, Dropout stars, and D&D enthusiasts, all in one neat and tidy list.

Grian

GoodTimesWithScar

Hatsune Miku

Ryan Bergara

Shane Madej

Wilbur Soot

Brennan Lee Mulligan

Jerma

TommyInnit

Philza

Quackity

Solidarity Gaming

Crumb

EthosLab

Technoblade

TangoTek

PearlescentMoon

Ranboo

SmallishBeans

Mumbo Jumbo

Dreamwastaken

Slimecicle

Zombiecleo

BdoubleO100

Inthelittlewood

impulseSV

Tubbo

Smajor1995

Laura Bailey

Docm77

Markiplier

Marisha Ray

GeorgeNotFound

Lou Wilson

Cellbit

Amaury Guichon

BadBoyHalo

Joe Hills

GeminiTay

Skizzleman

Rendog

Maia Arson Crimew

Sam Reich

Ashley Johnson

Matthew Mercer

Jaiden Animations

Foolish Gamers

Aabria Iyengar

Zac Oyama

FalseSymmetry

Siobhan Thompson

Emily Axford 

Sam Riegel

Travis Willingham

B. Dylan Hollis

Sapnap

LDShadowLady

Alan Becker

Jacksepticeye

Brian Murphy

Taliesin Jaffe

Bigbst4tz2

Jenna Marbles

F1nn5ter

Daniel Howell

El Mariana

Thomas Sanders

Baghera Jones

AmazingPhil

Kagamine Rin

Wayneradiotv

Hbomberguy

Shubble

Tom Cardy

Sneegsnag

Isabella Roland

CrankGameplays

Chris Fleming

Niki Nihachu

TinaKitten

Aimsey

Steven Lim

Karl Jacobs

Eret

Brian David Gilbert

Jschlatt

Misstrixtin

Adrian Bliss

Jack Manifold

Awesamdude

Kagamine Len

SnapCube

Punz

Skweezy Jibbs

Megurine Luka

Aphmau

Julien Solomita

Rhett and Link

Colleen Ballinger

Bigolas Dickolas Wolfwood

This is a newly-combined list! Yay!

[bidoofenergy]

love returns like a boomerang

or: secret life clethubs, according to bdubs

to @ahautism for @mcytblrholidayexchange

I love you, it looks like rain - June Gehringer // Scheherazade - Richard Siken // Starvation - Maya Angelou // After the Threesome, They Both Take You Home - Sue Hyon Bae // Secret Life Episode 5 - GETTING INVOLVED! - Grian // I love you, it looks like rain - June Gehringer // Secret Life Episode 5 - GETTING INVOLVED! - Grian // Dylan Thomas // Solve for Desire - Caitlin Bailey // Personal Inventory: Fearless (Temporis Fila) - Kaveh Akbar // Roland Barthes: Love as a Language - aprosaicpintofpisces

[whencyclopedia]

The Civilian View of D-Day

The Normandy landings in France, which began on D-Day, 6 June 1944, involved the largest troop movement in history, but in this article, we focus on the view from civilians directly involved in that momentous day when the Allies sought to liberate Western Europe from occupation by Nazi Germany and end the Second World War (1939-45).

D-Day Preparations

As the Allies built up their troops and resources for D-Day in the south of England, to maintain secrecy and provide areas where training exercises for the landings could be conducted, some civilians were required to temporarily move from their homes and such buildings as churches were locked and surrounded by barbed wire. Betty Tab from Slapton in Devon remembers telling her mother of the rumours about this:

My sister heard the rumour in the shop when she went to get some groceries and she said to Mum that we were all going to have to move and of course Mum says, 'That's nonsense talking like that. Where we going to go?' And she says she heard in the shop. There was a meeting called then in the village hall and that confirmed that there was going to be an evacuation of the area for the American training.

My parents just couldn't believe it. I mean, Mum just said, 'Well, no, it's not going to happen because it can't. What are we going to do? Where are we going to go?' But it had to be so. So, of course, everybody had to get their thinking caps on and think, 'Well, where are we going to go?' If you couldn't get anything yourself the authorities would help but they did want you to try and get yourself fixed up, if possible, because, as you can imagine, there were hundreds trying to move. Thousands, I suppose, really. Quite an area it was.

(Bailey, 44)

Desmond O'Neill, an official cameraman for the British Army, describes his visit to a camp of troops readying themselves for the invasion:

I remember going to one unit, I think it was the South Lancashire Regiment, and taking some film of their final preparations for D-Day…they were laagered down near Roland's Castle in Hampshire, in woods there, and I went into the camp – the whole area was actually one huge camp. Very strict all the way round.

There was certainly a very excitable, tense atmosphere amongst those chaps. They'd been training presumably for a couple of years and they knew full well that they were going to be the spearhead troops and they knew therefore that there was a good chance of them getting shot. The atmosphere there was totally different to any other unit I'd ever been to. Discipline was strict but absolutely on a hairline. A very peculiar atmosphere. I know that the casualty figures had been given to them, the presumed casualty figures.

We photographed the chaps being instructed as to what was going to happen on the morning of D-Day, where they were going in and the rest. It was all mocked up. I didn't do very much filming apart from taking pictures of these chaps in the camp. They liked it. First of all they'd never seen a cameraman before. Secondly, it was a great divertissement. You know, 'The Mrs is going to see me back in Wigan,' all this kind of thing. I think it was a welcome diversion.

(Bailey, 66-7)

Continue reading...

[jbaileyfansite]

Jonathan Bailey attending the Roland Garros French Open in Paris (June 11, 2023) [x]

[towards-toramunda]

Let me dream for a moment:

A court of Fey and Flowers season two GMed by Aabria again staring Rashawn Nadine Scott, Jacob Wysocki, Abubakar Salim, Rekha Shankar, Erika Ishii, and Ally Beardsley

(Notable mentions for potential cast: Zac Oyama, Marisha Ray, Grant O’Brien, Anjali Bhimani, Izzy Roland, Siobhan Thomson, Laura Bailey, Ify Nwadiwe)

[winterfieldfrontiers]

Horizon An American Saga cast and characters

Kevin Costner as Hayes Ellison

Sienna Miller as Frances Kittredge

Sam Worthington as First Lt. Trent Gephardt

Giovanni Ribisi as Roland Bailey

Danny Huston as Colonel Houghton

Michael Rooker as Sgt. Major Riordan

Jena Malone as Ellen/Lucy

Michael Angarano as Walter Childs

Abbey Lee as Marigold

Jamie Campbell Bower as Caleb Sykes

Jon Beavers as Junior Sykes

Owen Crow Shoe as Pionsenay

Tatanka Means as Taklishim

Wasé Chief as Liluye

Luke Wilson as Matthew Van Weyden

Ella Hunt as Juliette Chesney

Tom Payne as Hugh Proctor

Will Patton as Owen Kittredge

Isabelle Fuhrman as Diamond Kittredge

Chapters 1  scheduled to be theatrically released in the United States on June 28, 2024.

[o-uncle-newt]

I read Possession by AS Byatt after people told me "if you liked Gaudy Night you'll like this" and WELL.

Warning- spoilers for both books abound below!

So it sounded great- as a lapsed academic (though not in the field of literature by any means) there's a part of me that loves reading about academia because it's full of such obsessive people, and this book seemed to be exactly that and so I was excited.

Then I read it, and on the one hand, my first thought was "all these people are dull as heck, the only sane modern-day one is Val, and at the end of the day the historical stuff is just two people having an affair, who cares." My second thought was "there's just enough stuff here that makes me think that maybe the author knows that all of this is stupid, like the fact that Val is obviously one of the few sane ones here." But the ending made me doubt even that. Essentially, and I say this even as that lapsed academic, the author could not convince me to care about the important things at stake here, and as a result couldn't get me to care about the people who only seemed to care about those things.

I didn't care about Ash and LaMotte- they came across as two people high on their own supply who had a tawdry affair. (And each of them is the less interesting person, as a person, than their official partner!) As a result of not caring about them, I couldn't POSSIBLY care about Roland, Maud, and the rest of their crew, because their only functions were to be possessed by, and weirdly possessive of, these two entirely unworthy individuals, whose in-universe historical and literary significance Byatt couldn't convince me of, and to use that possession as a mirror for their own very lame romance. Beyond that they're utterly uninteresting, and there isn't even meant to BE much beyond that so it's not that surprising.

Anyway, I didn't like this book much, but it still made me think a lot. And there's a way in which a certain kind of person might say "well if it made you think then that's surely a sign of some positive quality" and... maybe? I don't know. I didn't hate all of it, and some parts were interesting, and I do have a whole separate list of things about the book that bug me including a breakdown of some of the book's (perceived by me) themes that I particularly disliked lol. Perhaps I'll post it another time. So I guess you can say it spurred me to thought, but loads of things that I don't like do that, and the only positive thing that that draws from me is that they're not downright dull.

The thing is, after finishing the book I was immediately struck by that "if you like Gaudy Night..." element, because it has a situation that felt weirdly similar (if for totally different reasons)- a young scholar stealing a letter from a library/archive. The circumstances are different- in Gaudy Night, the scholar does it to hide its existence so as not to contradict his thesis, and in Possession, the scholar does it so as to explore the document further, though still secretly- but there are still some interesting parallels vis a vis class. Possession goes into the class thing more than Gaudy Night does, but neither book goes much into it- the scholar is lower-class and someone who has scraped their way to their position, and is encumbered by a female partner of lower social and academic standing, and in the end they are juxtaposed against scholars who come from an elevated class and who have more money and opportunity. In Gaudy Night, Arthur Robinson is judged by the likes of Lord Peter Wimsey and a college full of women who don't have to do anything but think, teach, write, and grade papers; in Possession, Roland has to convince a bunch of academics of standing and resources to take a chance on him (and while this is more about money than class, he's the main one who's like "maybe it's good if Lady Bailey gets her wheelchair"). Byatt elides over this at the end by having him magically become in demand and on his way to achieving his academic goals, but I think in both books, the class element really could have taken on more significance in the text.

(I'd add as well that Byatt pits the upper-class and moneyed Maud, who of course is doing things for "the right reasons," vs the evil American businessman who clearly... doesn't care about Ash enough? Despite how much he clearly and obviously cares about Ash? The book was way more interesting when he seemed like a valid rival to the British team, who only thought that they deserved the letters more because of their obsession, rather than how it turned out at the end where the American dude is an actual cartoon villain. What made him genuinely less worthy besides having money without class, and of course having the bad taste to be American? What makes one scholar's possession more justified? Sayers was never this unsubtle.)

So that made me think more about Possession vs Gaudy Night, and the thing is, there are actual living people in Gaudy Night! Say what you will about the unworldliness of the academics at Shrewsbury, but you get a very keen view of their personalities by the end, even as they are (by necessity given the rules of their world) subsumed by academia, or subsume themselves in it. And the people who do fall in love are REALLY in love, and you understand why...

And somehow a book from 1935 feels far more interrogative of the possession (or lack thereof) found in love and romance, and just about the place of women in academia and relationships overall, than one from the late 80s. In Gaudy Night, Harriet accepts Peter once she has determined that despite their power differential (brought on by class, money, history, and to a degree gender) he will not threaten her personhood, because he has proven himself to her. In Possession, Maud accepts Roland because she has the power (money, class, position, even height) and so Roland actually cannot threaten her- and yet still that final scene is about her being taken by him, basically to prove some kind of a point. In contrast, in Busman's Honeymoon, the euphemistic sex scenes are about Peter trying to please Harriet.

When I say it's to prove a point, I'm paraphrasing Byatt, incidentally- who said: "And in the case of Maud I had made it very inhibiting. She was a woman inhibited both by beauty (which actually isn't very good for very beautiful women because they feel it isn't really them people love) and she was also inhibited by Feminism, because she had all sorts of theories that perhaps she would be a more noble kind of woman if she was a lesbian. And so she was a bit stuck. And Roland was timid because I am naturally good at timid men. It's the kind of men I happen to like. He's a timid thinking man, so of course it took him the whole book." I mean... yikes, but also that explains a lot. Maud can only bring herself to be with a man who is weak/effeminate (?) enough to justify whatever weird psyche Byatt has imagined up for her, but still she needs to get over her inhibitions and under him because... reasons. I don't know.

(Height is also interesting here as a point of contrast- Byatt makes Maud taller than Roland to make a point about how on the one hand she retains the power but on the other hand there is now even more of her that has to surrender. Peter and Harriet are the same medium height and wear the same size gown.)

I think the thing that most stuns me is how regressive Possession feels when it comes to gender politics on relationships than Gaudy Night does. I'd need a whole other post to talk about this, but the theme of Possession seems to me to be "relationships that produce things (whether art or children) are worth more than ones that don't." Roland is better with Maud than with Val because Val is a second rate scholar who drags him down (while supporting him financially) and Ash is better with LaMotte than with Ellen because LaMotte didn't only inspire his writing (Ellen's contributions are described only in the negative "didn't impede"), she gave him the child that Ellen refused to. Incidentally, in both cases it's the man pursuing a relationship that will give HIM something... But, to paraphrase Peter in Busman's Honeymoon, one wouldn't want to regard relationships in that agricultural light. Gaudy Night is about how two people can produce great things without each other but choose to be with each other for their own, and each other's, happiness. They aren't each less apart, and as I noted in a prior post, they don't need to solve cases together or conjoin their work in order for their relationship to be worth something. It is worth it for them to be together because it encourages some kind of inner balance within them and between them, as people. They enjoy collaborating but that is by no means the basis of their love (and, incidentally, I think that a lot of, if not most, detective series romances fail this basic test of "would they have fallen in love if they were accountants who met on a dating app." Peter and Harriet definitely would have- would, say, Albert Campion and Amanda Fitton have? I do NOT think so).

And here's the thing- another reason why Byatt's quote above is so off-putting is that it makes it clear that not only in the text but on a meta level, the purpose of the relationships is to prove a Point. I found Roland and Maud to have zero chemistry, and honestly I was expecting them to get together 3/4 of the way through and split up at the end when it turned out they had nothing in common- it seemed like that kind of book. I was kind of stunned when they only got together at the end in an "it's meant to be" way because nothing about it seemed meant to be. They were stuck together by that one thing and they each apparently needed the relationship for some kind of self-actualization or historical rhyming or other. (Whatever I say about Ash and LaMotte... at least they seemed to like each other!)

Peter and Harriet... they get together because they love each other. Do they change over the course of Gaudy Night, and over the course of the other books they share together? Of course they do. But if it makes sense, I'll put it this way- Harriet doesn't accept Peter's proposal as proof that she got over her hangups, Harriet gets over her hangups so that she can accept Peter's proposal. Her hangups only matter because they were keeping her from this particular kind of happiness- she was a fully actualized person even with them. She is a person who does things for human reasons so that she can build a mutually happy life with the person she loves, not a little plot mannequin being moved around in order to tell the author's desired Message. People can say what they want about Gaudy Night and its flaws, but despite the intricacies of its construction, nobody can call the characters' actions and motivations anything but brutally human.

Whether within their universes or on a meta level, the books have SUCH different things to say about the value and nature of love, the place of and purpose of sex, the place of art and intellectual accomplishment in relationships, all of the above in the context of femininity… and I can't help but feel that each time, Gaudy Night wins the contest. It's possible I'm missing something major about Possession, and maybe sometime I'll post the rest of my notes about the things I disliked and people can tell me what I'm wrong about- but if nothing else it made me appreciate Gaudy Night even more, so for that I'm grateful.

[hardfloor]

Mayday 2024 Techno Legends Floor Line-Up (alphabetical)

[unproduciblesmackdown]

meanwhile Another Meal ft. still going "uh oh summer stock reunion!!!" over these two hanging out lol