Wow, has it already been two years since the last Starflyer 59 album (2008’s Dial M)?! One of indie rock’s most dependable-yet-overlooked acts returns with their twelfth full-length, The Changing of the Guard, which will be released by Tooth & Nail Records on August 10.

Tooth & Nail has already posted a song from album: entitled “Trucker’s Son”, it’s yet another solid yet unassuming slice of songcraft from Jason Martin. Martin’s voice just keeps getting better with time (I was listening to Americana before I posted this, and I’m glad he’s moved way beyond those breathy stylings). Musically, it’s a subtler, more mature take on the surf and classic pop influences that have been part of Starflyer 59’s aesthetic since day one. But subtlety and maturity shouldn’t be too surprising, seeing as how Martin’s been at this now for sixteen years.

(Forgive the random emphasis, but I’m always blown away when I consider how long I’ve been listening to this band. It seems like only yesterday when I bought Silver on cassette based on a review I read in CCM Magazine. It was the summer after I’d graduated from high school, and I’m surprised the cassette lasted to autumn, considering how much time it spent in my tape player.)

Earlier this year, Mark Van Hoen tweeted that he had heard some new Seefeel material, calling it “inspiring, amazing and worth waiting for.” And now, Warp Records has released the title track from Seefeel’s upcoming Faults EP, which will be released September 20. You can read all of the details, including information about their September 16 concert at London’s ICA, here.

As for the track itself, it’s one of the most abstract, kaleidoscopic songs the band has recorded, ever: Sarah Peacock’s abstracted vocals drift lazily over a shifting bed of clicks, beats, and booms while swells of guitar noise and electronic glitchery filter in and threaten to overwhelm everything else. Those expecting the more song-oriented structures of Quique may be a little disappointed, though “Faults” is a logical progression from that album’s dreamy soundscapes. Listen for yourself below.

Via Mark Van Hoen and The Independent

Earlier this year, Projekt released the “wood box” edition of girl. echo. suns. veils., a two-disc collection of rarities, b-sides, and unreleased tracks that came in lovely hand-crafted wooden box packaging. But, seeing as how it was a limited edition release, a number of fans and collectors missed out on owning this little slice of blissed out esoterica. Which is why Projekt is now offering the “burlap” edition of girl. echo. suns. veils., or as they put it, a “limited edition of the standard edition.”

Many of you missed out on a chance to purchase the wood box edition of girl. echo. suns. veils. But fret not! Scott Cortez has returned to Brooklyn to create 200 pieces of the ultra-limited “burlap” edition of the standard edition.

Here’s what you get: the girl. echo. suns. veils. CD in a kraft-paper digipak signed and hand-numbered by Scott (see below). An 8-page booklet printed on really nice 80# Cougar matte stock is included in the digipak pocket. All of this is in a clear bag inside a burlap bag that Scott spray-painted in our warehouse during a heatwave (in your choice of paint colors: burgundy or metallic silver). Each bag is different; no two are alike! Also in the bag are multicolored origami birds, feathers, and a download code for the companion album AVIATRIX, a reprocessed version of Avianium (the bonus album in the wood box edition.)

And if you miss out on this edition of girl. echo. suns. veils., Projekt will be releasing the “standard” edition—which consists of just the album in normal packaging—on August 10 2010.

You can also purchase girl. echo. suns. veils. from iTunes (or, view all of lovesliescrushing’s albums in iTunes).

Earlier this month, I came across Jennifer Senior’s article “All Joy and No Fun: Why parents hate parenting” and it’s been weighing on my mind ever since. The article is fascinating throughout, so much so that I scarcely know where to start—really, you should read the entire article—but I’ve included a few choice excerpts (emphasis mine).

On the general trends and issues:

From the perspective of the species, it’s perfectly unmysterious why people have children. From the perspective of the individual, however, it’s more of a mystery than one might think. Most people assume that having children will make them happier. Yet a wide variety of academic research shows that parents are not happier than their childless peers, and in many cases are less so. This finding is surprisingly consistent, showing up across a range of disciplines. Perhaps the most oft-cited datum comes from a 2004 study by Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel Prize-winning behavioral economist, who surveyed 909 working Texas women and found that child care ranked sixteenth in pleasurability out of nineteen activities. (Among the endeavors they preferred: preparing food, watching TV, exercising, talking on the phone, napping, shopping, housework.) This result also shows up regularly in relationship research, with children invariably reducing marital satisfaction. The economist Andrew Oswald, who’s compared tens of thousands of Britons with children to those without, is at least inclined to view his data in a more positive light: “The broad message is not that children make you less happy; it’s just that children don’t make you more happy.” That is, he tells me, unless you have more than one. “Then the studies show a more negative impact.” As a rule, most studies show that mothers are less happy than fathers, that single parents are less happy still, that babies and toddlers are the hardest, and that each successive child produces diminishing returns. But some of the studies are grimmer than others. Robin Simon, a sociologist at Wake Forest University, says parents are more depressed than nonparents no matter what their circumstances—whether they’re single or married, whether they have one child or four.

[...]

So what, precisely, is going on here? Why is this finding duplicated over and over again despite the fact that most parents believe it to be wrong?

One answer could simply be that parents are deluded, in the grip of some false consciousness that’s good for mankind but not for men and women in particular. Gilbert, a proud father and grandfather, would argue as much. He’s made a name for himself showing that we humans are pretty sorry predictors of what will make us happy, and to his mind, the yearning for children, the literal mother of all aspirations for so many, is a very good case in point—what children really do, he suspects, is offer moments of transcendence, not an overall improvement in well-being.

Perhaps. But there are less fatalistic explanations, too. And high among them is the possibility that parents don’t much enjoy parenting because the experience of raising children has fundamentally changed.

On society’s changing view of children:

Before urbanization, children were viewed as economic assets to their parents. If you had a farm, they toiled alongside you to maintain its upkeep; if you had a family business, the kids helped mind the store. But all of this dramatically changed with the moral and technological revolutions of modernity. As we gained in prosperity, childhood came increasingly to be viewed as a protected, privileged time, and once college degrees became essential to getting ahead, children became not only a great expense but subjects to be sculpted, stimulated, instructed, groomed. (The Princeton sociologist Viviana Zelizer describes this transformation of a child’s value in five ruthless words: “Economically worthless but emotionally priceless.”) Kids, in short, went from being our staffs to being our bosses.

On the potential downfalls of waiting to have children:

It wouldn’t be a particularly bold inference to say that the longer we put off having kids, the greater our expectations. “There’s all this buildup—as soon as I get this done, I’m going to have a baby, and it’s going to be a great reward!” says Ada Calhoun, the author of Instinctive Parenting and founding editor-in-chief of Babble, the online parenting site. “And then you’re like, ‘Wait, this is my reward? This nineteen-year grind?’”

When people wait to have children, they’re also bringing different sensibilities to the enterprise. They’ve spent their adult lives as professionals, believing there’s a right way and a wrong way of doing things; now they’re applying the same logic to the family-expansion business, and they’re surrounded by a marketplace that only affirms and reinforces this idea.

On the potential benefits of stronger welfare systems for parents:

One hates to invoke Scandinavia in stories about child-rearing, but it can’t be an accident that the one superbly designed study that said, unambiguously, that having kids makes you happier was done with Danish subjects. The researcher, Hans-Peter Kohler, a sociology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, says he originally studied this question because he was intrigued by the declining fertility rates in Europe. One of the things he noticed is that countries with stronger welfare systems produce more children—and happier parents.

Of course, this should not be a surprise. If you are no longer fretting about spending too little time with your children after they’re born (because you have a year of paid maternity leave), if you’re no longer anxious about finding affordable child care once you go back to work (because the state subsidizes it), if you’re no longer wondering how to pay for your children’s education and health care (because they’re free)—well, it stands to reason that your own mental health would improve.

On the brutal reality of children:

This is the brutal reality about children—they’re such powerful stressors that small perforations in relationships can turn into deep fault lines.

[...]

This is another brutal reality about children: They expose the gulf between our fantasies about family and its spikier realities. They also mean parting with an old way of life, one with more freewheeling rhythms and richer opportunities for romance.

On the necessity of having a proper definition of “happiness”:

...for many of us, purpose is happiness—particularly those of us who find moment-to-moment happiness a bit elusive to begin with. Martin Seligman, the positive-psychology pioneer who is, famously, not a natural optimist, has always taken the view that happiness is best defined in the ancient Greek sense: leading a productive, purposeful life. And the way we take stock of that life, in the end, isn’t by how much fun we had, but what we did with it.

To say that parenting is difficult would be to make one of the greatest understatements possible. It’s a Herculean task, and at times, you simply find yourself unable to think of how you’re going to survive another hour, much less make it to the end of the day. It’s amazing—and sometimes disturbing—just how much children can wreck your life, or rather, wreck a particular version of your life. I’ve said this before, but from a certain perspective, having children is one of the dumbest decisions you can make, particularly if you value your autonomy (not to mention your financial security, personal time, and relationships with your peers).

But, from another perspective, having children is one of the greatest things you can ever do with your life. True, you’re helping to sustain the human race, but on a slightly more personal level, you are bringing new life into this world and playing an absolutely critical role in its creation and development. Children are a blessing, and it’s a blessing that absolutely annihilates many of our modern ideas (and idols) of happiness and joy. Which, again, seems like a rather obvious thing to say—but something that needs to be said nevertheless.

Or, as Albert Mohler (whose blog introduced me to Senior’s article) puts it:

Christians must see children as gifts from God, not as projects. We should see marriage and parenthood as a stewardship and privilege, not as a mere lifestyle choice. We must resist the cultural seductions and raise children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and understand family life as a crucible for holiness, not an experiment in happiness.

And when it comes to happiness, we must aim for something higher. Christians are called to joy and satisfaction in Christ, and to find joy in the duties and privileges of this earthly life. Every parent will know moments of honest unhappiness, but the Christian parent settles for nothing less than joy.

I’ll close with these thoughts: I know several people who have emphatically stated that they will never have children, for all sorts of reasons. And up until just a few years ago, I felt much the same way—again, for all sorts of reasons. But now that I have children of my own, I realize that while part of me is certainly envious of the freedom that my child-less friends have, there’s a deeper part that’s not envious at all. When I think of the totality of having children—the good, the bad, and the ugly—I’m glad I made the choice. I’m content with it. I wouldn’t miss this for anything.

Several years ago, I attended a family reunion where nearly all of my mother’s family got together for the first time in God knows how long. My grandfather—a wonderful, Godly man—expressed his gratitude at seeing his children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren gathered together in one room. At that moment, I saw—perhaps for the first time in my life—the beauty of having a legacy, of having surrendered yourself to something bigger, something that transcends your own lifetime and even echoes on into eternity.

I think that was the moment when my usual objections to parenting began to wither away. I didn’t think children would make me happy or make my life more pleasant (plenty of stories of trials and hardships had disabused me of those notions). Rather, I was captivated, if you will, by the thought of sitting in a room when I’m in my eighties and being surrounded by my children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren—a rich legacy in which I, in God’s sovereignty, had been allowed to play a role.

It’s a thought that gets me through even the roughest days and nights of pooping, vomiting, kicking, screaming, and mysterious skin conditions.

I’ll be posting my review of Keith Canisius’ Openness Is Dreaminess & Everything In Between EP in the very near future. In the meantime, listen to “People’s Faces”, the first track from his third full-length, This Time It’s Our High (9/6/2010, Darla).

It’s a really lovely track, one that hearkens back to the joyful shoegazer pop of his earlier efforts while steadily moving forward towards something more unique and ambitious. Or, to put it a bit more pithily, it’s the best Mew/Manual collaboration that never was, and it puts a smile on my face and a spring in my step when those celestial synth tones come out swinging around the 2:30 mark.

Keith Canisius photo by Allan Nicolaisen.

Earlier this year, it came out that Nickelodeon was looking for artists to work on a new, untitled Avatar: The Last Airbender project. Well, now it’s official: Nickelodeon has announced that they are moving forward with a sequel to the critically acclaimed cartoon series. Tentatively titled The Legend of Korra, the sequel will be done by Michael DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko (the original series’ creators) and is scheduled to premiere on Nickelodeon in 2011.

Here’s a brief plot synopsis:

The Legend of Korra takes place 70 years after the events of Avatar: The Last Airbender and follows the adventures of the Avatar after Aang—a passionate, rebellious, and fearless teenaged girl from the Southern Water Tribe named Korra. With three of the four elements under her belt (Earth, Water, and Fire), Korra seeks to master the final element, Air. Her quest leads her to the epicenter of the modern “Avatar” world, Republic City—a metropolis that is fueled by steampunk technology. It is a virtual melting pot where benders and non-benders from all nations live and thrive. However, Korra discovers that Republic City is plagued by crime as well as a growing anti-bending revolution that threatens to rip it apart. Under the tutelage of Aang’s son, Tenzin, Korra begins her airbending training while dealing with the dangers at large.

This news makes me very happy. I know, I know: steampunk is so passé these days, but I think it makes a lot of sense within the Avatar world, especially with that we saw of Fire Nation technology in the original series. Also, I’ll be very interested to see what Aang’s (and Zuko’s) legacy will have been in those 70 years. And finally, and most importantly, the fact that the original creators—DiMartino and Konietzko—are helming this production gives me a lot of confidence that The Legend of Korra will do right by the original series.

Via Topless Robot

Elsewhere: A collection of interesting links and articles that I’ve come across in the last week or so. For more of the same, follow me on Twitter.

Twitch’s Todd Brown reviews Alien Versus Ninja (watch the trailer):

Though the festival is still young and there are literally scores of films remaining to screen at the 2010 edition of Montreal’s Fantasia Festival, if this morning’s reaction to Seiji Chiba’s Alien Versus Ninja is anything to judge by the festival may have already found its Audience Award winner. Know this: Any film that has a prayer of unseating AvN has a literal mountain of hooting, hollering, laughter, spontaneous waves of cheering and applause and other related expressions of joy to overcome. A party broke out in the Hall today and Alien Versus Ninja was the pretty girl everybody wanted to take home.

Ron Rosenbaum wants “An Agnostic Manifesto”:

I would not go so far as to argue that there’s a “new agnosticism” on the rise. But I think it’s time for a new agnosticism, one that takes on the New Atheists. Indeed agnostics see atheism as “a theism”—as much a faith-based creed as the most orthodox of the religious variety.

Faith-based atheism? Yes, alas. Atheists display a credulous and childlike faith, worship a certainty as yet unsupported by evidence—the certainty that they can or will be able to explain how and why the universe came into existence. (And some of them can behave as intolerantly to heretics who deviate from their unproven orthodoxy as the most unbending religious Inquisitor.)

Faced with the fundamental question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” atheists have faith that science will tell us eventually. Most seem never to consider that it may well be a philosophic, logical impossibility for something to create itself from nothing. But the question presents a fundamental mystery that has bedeviled (so to speak) philosophers and theologians from Aristotle to Aquinas. Recently scientists have tried to answer it with theories of “multiverses” and “vacuums filled with quantum potentialities,” none of which strikes me as persuasive.

And Julian Sanchez responds:

To the extent that it is a meaningful question, I have no reason to expect that science either eventually will, or even in principle could answer it. But I am not sure why I am supposed to care, except insofar as it’s interesting to mull over, if you go for that sort of thing. Suppose I allow that it is a genuine mystery—radically uncertain, even. It’s outside the realm about which we can talk meaningfully or offer evidence. So what? If there were some part of the world about which we couldn’t even in principle gather information, would I have to declare myself a basilisk agnostic because, after all, they might be there?

Rosenbaum’s mistake is to suppose that atheists are committed to providing some kind of utterly comprehensive worldview that explains everything in the way religious doctrine sometimes purports to. But why? Can’t we point out that claims made on behalf of one brand of snake oil are outlandish and unsupportable without peddling an even more wondrous tonic?

The Gospel Of Scientific Materialism:

If all the mental images we have about ourselves are deceptions, who can blame us for screwing things up? Who can blame us for trying to snatch what happiness we can, even if we have to transgress the moral laws our parents held dear? With this excuse, we can act contrary to our consciences, since conscience itself can be explained away by recourse to a deeper law of nature or a material process.

Yes, free will gives life its drama. But a life without drama is less stressful, less perilous, less urgent, less tense, and the therapists recommend stress reduction. If I’m just DNA trying to out compete other DNA, the mess I make of my life doesn’t matter, and it may even help the onward evolution of the species.

What Do Most Christians Really Believe About Evolution?

The results might be surprising to those who see the world, or wish to see it, in simple black and white terms. Catholics and many Protestant Christian groups (e.g. Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans (ELCA), United Church of Christ, and others) have statements of faith that show absolutely no problem with evolution. Some even have strong statements attesting to how an understanding of modern evolutionary biology even enriches their faith.

[...]

Perhaps a more surprising result from the survey is the indication that, although this is far from proven, those persons with a deeper, stronger education in theology—not science, but theology—are the ones most likely to understand and accept evolution as part of their faith. One example of this was the 1998 survey of the Presbyterian Church USA, where the statement “evolutionary theory is compatible with the idea of God as Creator” was agreed to by only 61% of the general membership but by 85% of the pastors. This seems to imply that although many church leaders tend to accept evolution, this acceptance does not seem to trickle down to the members of their congregations.

David Galbraith contacts Tim Berners-Lee and confirms the exact location where the World Wide Web was invented in 1989.

GameInformer lists five facts about your Dragon Age 2 character.

Jennie Hogan argues that “Faith should harness art’s appeal”:

Despite the centrality of faith in the art of centuries past, religious themes within contemporary art are fading fast. At Chelsea College of Art & Design, where I work as chaplain, God is dead. As students in their studios aspire to join the avant garde there is only a faint desire to look back at works in which the Christian tradition is central. Perhaps when universal themes such as death, suffering and delight are explored though a religious and theological lens the students cannot see them. Could it be then that art is replacing religion? The Tate’s Turbine Hall, into which visitors flock, could be recreating the awe and excitement that great cathedrals and churches once provided. Or is it that objects created by people are filling in the empty spaces where the ineffable and the invisible once dwelled?

Five cautionary statements when exploring and thinking about the worldviews expressed in art:

Analysing a work of art by constructing a worldview that supposedly shapes the work of art or is embodied by the work of art is currently a fashionable trend in Christian engagement with the arts. While I think this is a valuable approach, I am sometimes uncomfortable with the way that the relationship between the worldview and the work of art is conceived.

Edgar Wright’s 10 Coolest Movie Moments (includes Bullitt, Danger: Diabolik, and The Black Hole)

Hayao Miyazaki Compares iPad Use To Masturbation:

In an interview in the July issue of “Neppuu”, the Studio Ghibli published pamphlet, the famed animator does not pull any punches when discussing the iPad, or what he calls the “game machine-type thing” that people are “stroking with strange gestures”.

“For me, there is no feeling of admiration or no excitement whatsoever,” Miyazaki said about the iPad. “It’s disgusting. On trains, the number of those people doing that strange masturbation-like gesture is multiplying.”

6 Boring New England Destinations Made Awesome by H.P. Lovecraft

Inception and the Ten Rules for Proper Dream Sequences