Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Phooey on Springsteen

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Phooey on Springsteen

    I was not going to weigh in anymore on this, because Putnam is just a maniac on this subject, and all know it, but....

    There are a number of 'rock' players who continue to shine in their middle and late middle ages. Who you focus on depends on your taste in rock. Springsteen, Mellencamp, Buffet, Joel? Only one release of their's has ever been in my collection.

    Robin Trower, Van Morrison, Little Feat, Richard Thompson, John Hiatt, Sam Bush...artists that I follow, rockers of various flavors...have all produced very good work in recent years. Buddy Miller, at 56, is arguably the best rock guitarist (selling mostly country records) working today. Steve Earle, at 52, could kick all our arses. I do look to younger artists for fresh sounds, however. And if the slamming of nuts into a camera is your idea of rock'n'roll, then younger artists will definitely win the day there. Think of the broken hips!

    I'm into the sounds, not the show.

    And finally, rock is blues. As Townes Van Zandt said: There are only two types of music. There's blues. And there's zippity do dah.


    [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Phooey on Springsteen

      I used to be a huge Springsteen fan and still am to some extent. I'm glad he didn't do Born In the USA because that song was always interpreted wrong, much of it due to Springsteen himself. I enjoyed the show, especially 1oth avenue, that was probably my 2nd favorite album after B2R, but Born to Run seemed forced and tired. I guess its just not the same when you are old and married. Glory Days was perfect in that he is really doing what the song says.

      I thought it was good overall.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Phooey on Springsteen

        I appreciate all these comments, and as Kester kindly points out, I am a maniac on this issue.


        I hope it is clear that I've never meant to criticize anyone's personal enjoyment. Anyone may, if he wishes, enjoy the 2009 version of Bruce or any other performer. I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from enjoying it.

        All I mean to say is that Bruce 2009, and very many other aging performers, are parodies of themselves. They aren't merely a step slower. They are their own Weird Al Yankovics.

        When an old man sings, "Hope I die before I get old," he is lying. When he sang it forty years ago he meant it, and lying is different from telling the truth.

        When a young and virile man sings, "Girl, you'll be a woman soon, Soon you'll need a man" it is a nice lyric about wooing. When an old man sings the same lyric, he is a pervert.

        Bruce's Working on a Dream is a poor lyric. It is incohesive and incoherent. Hardly any of the stanzas holds together to make any sense, and it is hard to perceive any clear imagery in the song. One stanza says:

        Rain pourin' down, I swing my hammer
        My hands are rough from working on a dream
        I'm working on a dream



        But none of the other stanzas correspond to this, and even within the space of two lines he causes confusion. We have to guess what the heck he means. It seems as likely he's talking about masturbating as a real hammer, though Bruce hasn't traditionally done that. Really, we don't have to bother making a guess about the meaning, since he loses interest in this image and drops it himself by the start of the next stanza.

        If you ask how I know this is a bad lyric, I answer that I know that one is bad because I've heard a good one:


        Now I swing a sledge hammer on a railroad gang
        Knocking down them cross ties, working in the rain
        Now don't it feel like you're a rider on a downbound train



        The whole of Downbound Train makes sense, even down to the fine detail that he was out of shape ("I ran till I thought my chest would explode") as he burst into an empty house where no one is waiting for him. Downbound Train is objectively a better work of literature, a better musical expression, than Working on a Dream, and I think it is pathetic that so many people won't admit it.

        As Jay rightly says, a few aged rockers have learned to deal with their situation. I'd put John Hiatt at the top, but there are several. I wish them well. But I still think we'd all be better off listening to younger performers in the full blush of their creativity than squeezing these old lemons for their last drop of juice.


        Originally posted by TK99
        And finally, rock is blues.
        A Box of Frogs, maybe. A Band of Gypsies, certainly. But are you saying A Flock of Seagulls is blues? 'Cause it isn't.


        .
        Last edited by Putnam; 02-07-2009, 12:25 PM.
        And I won't be here to see the day
        It all dries up and blows away
        I'd hang around just to see
        But they never had much use for me
        In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Phooey on Springsteen

          Not rock, by my standard....more the zippity doo dah.


          [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Phooey on Springsteen

            Originally posted by Putnam View Post
            A Box of Frogs, maybe. A Band of Gypsies, certainly. But are you saying A Flock of Seagulls is blues? 'Cause it isn't.
            you could make the argument for depeche mode though.
            This is the darkest timeline.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Phooey on Springsteen

              Initial shock that someone else has heard of Box of Frogs is wearing off.


              [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Phooey on Springsteen

                I could see Depeche Mode.

                You could make a case for Husker Du.

                But Wang Chung? I don't think so.
                And I won't be here to see the day
                It all dries up and blows away
                I'd hang around just to see
                But they never had much use for me
                In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Phooey on Springsteen

                  John Hiatt, yes. But he never had a lot of commercial popularity so he doesn't have the "JUST PLAY THE CLASSICS, DUMMY!!" pressure that is given to these other artists. I like John, but its not like rock radio has just started ignoring him now. We could go on and on about the evils of rock radio, but the universe of artists likely to play a Super Bowl in this day and age generally starts and stops with rock radio.

                  Putnam, I'd encourage you to take a look at the lyrics to This Life from Workin' on a Dream. Masterful. This new album has some misses, for sure. But some real gems as well.

                  We reach for starlight all night long but gravity's too strong
                  Chained to this earth we go on and on and on
                  Then a million suns cresting where you stood
                  A beauty in the neighborhood
                  This lonely planet never looked so good

                  This life, this life and then the next
                  With you I have been blessed, what more can you expect
                  This life, this life and then the next
                  I finger the hem of your dress, my universe at rest
                  Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                  Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                  Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                  Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                  And life itself, rushing over me
                  Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                  Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Phooey on Springsteen

                    Originally posted by SycamoreKen View Post
                    Glory Days was perfect in that he is really doing what the song says.
                    This is why I utterly hate that song. Its even more misunderstood than Born in the USA and My Hometown. Bruce really blasted us over the head with irony on that album.

                    Born in the USA was not a feel-good patriotic song, it is about the disgusting way that the people back home treated Vietnam vets.

                    My Hometown isn't about nostalgia, its about racial tension and economic blight.

                    Glory Days isn't about how great it is to relive the past, because time slips away and leaves you with nothing mister but boring stories of Glory Days. This is Bruce telling us that he never wants to be the aging rock star on stage singing his old hits with nothing new to say.

                    But in that environment, he can't play The Promised Land and Ramrod. Some of his best songs but songs that aren't familiar to the general public. He's got a new album to promote so we get Working on a Dream, which shares a similar theme to Promised Land, and he's got to play a song that everybody knows, so we get Glory Days, but he steals the "what time is it??/ Boss Time!!" section of Ramrod to play to the crowd. So for one 12-minute blast into national consciousness, I guess he does have to tell us boring stories of Glory Days.
                    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                    And life itself, rushing over me
                    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Phooey on Springsteen

                      J, thanks for the mention of This Life. I agree: those are very good lyrics.

                      I suppose the ability to write good lyrics can stay with an aging artist longer than other abilities. The virility to perform the stage antics and (if necessary) live the rock and roll lifestyle are the first to go. And most performers can probably still play the instruments longer than they can hit the vocals.
                      And I won't be here to see the day
                      It all dries up and blows away
                      I'd hang around just to see
                      But they never had much use for me
                      In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Phooey on Springsteen

                        As a very big blues and classic rock fan, I'm very satisfied in the latest trends in rock having nothing to do with either.

                        EDIT: I'm not being sarcastic, nor am I saying this to "preserve" the past. I just really like the new stuff. Bjork, Beck and Radiohead are the most influential (rock) artists to come out in the last 20 years. They don't play no blues, and they are better for it.
                        Last edited by Los Angeles; 02-07-2009, 06:42 PM.
                        “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                        “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Phooey on Springsteen

                          This is a good opportunity for the Jon Spencer Blues Explosion to chime in:

                          Originally posted by JSBX
                          Is this on?
                          Wooooooo

                          That’s right
                          I’m talking about the blues
                          I said I feel so good baby, ohh
                          I’m talking about the blues
                          Rolling Stone magazine
                          On the telephone baby

                          Talk about the blues,
                          right now, ohh
                          Look out, yeah, ha ha ha
                          That’s right ladies and gentlemen, thank you for letting me into your home
                          I’m gonna do it right now,
                          I’m gonna talk about the blues, ohh

                          Rolling Stone magazine, Coming on the phone, baby
                          Talk about that fashion, Haa!

                          Uh!

                          [I use the microphone like the drummer use a tree]

                          hey, Spin Magazine wanna tell you where you at
                          But I ain’t getting with that or MTV

                          Make up your own mind ladies and gentlemen

                          [That’s bull**** man, you know what I’m talking about]

                          Do your own thing, Yeah
                          'Cos that’s a rock and roll blues we did

                          Rock 'n' roll, yeah
                          Rock 'n' roll, get real, c'mon
                          Right now ladies and gentlemen, right now, right now
                          We’re gonna bring it on down, everybody, do it

                          Stay with me baby because I got something I want everybody to hear right now ladies and gentlemen

                          I don’t play no blues
                          I play rock and roll
                          that’s right the blues is number one
                          The blues is number one ladies and gentlemen but there’s something I gotta tell you right now

                          I do not play no blues, I do not play no blues
                          I play rock and roll
                          Get it
                          I play rock and roll
                          Yeah, that’s right baby, come on momma
                          Do it baby
                          I said I feel so good
                          I said I feel so good
                          I said I feel so good baby
                          I said I feel so mother****ing good
                          Oh

                          That’s right, whoo
                          Oh behalf of myself, Mr. Judah Bauer, Russell Simins and everybody at Rolling Stone magazine I'd like to say

                          Rock 'n' roll

                          [I know you had something to do with what happened to my brother]
                          [yt]EPOhmZlAnUo[/yt]
                          “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                          “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Phooey on Springsteen

                            Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                            As a very big blues and classic rock fan, I'm very satisfied in the latest trends in rock having nothing to do with either.

                            EDIT: I'm not being sarcastic, nor am I saying this to "preserve" the past. I just really like the new stuff. Bjork, Beck and Radiohead are the most influential (rock) artists to come out in the last 20 years. They don't play no blues, and they are better for it.
                            You already know this, but while half of my iPod is Springsteen (and U2), when the radio is on I'm looking for new music to listen to.

                            My only problem with the new music is that the stuff that is popular enough to get on the radio is generally from over-produced bands that have not played together in a live setting often enough to put on a good show. (A decade ago, Third Eye Blind was the poster child for this - they should have been good live, but did not 'click'.) The ones that are good live are unknown to me because I don't have time to invest in tracking them down and learning their stuff. The fragemented distribution/ get-to-know-them channel is a problem for me.
                            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                            And life itself, rushing over me
                            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Phooey on Springsteen

                              Now you've guys have brought this discussion to an interesting point. It appears to begin with (at least some of you) people were comparing Springsteen 2009 to Springsteen 1985 to Springsteen 1975.

                              I just turned up the TV and watched it for what I considered it to be: the halftime musical act at this year's Super Bowl. All I was watching/listening for was some energy, live performance, and seeing how well the performer connected with the audience. To that degree I thought Springsteen did very well. ...And I was also watching for the technical end of things but that is beside the point.

                              Ever since the wardrobe malfunction I've thought the SB has done a much better job with the halftime performance. I do consider it an 'adult' performance but not due to any XXX rated events...

                              But the complaint seems to be these recent acts are old... shadows of them former selves. Does that mean they should go away? Does that discredit them from performing their music live? And if you can still play, but can't leap as high, does that mean it's time to hang it up?

                              And musically, Springsteen is very solid. His band is one of the best in the business. Maybe he does have to call his shots a little more and can't quite hit the notes he once could, or maybe he's just grown smarter about how to use his voice over the long haul, does any of that mean that not only should he hang it up but that he shouldn't be the SB musical act?

                              Of course they could hire Green Day but does anyone trust Green Day not to do or say something inappropriate once the 'moment' is there and the adrenaline is flowing? And if Green Day does play it straight, how long before someone calls them sellouts?

                              I'm sure there's a line where it's better to fade away and let people remember you closer to the top of your game... but IMHO as long as a performer can still connect with the crowd and bring them that special connection that only a live performance can, I think they should do it. I don't think it's fair to compare them to themselves of a decade ago... particularly if it's not a big picture comparison.

                              But is the SB and it's huge worldwide audience the place for it? Hmmmmm.... I think it's been fine so far with the dinosaur acts they've chosen but that pool is limited.
                              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                              ------

                              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Phooey on Springsteen

                                Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                                You already know this, but while half of my iPod is Springsteen (and U2), when the radio is on I'm looking for new music to listen to.

                                My only problem with the new music is that the stuff that is popular enough to get on the radio is generally from over-produced bands that have not played together in a live setting often enough to put on a good show. (A decade ago, Third Eye Blind was the poster child for this - they should have been good live, but did not 'click'.)
                                that and stephen jenkin's unlistenable voice.


                                Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                                The ones that are good live are unknown to me because I don't have time to invest in tracking them down and learning their stuff. The fragemented distribution/ get-to-know-them channel is a problem for me.
                                two places to start: here and here
                                This is the darkest timeline.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X