#Conan cray | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

riley1cannon · 5 years

Text

10 most read authors From @books-on-a-wire‘s post, there is a feature in Goodreads which shows your most read authors (as shelved in your collections).

Rex Stout 46 Yep, this would be from when I ploughed through his Nero Wolfe & Archie Goodwin books, many years ago now. I did recently read a pastiche by Robert Goldsborough, Murder in E Minor, which did a good job of capturing the feel of the books as best I remember. It has me tempted to pick out a few of the old books and revisit. My only other contact with Nero and Archie in recent memory was the TV series starring Timothy Hutton.

Elizabeth Peters 29 OK, if you add the seven books written under the name Barabara Michaels, plus her two non-fiction Egyptology books written under her real name of Barbara Mertz, this number jumps to 38. The bulk of that 29 is from a couple of years ago, when I managed to read through her entire Amelia Peabody series. (And having done that, a project for the new year may be revisiting that series as well, but at a slower pace.) The rest would be the Vicky Bliss books, a couple of Jacqueline Kirby’s, and some standalones.

Ellis Peters 24 Another one of fond memory. Just took the last Cadfael book off the shelf and was astonished to see it was published twenty-four years ago this month. It doesn’t seem that long. It’s starting to look like 2019 will be the year of the rereads... Hmm. But 24... Okay, that has to include one collection of short stories, another gorgeous hardcover that contains the text of the first two Cadfael novels, along with a section of text and photos related to the world of the books, and one book from her other mystery series... Aha! The George Felse one! (Had to look it up.) Throw in her A Bloody Field by Shrewsbury, written as Edith Pargeter, and this number gets bumped up to 25.

Agatha Christie 22 This one is a mix of rereading, and encountering some of other of her books for the first time, and is of recent origin. Didn’t get to too many this year, just Sleeping Murder (unless I sneak in one or two before the end of the year), but it’s been fun to go back and rediscover her. She holds up much better than first anticipated. Thanks has to go to the television adaptations, especially Poirot and Marple, and that 10th Doctor episode about Agatha’s infamous disappearance, for bringing me back into the Christie fold.

Martha Grimes 17 This is all the Richard Jury and Melrose Plant mysteries. Except it should be 19. Maybe I never recorded a couple of them? Will have to go and check later. And there are still four or five more to go. I like the first batch of the series better than some of the later books, but the characters are always such good company that flaws in the stories can be forgiven. A few of those first books have been reread so many times they’re starting to fall apart.

Douglas Preston 17 First, that should be Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child. I haven’t as yet read any of their solo novels. Second, and I had to check this, I cannot believe that number is real. (It is.) The bloom has gone off the rose and all that, but I can remember when it was a thrill to get my hands on the latest Agent Pendergast.

John D. MacDonald 15 This would be the Travis McGee series, which I haven’t visited in quite awhile now. Someday I will resume and get back to where I started ages and ages ago, The Dreadful Lemon Sky, and then proceed to the last books in the series. No idea how Travis holds up in the 21st century, but hopefully any of his 1960s ‘sins’ aren’t so glaring they can’t be forgiven.

Janet Evanovich 15 It kind of floors me that the Stephanie Plum series is up to twenty-five books at this point, not counting some sidetrip books that I never got around to having a look at. Make no mistake, when I first picked up One For the Money back in the day, I was happy to get on the Stephanie Plum train and stay there for a long time. Sometime around book eight or nine, though, the magic started to fade, and I hopped off for good at book fifteen. It was a treat while it lasted, and some of those first books got multiple readings, so that’s in no way a bad thing.

Mary Stewart 14 Yes! Okay, four of these would be her Arthurian trilogy + her Mordred novel, where she did the impossible and made me sympathize with him. Then I discovered she had also written a batch of gothic romance/romantic suspense novels, and could not get my hands on them fast enough. There are still a couple of titles missing from my collection, and I have yet to give Thunder On the Right a second chance, but she is one of those authors that is as close to a sure bet as you can get.

Robert Crais 13 This would be his Elvis Cole & Joe Pike series of private eye thrillers. I’ve been reading this one in a roundabout fashion for awhile now. Started with the first two, The Monkey’s Raincoat and Stalking the Angel, and then jumped ahead to L.A. Requiem, and fell into this pattern of reading one of the older titles, and then one of the newer ones, and finally got caught up in the timestream last year (although I’m a few recent books behind now). The climaxes are usually action-packed shoot-’em-ups that I tend to skim through, but that’s my only complaint. Well, and that we never get enough of the cat who loves Elvis and Joe and hates everyone else.

Honorable mentions: Charles Todd, the mother and son team behind the Ian Rutledge mysteries (shell-shocked Scotland Yard detective just back from the Great War, haunted by the battlefield and one particular soldier). Haven’t read their Bess Crawford books yet, but hope to soon. Victoria Holt & Nora Roberts, at nine books each. Victoria, alas, does not hold up well, but I’m still good with Nora. Rhys Bowen comes in with eight books; that would be four Molly Murphys, and four Lady Georgianas. I like Molly, but Lady Georgie is my favorite. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle also comes it at eight. And Amanda Quick, Dorothy Sayers, David Eddings, and Lauren Willig all clock in at six. Willig will soon be seven; and Amanda Quick/Jayne Ann Krentz is likely to increase by several volumes in the new year.

8 notes · View notes

thisisunactive666 · 4 years

Text

𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠

i hate everybody - halsey

sad together - olivia o’brien

good in bed - dua lipa

thin white lies - 5 seconds of summer

not in the same way - 5 seconds of summer

jealous - lennon stella

maniac - conan gray

grow a pear - kesha

moral of the story - ashe

supalonely - benee with gus dapperton

watermelon sugar - harry styles

everything i wanted - billie eilish

vintage - allie x

butterflies - cray

cruel summer - taylor swift

future nostalgia - dua lipa

boys will be boys - dua lipa

blinding lights - the weeknd

ring - selena gomez

UPDATE! sept. 17th 2020 <3

say so remix - doja cat, nicki minaj

wap - megan thee stallion, cardi b

forgive myself - shaylen

pocketful of sunshine - natasha bedingfield

stuck with u - ariana grande, justin bieber

rain on me - lady gaga, ariana grande

i dont f*ck with you - big sean , e-40

pussy talk - city girls , doja cat

wildflower - 5sos

goodbye - shaylen

UPDATE! dec. 17th 2020 :)

bitter - fletcher , kito

levitating - dua lipa

loner - maggie lindemann

34+35 - ariana grande

NOW - olivia o’brien

knife under my pillow - maggie lindemann

just like magic - ariana grande

diet mountain dew - lana del rey

good news - mac miller

rät - penelope scott

UPDATE! march 15th 2021 !

plastic hearts - miley cyrus

sour times - madison beer

sugar baby - megan thee stallion

love me - lil wayne/drake/future

josh - peach prc

deal with it - ashnikko/kelis

bev hills - not the main characters

doin time - lana del rey

habits (stay high) - tove lo

up - cardi b

the sweet escape - gwen stefani/akon

drivers license - olivia rodrigo

cupids chokehold/breakfast in america - gym class heroes

*•.¸♡ link to playlist ♡¸.•*

306 notes · View notes

finalxproblem · 3 years

Note

1, 6, 13

What is the biggest headcanon deviation from the canon material that you have incorporated into the way you write your muse? Why did you come up with it?

I'm usually liberal with deviation from canonical plot, particularly if I find a character has been killed off for shock value or by other forms of poor writing. However, in Professor Moriarty's case, I stick pretty close to the original Sir Arthur Conan Doyle source material. The one difference I use is that Moriarty survived the fall at Reichenbach in Doyle's The Final Problem, which was simply a way to give myself more flexibility in assembling a timeline of events. I also make it more noteworthy that Moriarty is Irish, because of the cultural and political hostilities that still exist between the English and Irish. It makes an interesting microcosmic representation of that hostility when I pit Holmes (English) against Moriarty (Irish). I also focus on the fact that, despite a life of villainy, Jim is also a genuinely good teacher (university professor) and a prodigy of mathematics.

If we're referring to the BBC Sherlock series, in which my faceclaim played Moriarty, I do some personality tweaking. Jim is a little less mercurial and excitable, and a little bit less "whee fun cray-cray," the latter because I'm not a fan of the writing of Steven Moffat and its rampant ableist/transphobic/sexist tropes, as well as its overly self-conscious gimmicks and convolutions. Moffat's writing frequently "outsmarts itself," as my faculty advisor in grad school would say. Sometimes less is more. You'll, then, find that my Jim runs cold, only erupts in a flustered rage when truly thwarted, and is cuttingly cerebral (like the books version of the character).

What is the general opinion of your muse’s fandom about them? Do you agree with it?

This kind of goes in tandem with my earlier comments about Steven Moffat. Not all of his writing is weak, but I found that as the Sherlock series progressed, each season was weaker than the previous installment. The way that fans of his work ascribe a kind of cult-like reverence to it, seeing it as beyond reproach, is incredibly strange to me, both as a professional writer and a professional educator. To me, nothing human-made is or should be beyond constructive criticism. The way that BBC Sherlock fans regard Scott's Moriarty carries a similar almost hysterical obsessiveness, a worship, of the character, that frequently makes me uncomfortable. I think Jim's incredible genius and his cunning are certainly traits to admire, and I am not immune to the mystique of Professor Moriarty as a genre-setting "mastermind" villain. I have always loved him best of all villains of literature. I just think maybe it's also healthy to chill out a little when it comes to his perceived godliness, lol.

What canon character do you really wish your muse could interact more with?

Pretty much all canonical Doyle characters: Sebastian Moran, Sherlock Holmes (especially one based more in Rathbone or Brett), Watson, Irene Adler, maybe Lestrade or Mycroft, certainly other big bads in the Holmesian annuls of crime, like Charles Augustus Milverton.

#ooc #memes

4 notes · View notes

hashirun · 3 years

Note

hi kaye! are you into crime mystery books?

Hello anon, yes! Or to be specific, I love crime related genres - espionage and legal thrillers. Basta involving cops, lawyers, and government agencies. Other than John Grisham, I've also read books by Daniel Silva, Stieg Larsson, Stephen King (specifically the Mr. Mercedes Trilogy) and Robert Crais. Do Arthur Conan Doyle and Agatha Christie count?

#ask

1 note · View note

smallfern · 3 years

Text

hello @hippolvte tagged me to share 4 albums i’ve been listening to lately

i am too lazy to pull up the album covers but i’ve been listening to the same slowly-expanding playlist for a couple weeks now, and four of the albums included on the playlist in their entirety are:

kid krow, conan cray (his whole discography)

bad ideas, tessa violet

SAWAYAMA, rina sawayama

benee’s whole discography not distinguished by album but i will shout out her fire on marzz ep

maude letour’s whole discography which isn’t really albums, but her starsick ep is great

@blindings @flowersrooms @holdingmoonlight @stuckwith-harry i wanna know what you’ve been listening to

#and as always riri<33333 #thanks anna and thanks to the dash for inspiring some of the artists featured on that playlist

3 notes · View notes

interludehq · 4 years

Photo

the ride of your life starts in three, two, one . . . ( tour starts in a few days, so make sure you’re prepared! ) quick follow here. staff. musing blog.

aidan frangipane. / 8bitmariokart ariana grande. / blcssom ashley frangipane. ( halsey ) / formermayqueen avery young. / scrawnymfer avril lavigne. / complicated.mp3 calum hood. / jouvcrt conan gray. / kidkrow98 cheney ray. ( cray ) / crocmarten cristal ramirez. / saturdazes gigi hadid. / damnjelena harry styles. / poorlydrawngoats hayley williams. / thetruckersatlas jeon jungkook. / tlkmedown kailee morgue. / comingforurtits katie henderson. / wntitallbck kelen capener. / ustillcomeup kelsi levett. / steakdiner5 lalisa manoban. / hcneycrisp lauren jauregui. / ikeadates luke hemmings. / oceanavenuemp3 lynn gunn. / pisceanpuddle matt champion. / terriblelove69 mckenna petty. / gocdgrief park chaeyoung. / rosieinthetrap parker cannon. / quoteiguessunquote samantha wyatt. / madeunstable taylor york. / rollerbladeislife timothée chalamet. / catachronics

#interlude:follow #band rp #bandom rp

2 notes · View notes

curriebelle · 6 years

Text

Where Law and Chaos Came From: a D&D History Lesson

I’ve seen a few interesting posts about Dungeons and Dragons alignments that all share two interesting commonalities:

1) They think the two-axis system of Law vs Chaos and Good vs Evil is too restrictive for people who like to roleplay. 2) They try to redeem the two-axis system by redefining Law and Chaos in ways that make sense to them personally.

Good and Evil aren’t usually a topic of debate on these posts - it’s easy enough to play a character as generally doing the right thing or as being a total bastard. Discussion on acts of more debatable morality (e.g. torturing a villain for vital information, killing an innocent person by accident, sacrificing one for the good of all) tends to veer towards whether the action itself qualifies as good or evil, and not whether good and evil themselves need to be redefined. Conversely, I’ve seen Law and Chaos rewritten as Community vs Individuality, Tradition vs Cultural Mutability, Authority vs Anarchy - all interesting ideas that tend to reflect more on the person writing them than the actual purpose of the Law vs Chaos axis.

I’m not saying these people are wrong, but that these players (as well as the fine folks who wrote the 5e Handbooks) are placing too much significance on the purpose or intention of Law vs Chaos. The historical secret is that Law vs Chaos alignment never had any deep meaning behind it - or, at least, it never had any meaning deeper than the Pittsburgh Penguins versus the Vancouver Canucks.

I’ll explain how, but it requires a bit of a history lesson. The idea of Lawful and Chaotic alignments - as well as a number of other cornerstones of Dungeons and Dragons - came from a different game: a miniature wargame called Chainmail. It’s time for a deep dive.

In 1970, before he helped create Dungeons and Dragons, Gary Gygax developed a ruleset for modeling Medieval-Era battles using miniatures. Miniatures were organized into opposing armies, and the modeled battles were long, drawn-out math sessions, preoccupied with calculating distances, damages, casualties and morale. If you’ve ever played or seen Warhammer 40k, it’s a lot like that, except with English Longbowmen instead of Space Marines.

The purpose of Chainmail was to recreate historical battles, and so the gameplay mechanics were painfully precise, with rules for weather, terrain, and siege weapons. Only at the tail end of the Chainmail rulebook, in a tiny ten-page appendix, did Gygax include the rules that would become the basis for all of Dungeons and Dragons. This was the Chainmail Fantasy Supplement.

Even in the Fantasy Supplement, the purpose was still to recreate battles. The second edition of Chainmail - the oldest version I could find, from 1971 - instructs players on how to “refight the epic struggles related by J.R.R. Tolkein...and other fantasy writers”, only suggesting that the player could “create [their] own world” as an afterthought. Chainmail’s fantasy supplement was made so LOTR nerds could re-create the battles of Helm’s Deep or Pelennor Fields, down to the walking trees and boulder-throwing trolls.

Still, a couple of fun details are kicking around in those ten pages. Even back then, fireball and lightning bolt spells were the main tools in the wizards’ arsenals. Dragons and other powerful fantasy creatures could only be hit with magic weapons - an immunity that lingers on some powerful D&D monsters to this day. Even the colour varieties of dragons were introduced here, and they’ve remained largely unchanged for nearly half a century now:

“White Dragons live in cold climates and breathe frost. Black Dragons are tropical and spit caustic acid. The Blue variety discharges a bolt of electricity. Green Dragons waft poisonous vapours--chlorine--at their opponents”

Classic! (I did omit the mottled purple dragon with the poisonous stinger, but those stuck around too - they’re just called wyverns now).

At the very end of the fantasy supplement, you can find the following list:

I’m not sure why Gygax thought it was “impossible to draw a distinct line between “good” and “evil” here - honestly, this looks like a pretty straightforward good-neutral-evil list to me, but there you are. So Goblins, Orcs, Balrogs and Dragons are CHAOS, and Hobbits (who became Halflings later once copyright started getting huffy), Heroes, Ents and Magic Weapons (?) are LAW. Wizards can be either LAW or CHAOS; Elves are neutral (but kinda lawful sometimes); and apparently there are Super Heroes in the Lawful camp (Gygax describes them earlier as “like Conan”.)

The purpose of dividing these units into Law or Chaos is not to dictate how they are played, but what team they will play for in the conflict. That’s why I made my hockey analogy earlier: all Law and Chaos defined back then was what team you played for. So, by these rules, if you were building a Lawful Army and your buddy built a Chaos Army, you would both be able to add wizards to your team, but your buddy would have exclusive rights to dragons. You’d be able to add magic weapons, but your buddy couldn’t. Moreover, if you decided to hold a fight in a forest full of pixies and werewolves, you would actually roll off to determine which side those Neutral creatures would join.

If Law and Chaos did have any deeper meaning in this context, it sometimes dictated how the units behaved. Units of orcs would attack other units of orcs if they failed an obedience check; dragons, being “evil and egotistical”, always had to attack the biggest, most badass targets first. With rules like that, commanding those armies would be more ‘chaotic’, while the lawful side could generally be trusted to obey the commands of the player.

So at worst, the Chainmail law vs chaos axis is a purely logistical division that dictates which units get to join which teams; at its most #deep, it characterizes the combat behaviour of some military units. I think this is probably also the source of D&D racism, e.g. “all orcs are chaotic evil”. That’s a rule that makes much more sense when you’re trying to divvy up the teams in an extremely complex wargame, because you’re looking at orcs en masse, and you’re not too interested in the personalities of individual units.

So, the alignment system does make some sense in Chainmail, where it originated. Here’s where I show you exactly how much influence Chainmail had on D&D and how it struggled to transfer this concept of alignment in a meaningful way.

The “first edition” of D&D - at least the one most of us would recognize as D&D - is officially called Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. That’s the 1977 version in which players create an adventuring party. (It’s called “Advanced” because a “Basic” edition was also released, strictly for levels 1-3). There was actually one other, earlier edition of D&D, which was released in 1974. It was intended to be another Chainmail expansion, so much so that you needed the Chainmail rulebook to play it!

I’m going to ignore that edition, though, since 1) it’s pretty hard to find the rulebook, 2) AD&D was where the game found its own identity anyway and 3) The AD&D handbook is hilariously bizarre, especially when dealing with player morality.

You might know of some of the weirdness of AD&D alignments already. For example, certain classes had to be certain alignments. Paladins were always lawful good; druids were always true neutral. Assassins were automatically evil, and thieves could not be good. Weirdly enough, all monks were lawful - I guess because they adhered to the traditions of their vaguely-east-asian dojos. (By the way, this means that everybody’s favourite Feather Leather Fashionista, Vax’ildan the dual-classed Rogue/Paladin, is a mechanical impossibility in Advanced Dungeons and Dragons.)

It’s easy to see how this move was just an ungainly step forward from Chainmail. Again, this is Gygax telling you what teams your characters must play for - what armies they would join if this were a Chainmail game - without recognizing that the need for an alignment system has basically vanished. We're not picking our fantasy kickball teams anymore; everyone is on the same team, adventuring together, and all an alignment system becomes in that context is a hindrance.

And oh was alignment ever a hindrance in AD&D. Each alignment was a moral code of sorts, but it was also a language. Chaotic Neutral characters shared a language that only Chaotic Neutral characters could understand. Assassins could learn to speak other alignment-languages as they leveled up (or Druidic, if they wanted to be nerds I guess), but if you changed alignment in any way you would lose access to your previous alignment language. This makes absolutely zero sense. Worse still, if you committed an act that didn’t fit with your alignment, it would screw you over mechanically. If a paladin ever willingly committed an evil act they straight-up lost their healing powers and become regular fighters FOREVER. Even if they did something a little bit chaotic, they lost their powers until they could pray the cray away with the help of a lawful good cleric. The book even vaguely suggests that alignment shifting in other classes be met with “great penance”. You’re not allowed to be an assassin again until you do enough poison murders! We’re taking your poison away!

The book describes each individual alignment, but not with any subtlety. This is long before the game itself grasped that the most fun part of tabletop roleplay is the roleplaying, and alignment rules still seem to recall the behaviour of army units rather than the behaviour of individuals. Chaos - as is usually the case - is the alignment that suffers most. The Chaotic Good description gets a nice Robin Hood-y bent, the Chaotic Evil one is the “carnage is good” mantra you’d expect - but here’s Chaotic Neutral:

“Above respect for life and good, or disregard for life and the promotion of evil, the chaotic neutral places randomness and disorder. Good and evil are complimentary balance arms. Neither are preferred, nor must either prevail, for ultimate chaos would then suffer.”

Leaving aside the misuse of the word “complimentary” (you’re looking for complementary, Gygax) and the poorly-structured first sentence - yeah, that’s what the big secret of Chaos is, apparently. It’s not rebellion or individuality (which get championed in the Chaotic Good description), it’s pure, unadulterated, dice-rolling randomness. “Fuck it” made manifest. Don’t think about it too hard, because it doesn’t make any sense, and it will take you down a (fittingly) chaotic wormhole of self-contradiction.

Lawful Neutral and True Neutral are weird, too. Both are described as pursuing the absolute harmony of the word, but like...you know, in different ways. There’s also a bizarre association between goodness and beauty. “Life and beauty are of great importance”, says the Lawful Good blurb. Does this mean that Delilah Briarwood, Wildemount’s hottest necromancer, is Lawful Good after all? shucks.

It’s pretty clear that AD&D is the awkward gangly phase between wargaming and genuine tabletop roleplay, with lots of weird vestigial features and obnoxiously pedantic mechanics that would later be dropped. For some reason, despite the fact that it never made sense to begin with, alignment wasn’t one of those mechanics - or at least it tended to vanish as a mechanic and then come back again in later editions, slightly different but never fixed. This led to another awkward gangly phase at the turn of the millennium, when D&D rules were adapted into games like Baldur’s Gate or Planescape Torment. Alignment creates fallacies and failures everywhere in those games. If you play Evil in Baldur’s Gate, the game can become basically unwinnable, as NPCs begin to attack you on sight. The way to bond with the Chaotic Neutrals in Planescape Torment is to literally spout gibbering nonsense at a man on the street until he barks at you. Even on Critical Role, with its 5e gameplay and extremely talented dungeon master, alignment feels like an arbitrary interloper rather than an important part of the game. Percy stays Good even after torturing a teenager, but Vex goes Neutral for stealing a broom. Nobody in their right mind would believe Fjord is Lawful Good because of his deception and warlockery, but he technically hasn’t violated the LG handbook so far.

So because of these repeated failures to use alignment in a compelling way, I see a lot of people hunting for the right way to do alignments, the right way to understand chaos, law, neutrality and the like. They want alignments to fit. But they never did fit. The truth?

Two-axis alignment is stupid, and it always has been.

Honestly, I don’t see the benefit in remedying two-axis alignment as a system. I have my own re-interpretation of chaos that I like fairly well, and I’ve seen a few compelling ones, but I also think that alignment could use a complete makeover. There are some fun examples of morality systems that I’m sure DMs could experiment with, if they so wished.

You could steal from Ultima IV, for example. The Ultima series was a product of the early days of the computer/tabletop romance - and by early I mean 1980s early. Ultima IV does not use the alignment system: instead, it lets the player ‘train’ in eight virtues to achieve ultimate avatar awesomeness. The virtues are Honesty, Compassion, Valor, Justice, Honor, Sacrifice, Spirituality, and Humility, further divided into the camps of Truth, Love, and Courage. Maybe angels of each of those virtues have corresponding devils (Deception! Cruelty! Cowardice! Injustice! Dishonor! Greed! Blasphemy! Pride!). That could be one way to play with morality without worrying about chaos or law.

I’m also a fan of Pillars of Eternity’s spectra of dispositions, which fit loosely into pairs (not necessarily good or evil pairs, mind you). Benevolent or Cruel, Stoic or Passionate, Honest or Deceptive, Clever or Rational, Diplomatic or Aggressive. Heck, those remind me of the personality sliders in the Sims. What were those again, like - Grumpy/Nice, Playful/Serious, etc?

Those trying to give alignments the benefit of the doubt often suggest that alignments were created to help people roleplay. That’s not...entirely untrue, it’s just misleading. They were created to help people make gameplay decisions, but they were pulled from a different kind of game altogether. It’s like trying to play checkers with chess pieces, and it always has been. The D&D alignment system doesn’t work for D&D because it wasn’t designed for it - it was designed for wargaming. We probably should have just chucked the whole thing instead of enshrining it in nerd culture, but it’s too late for that. Still, our creative energy now would be better spent on a new morality system that actually gives us a thing or two to think about.

#dungeons and dragons #tabletop roleplaying #critical role #currie academia #cuz i learned most of this researching Stuff

1K notes · View notes

shestwl · 3 years

Photo

༘ ᶻᶻᶻ 𓄹 ic𖦹𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿〃𝖻𝗒 𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗱𝗮... (Wattpad'de) https://www.wattpad.com/story/273421570?utm_source=android&utm_medium=tumblr&utm_content=share_inline_media&wp_page=reader_long_pressed_action_bar&wp_uname=M4DEINTHEAM&wp_originator=0F4Bbl0eKZMt5%2BOGFOttiNyxShCSvcSj8KOGMZ6mdE3B%2B7%2Bf0tNsvgEoiC6kDnpAyLFMNPJfTUL1Ja3gvFWEdzsRgEIhRkTnzX5XR%2FqAtBAJ1XZkbMPcInU2%2B641ZhWZ Young love don't last for life. 🜸 Conan Cray - Astronomy.

#paranormal #edit #icon #icons #idol #psd #theme #themes #themeshop #tinder #books #amreading #wattpad

0 notes

kevindurkiin · 5 years

Text

LOLLAPALOOZA LIVE STREAM 2019: LINEUP, SCHEDULE [DAY 2]

Yesterday’s first day of Lollapalooza 2019 went down without a hitch, but with some incredible moments to leave home with. The Chainsmokers brought on a number of special guests including Bebe Rexha and The Fray, Rufus Du Sol put on their usual stellar performance, The Strokes rocked the night, and Ghostemane had a fan get a face tattoo live on stage! What more do you need…

Today’s lineup consists of Alesso, Tame Impala, Death Cab for Cutie, and more — and they’re all going to be on the live stream, as well. The Lollapalooza live stream started earlier today with sets from Cray, SHAED, Yultron, and more and continues now.

See the Lollapalooza live stream full schedule below along with both channels and stay tuned!

Lollapalooza 2019 LIVE Channel 1

youtube

Lollapalooza 2019 LIVE Channel 2

youtube

Lollapalooza 2019 LIVE Channel 3

youtube

Lollapalooza YouTube Stream Schedule (All times listed in Eastern Time)

Friday, August 2:

CRAY (3:00 p.m., 3) The Nude Party (3:00 p.m., 1) SHAED (3:00 p.m., 2) Conan Gray (3:45 p.m., 2) Ghostemane (4:00 p.m., 3) Normani (4:00 p.m., 1) half•alive (4:45 p.m., 2) Yultron (5:00 p.m., 3) Sigrid (5:15 p.m., 2) CloZee (5:45 p.m., 3) IDLES (6:00 p.m., 1) HONNE (6:15 p.m., 2) Party Favor (6:45 p.m., 3) Rich the Kid (7:00 p.m., 2) 21 Savage (7:45 p.m., 1) Gud Vibrations vs Slugz Music (7:45 p.m., 3) King Princess (7:45 p.m., 2) Snails (9:00 p.m., 3) FKJ (9:45 p.m., 2) Tame Impala (9:45 p.m., 1) Alesso (10:00 p.m., 3) Death Cab for Cutie (10:15 p.m., 2)

Saturday, August 3:

The Band Camino (3:00 p.m., 1) Omar Apollo (3:00 p.m., 2) WAVEDASH (3:00 p.m., 3) Diablo (3:30 p.m., 3) Mondo Cozmo (3:45 p.m., 1) Alec Benjamin (3:50 p.m., 2) WHIPPED CREAM (4:15 p.m., 3) Bad Suns (4:30 p.m., 2) Men I Trust (4:45 p.m., 1) Jonas Blue (5:00 p.m., 3) Jade Bird (5:20 p.m., 1) Pink Seat$ (5:30 p.m., 2) 6LACK (6:00 p.m., 1) Loud Luxury (6:00 p.m., 3) Elephante (7:00 p.m., 3) Chelsea Cutler (6:15 p.m., 2) Gary Clark Jr. (7:00 p.m., 1) Whethan (7:00 p.m., 2) Bring me the Horizon (7:45 p.m., 2) Lil Wayne (7:45 p.m., 1) Gryffin (8:15 p.m., 3) Judah & The Lion (8:45 p.m., 2) RL Grime (9:30 p.m., 3) Twenty One Pilots (9:45 p.m., 1) Madeon (10:00 p.m., 3)

Sunday, August 4:

GG MAGREE (3:00 p.m., 3) slenderbodies (3:00 p.m., 1) Gunna (3:45 p.m., 1) G Flip (3:50 p.m., 2) Opiuo (4:15 p.m., 3) Masego (5:30 p.m., 2) The Revivalists (5:35 p.m., 1) Boombox Cartel (6:00 p.m., 3) Louis the Child (6:15 p.m., 2) Sharon Van Etten (6:35 p.m., 1) Diesel / Shaquille O’Neal (7:00 p.m., 3) Kacey Musgraves (7:35 p.m., 1) Manic Focus (8:00 p.m., 3) Slash ft. Miles Kennedy (8:35 p.m., 1) Mitski (9:00 p.m., 2) San Holo (9:00 p.m., 3) Flume (9:45 p.m., 2)

Photo via Chris Hershman / Red Bull Content

This article was first published on Your EDM. Source: LOLLAPALOOZA LIVE STREAM 2019: LINEUP, SCHEDULE [DAY 2]

LOLLAPALOOZA LIVE STREAM 2019: LINEUP, SCHEDULE [DAY 2] published first on https://soundwizreview.tumblr.com/

0 notes

bluebuzzmusic · 5 years

Text

LOLLAPALOOZA LIVE STREAM 2019: LINEUP, SCHEDULE [DAY 2]

See the Lollapalooza live stream full schedule below along with both channels and stay tuned!

Lollapalooza 2019 LIVE Channel 1

youtube

Lollapalooza 2019 LIVE Channel 2

youtube

Lollapalooza 2019 LIVE Channel 3

youtube

Lollapalooza YouTube Stream Schedule (All times listed in Eastern Time)

Friday, August 2:

Saturday, August 3:

Sunday, August 4:

Photo via Chris Hershman / Red Bull Content

This article was first published on Your EDM. Source: LOLLAPALOOZA LIVE STREAM 2019: LINEUP, SCHEDULE [DAY 2]

source https://www.youredm.com/2019/08/02/lollapalooza-live-stream-2019-lineup-schedule-day-2/

#edm #music #music production #music news #edm news

0 notes