stuckincincy Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 Part of rock-n-roll is rebellion and speaking your beliefs...regardless if it is political, relgious, or what not... That's fine. But folks go to performances for their artistry, not for a lecture. To go off on a tangent of personal beliefs, with a sitting audience (who these days usually pay a pretty penny for their tickets), strikes me as rude and arrogant. Off-stage, they are more than welcome to vent their spleens... And if that means less gate money for them (or more), that's their lookout.
Reed83HOF Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 That's fine. But folks go to performances for their artistry, not for a lecture. To go off on a tangent of personal beliefs, with a sitting audience (who these days usually pay a pretty penny for their tickets), strikes me as rude and arrogant. Off-stage, they are more than welcome to vent their spleens... And if that means less gate money for them (or more), that's their lookout. I do have to agree with you there..as that is very annoying... When I go to a concert/performance I want to hear the music and live the experience, not a lecture... Incorporating their beliefs into their music via a song to me is not a big deal - that is very rock n roll. If the artist wants to go on xyz talk show or what not and discuss their views let them... One thing that is very annoying is the cost to go see a concert today. On New Years Eve '99 I went to the Pontiac Silverdome and saw 7dust, Kid Rock, Ted Nugent and Metallica for a whopping $99. I would hate to imagine the money I would have to shell out to see that today...
WellDressed Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 Maybe I just do not like wine enough ... have yet to meet a $300 bottle (yes even at retail and not marked up restaurant charges) that made my world rock. No biggie as it just may be my taste buds or lack thereof. If you like expensive wine and are not spending my money more power to you. I totally agree!! Chef said: "I've had great bottles at $300 that you remember for the rest of your life." I've forgotten a lot of things I've learned through the years, what's one more.
WellDressed Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 I know. Everybody seems to love it,but I just don't get what the big deal is. The difference is so slight to me,I would never pay the extra bucks. Don't pass the pipe man, I don't want what you're smoking. Get a quality television and make another judgment; you can't be serious.
WellDressed Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 Charlie Brown's parents were overrated, his teachers too. waaaw waawaa waawaaawwaaa
billfan63 Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 Now, if you're 20 and YOU paid for the Springsteen tickets, it means you probably saw him perform sometime in the last five years which means you've paid almost $500 to see the Boss live. Suddenly the chasm deepens. Not true, $95.00 will get you anywhere you want in a Springsteen show, I went two months ago in Texas and stood right next to the stage. Whether you like him or not he works his ass off to entertain and attempts to keep ticket prices low compared to other national acts.
WellDressed Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 Comic Book Movies Watermellon 12:00 AM Movie Showings Cats Muscle Cars Jerry Garcia J.K. Rowling Battlestar Galactia New Year's Eve Reggie Bush
Quester74 Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 Please delete your TBD account immediately and place your man card in the mail. Thank you. I thought I might rattle a cage or two, with that one.. Don't get me wrong.. it's a good movie, but it's no where near the best movie ever, which I seem to see it mentioned as all the time. IMO
WellDressed Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 I thought I might rattle a cage or two, with that one.. Don't get me wrong.. it's a good movie, but it's no where near the best movie ever, which I seem to see it mentioned as all the time. IMO I love how Shawshank Redemption is the #1 movie on imdb.com. That site is a joke!!!
stevewin Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 Picnics Catches 'At The Wall' in baseball WTF Gum Professional golfers How I Met Your Mother Portobello Mushrooms Cover-2 Any X-game 'sport' 3-point shots in basketball MMA ("He threw a punch! Oh now they're lying on the ground again hugging each other for 5 minutes...") Young girls who sing the National Anthem at sporting events Bachelor parties Designer sunglasses Smores Honda Fit, Retatta
buckeyemike Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 Don't pass the pipe man, I don't want what you're smoking. Get a quality television and make another judgment; you can't be serious. I just got a Sony Vaio laptop with a Blu Ray player. You CAN tell the difference...I never thought it would blow me away, but it did.
DC Tom Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 Comic Book Movies I beg to differ. Iron Man and both Christian Bale's Batmans ("Bale-man" movies?) are two of the better movies I've seen in quite some time. The first two X-Man movies were very good. The first Spiderman was quite good, as were the first two Christopher-Reeve-as-Superman movies. Now admittedly, you've also got the Fantastic Four movies, two Hulk movies (how is it that no one can turn Hulk into a decent movie?), the last two X-Man movies, the last Spiderman movie, the last several Superman movies, and if they ever make that rumored Aquaman movie I'll be first in line to see ANYTHING else. But I think there's enough truly good comic book movies that you can't realistically say that "comic book movies" as a whole are overrated.
The Dean Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 As to your general theme regarding "selling out"...who the hell hasn't? What popular musician never sold his soul a little bit to cash in at the bank? There are very few pure musicians out there, and we probably haven't even heard of most of them. I'll be impressed if you can conjure up more than a couple recognizable names who never made slightly sub-par music that would appeal to audiences a little bit more and make them more dough. Hell, the entire foundation of the freakin BEATLES was that crappy bubblegum pop I Wanna Hold Your Hand. Much of what I was going to say has already been touched on, so I will try to keep it brief. I agree, to a point, that most (but not all) successful musicians made some compromises to their vision, to make more money. That's not really what I mean by "sell their soul" though. Well, maybe it is, in a way...I guess it is all a matter of degree. And it is also in the way they handle, and talk about, those compromises. Some "artists" just make commercial pop. It might be all they ever really wanted to do. It might be all they are really interested in/capable of doing. In that realm, popularity/sales = quality. I have very little interest in that kind of music, and I rarely call any of those artists "sell outs" as most of them really had nothing to sell. But there are definitely musicians, and some very successful musicians, who have kept their compromises to a minimum, and have likely cost themselves a lot of money in doing so. It (selling out) is less prevalent in classical and jazz, than pop, as audiences for classical and jazz are more willing to do the necessary listening, and work, it takes to understand and appreciate less immediate, and more complicated, compositions. But, those musicians make their compromises too, I am sure. So, let's stick to pop/rock, and the music that touches upon those genres. In many instances (I'm skipping so much here, but I trust you can fill in the missing stuff pretty well, you're a bright guy). An artist's (or band's) first few albums indicate what they really like to do, their musical ability (proficiency/chops) and influence, etc. If they are good and lucky, somewhere between the 2nd and 4th albums (for example), they may have some commercial success. To me, this is the important juncture in what becomes of them, as an artist. Do they follow the money, follow the muse, or try to make some calculated hybrid of the two? [Quick aside] In the late 60's through the much of the 70's a lot of different music could be heard on the radio. Some FM stations played entire albums, from time to time. Stuff was played on radio even though it was decidedly non-commercial. Sometimes one of the songs would breakthrough into the popular conscious and would be played on the top 40 stations, too. Music didn't have to fit a set format, and the programming wasn't controlled by consultants and research. Stations were programmed locally (now most are nationally driven). Therefore, artists/bands that were not "pop"/top-40 artists managed to find real commercial success, from time to time. But radio changed fairly rapidly. Artists had to decide if they were going to continue to play the music they loved, in their own way, or listen to the consultants/producers/managers who promised them increased fame, glory and radio play. [/aside] Rod Stewart followed the money, head first (so to speak). I can't say I was ever a big Rod Stewart fan, but he sang with the Jeff Beck Group, and produced some real quality solo material, early in his career. Disco crap like "Hot Legs" was far afield from where he started. He made out like a bandit, though. Later, when he was no longer popular, he admitted he sold out, and made a mistake. Of course, he then decided to record "standards", which just happened to be a bit of a trend, at the time, and had good, if modest, commercial possibilities. Billy Joel followed the money. Elton John started like he was going down a hybrid path, but then sold out as bad as it comes. Add Journey, Blue Oyster Cult, Fleetwood Mac, ZZ Top...are all bands that had monster early stuff, but decided to take the money grab, music be damned. Some artists refused to go for the bucks, at the expense of their music, though. Look at Van Morrison. Brown Eyed Girl was very commercial and a monster hit. What did he follow it with? Astral Weeks. Completely and utterly non-commercial, and like nothing ever made before it. After that, Moondance. Again, big seller with some commercial potential. Van could have made many-times the money he has made in the music business. Many of his songs are about the sleaze of the business and the compromises they want you to make. Van went on to make skiffle records, spiritual musings, blues albums, country albums, etc. He is a record label's nightmare, because money is far down the list of what is important to Van, when it comes to deciding what he will record. (One could argue that his recent concerts/recording of Astral Weeks Live is a concession to commercialism.) How about someone like Warren Zevon. He was talented as hell, and Excitable Boy was a great, and popular album. "Werewolves of London" was a big hit. Don't you think he could have made a lot of money by playing novelty songs, and concentrating on creating "hits" instead of the music he loved? So, that in a nutshell is what I talk about when I suggest someone sold out, or sold their soul. Did they start making records just like, or much like, the one that made a lot of money, or did they continue to do what made their music interesting, to begin with? Well, I'm bored with writing this, and I am sure you are bored of reading it...if you even got this far.
The Dean Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 I beg to differ. Iron Man and both Christian Bale's Batmans ("Bale-man" movies?) are two of the better movies I've seen in quite some time. The first two X-Man movies were very good. The first Spiderman was quite good, as were the first two Christopher-Reeve-as-Superman movies. Now admittedly, you've also got the Fantastic Four movies, two Hulk movies (how is it that no one can turn Hulk into a decent movie?), the last two X-Man movies, the last Spiderman movie, the last several Superman movies, and if they ever make that rumored Aquaman movie I'll be first in line to see ANYTHING else. But I think there's enough truly good comic book movies that you can't realistically say that "comic book movies" as a whole are overrated. Hellboy wasn't terrible, either.
Recommended Posts