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

  • #46
    Re: Phooey on Springsteen

    Originally posted by BBall
    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?
    That is my complaint, yes. I would have them hang it up. There is plenty of vibrant, fresh talent out there. The accusatory finger points toward the patrons as well as the performers.

    There are two aspects of the complaint. The first is that they can't perform as well as they used to. The second is that performing that music at their age is absurd.

    [yt]zqfFrCUrEbY[/yt]


    Grace Slick has said, " I hate seeing sixty-year-olds on the rock-and-roll stage. they look stupid." I just figure, who am I to argue with Grace Slick?
    Last edited by Putnam; 02-09-2009, 09:33 AM.
    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


    • #47
      Re: Phooey on Springsteen

      Originally posted by Putnam View Post


      Grace Slick has said, " I hate seeing sixty-year-olds on the rock-and-roll stage. they look stupid." I just figure, who am I to argue with Grace Slick?
      I've had the Grace Slick quote in mind for some time as this thread developed. I figured there'd come a point I'd mention it. I was just about to post it in reply to your post when I saw you had posted it.

      I think it's an excellent springboard for this discussion... except I have to leave now. If someone hasn't picked up the torch on this topic I'll probably do it when I get in later this evening.
      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


      • #48
        Re: Phooey on Springsteen

        Maybe their relative sobriety (vs. the rock-and-roll norm) helps keep the E Street-ers relevant today.

        But Springsteen has always been the exception to nearly every regular rock-and-roll rule.

        Time and Newsweek at the same time. Composing a rock-and-roll album on the piano. Playing a four-hour show when others would only play 100 minutes.

        This last tour, most shows were just a tick over two hours. Bruce knows he can't pull off the four hour marathon show anymore. But two hours of Springsteen at age 59 is vastly superior to most other options.

        Now, in general, rock and roll stars don't age as gracefully. So conceptually I can agree with Putnam's theme. But this is the wrong artist for most of those arguments.

        Truth be told, at this age I personally enjoy Bruce's "solo" tour - just him, a piano, pump organ, and a rack of about thirty guitars to pick from - as much as I enjoy the E Street Band party. In that setting, Bruce is no longer "rock star", but "highly versatile performer" when an outstanding catalogue to pick from. Or as Putnam suggests, it best displays his long history as a songwriter while allowing him to be a performer/ entertainer.

        I listed to an interview with Clarance Clemons from the post-Super Bowl broadcast last night. He's had both knees replaced between the last tour and now. Nils Lofgren had both hips replaced in that same period. Danny, of course, has passed away. This is a band that still loves to play together, still connects to a multi-generational audience, and still performs thier music at a high level. Maybe thier stage antics have simmered down a bit with age. Again, sobriety seems to be paying dividends here - so why not let him do what they were meant to do?
        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


        • #49
          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'.) 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.
          Third Eye Blind has numerous modern day equals - many of whom have appeared on American Idol. In my opinion, the Faux Rock genre is just as guilty of producing crap music as R&B and Pop-Country. the real artists in all of those genres are the producers, who have perfected the art of the contract/promotion stew.

          I don't know if there's a magic answer to this problem.

          But you can still discover new music, just learn to judge it for what it is.

          I would say that you should separate good songs from good albums from good live shows and leave it at that. For example, the Skylarking album from XTC remains in my top ten all time albums, and the band has never toured to support it or anything else since its release. Music can be great without the live show.

          One of my favorite albums of 2008 was Vampire Weekend's self-titled debut. It was the perfect combination of Paul Simon's Graceland, The Talking Heads, The Violent Femmes and The Police but with hilter-kilter intelligentsia lyrics and a modern indie backbeat that was oh-so catchy. WOW what a great album!

          I went to see them live at the El Rey in Los Angeles. I won't get into details here, but they were awful. Awful as in debacle awful. Uhg.

          Recently, I saw The Duke Spirit at the Roxy and was completely floored. HOLY CRAP! Why aren't these guys selling out stadiums?!? Well, because while thier album is great, it doesn't contain that one catchy "hit".

          In my opinion, music discovery should start on a personal level and work outward from there. Don't think that anyone - nomatter who they are - are good live after only an album or two. If it happens, it is a very rare treat indeed. Instead, sample bits on blogs and on pitchfork and other indie music web locales. forget the 90% you hate and investigate the 10% you like. in four years if that band is still creating stuff you like, buy a ticket. Odds are they are polished by now.

          But one band I KNOW has cut its teeth in the live way is the Hold Steady. any Spreingsteen fan should at least appreciate the energy they exude.
          “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


          • #50
            Re: Phooey on Springsteen

            I went to pitchfork music festival last july and I can definitely vouch for you LA. Vampire Weekend was less than impressive. The Hold Steady was awesome and the other band that really impressed me with how close they got to the album was Fleet Foxes, which surprised me in an outdoor setting for it to sound so crisp and clear.

            LA you have really good taste, XTC is one of my favorites. I probably like Black Sea the best.
            Play Mafia!
            Twitter

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Phooey on Springsteen

              Big Fleet Foxes fan here. They remind you of what it was like to hear Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young for the first time. Yes, the album is that good.
              “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


              • #52
                Re: Phooey on Springsteen

                You on last.fm LA? I haven't been using it much lately but I want to take a look through your stuff to see if I should check anything out.

                Another example is one of my favorite songs of the past year, Golden Age by TV on the Radio, was performed live on SNL on saturday (that sounds redundant) and wasn't that good.

                Times New Viking is supposedly very good too, but I can't get past the fuzz on the album version of what they produce, and that's coming from a Mountain Goats fan.

                Also, sorry to sidetrack this already sidetracked thread more. On the original topic, I thought Bruce was ok. I'm not a huge Boss fan but it was entertaining. On the second topic, I agree with J that I think that as a rocker ages, as long as they don't become a greatest hits only performer, I don't have a problem with them.
                Play Mafia!
                Twitter

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Phooey on Springsteen

                  No, I'm not on last.fm. The closest I've come to an online music fan presence is Sam's threads on PD.

                  But I can easily direct you to where I tend get my music tips (ouside of freind recommendations):

                  - Sirius Satellite Radio Ch 26/ XM Radio Ch 43 "XMU" (the new one)

                  - Indie1031.com (recently pulled off the air in LA, but continuing to broadcast online)

                  - and a few indie music blogs like Brooklyn Vegan, Gorilla vs Bear, and Indianapolis' own My Old Kentucky Blog.
                  “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


                  • #54
                    Re: Phooey on Springsteen

                    Oh - and back on subject - I find the notion that Rock and Roll performers must only perform while young and retire before the crowsfeet show to be insulting and perhaps even racist. Nobody accuses black artists of not being "fresh" and "relevant" when they take their 50's 60's and 70's acts on the road. Nobody demands that Aretha Franklin hang it up just because the kids don't buy her records.

                    But as soon as the Stones tour without leaning on new material people claim that they are washed up? I call bull**** on that noise. If Paul McCartney can still bust out the Beatles hits to a crowd of 40,000, I say more power to him.

                    I mean - for Pete's sake - this is music we're talking about, and it is - by definition - simultaneously timely AND timeless.
                    “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


                    • #55
                      Re: Phooey on Springsteen

                      Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                      so why not let him do what they were meant to do?
                      As Bruce put it in his last 60 Minutes interview:
                      "What else would I do? You got any clues? Got any suggestions? I mean, am I going to garden?"

                      Going back to earlier in the thread, and the issue with the hammer imagery in Working On A Dream, I thought that was the same hammer as the "If I Had A Hammer" hammer. Now that I know it's talking about masturbating I'll have to rethink the whole song.

                      If I had a hammer
                      I'd hammer in the morning
                      I'd hammer in the evening
                      All over this land
                      I'd hammer out danger
                      I'd hammer out a warning
                      I'd hammer out love between my brothers and my sisters
                      All over this land



                      I always thought the Downbound Train sledgehammer was an actual sledgehammer.

                      Jay, I don't have a ticket for Chicago, yet, but I haven't ruled it out. If I catch a good ticket drop I'll probably grab one.

                      LA, you had recommended The Hold Steady a while back and I a couple studio albums and a live at Lollapalooza album and have enjoyed them. Good call.
                      PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Phooey on Springsteen

                        Originally posted by MagicRat View Post
                        Going back to earlier in the thread, and the issue with the hammer imagery in Working On A Dream, I thought that was the same hammer as the "If I Had A Hammer" hammer. Now that I know it's talking about masturbating I'll have to rethink the whole song.

                        If I had a hammer
                        I'd hammer in the morning
                        I'd hammer in the evening
                        All over this land
                        I'd hammer out danger
                        I'd hammer out a warning
                        I'd hammer out love between my brothers and my sisters
                        All over this land

                        I always thought the Downbound Train sledgehammer was an actual sledgehammer.
                        MagicRat, the Downbound Train hammer is clearly and plainly a real hammer, because he tells us what kind of hammer it is and he tells us that he uses it on cross-ties while working a road gang. That is a clear, vivid, excellent lyric.

                        The Working on a Dream hammer has no such associations or descriptions. It is just out there. I don't believe the song is about masturbation, but I believe it is vague to a fault. (I don't believe Kiss the Frog by Peter Gabriel is about a frog, either!)


                        Apart from certain mean-spirited nonsense, this thread is made some good conclusions.

                        Many of Grace Slick's songs were particular to youth, and in her case integrity dictated that she stop singing them when she herself had grown old. It may have been a drug-addled mind rather than integrity that led her to stop performing, but the two ionfluences worked toward the same end.

                        As J has said, Bruce has probably kept as much integrity on stage as any aging performer. He's the wrong exemplar for my argument.

                        As BBall has said, the SuperBowl halftime show is a peculiar setting. It is not fair to conclude from a rushed and cheesy performance there that a performer has jumped the shark altogether.

                        And finally, J says it best when he marvels that rock music has become, for many people, a sort of "Linus' security blanket." I'm not subject to that temptation myself because nearly all of those aging artists seem as ludicrous to me as the octogenarian version of "My Generation." Others may see it differently.
                        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


                        • #57
                          Re: Phooey on Springsteen

                          Originally posted by MagicRat View Post
                          Jay, I don't have a ticket for Chicago, yet, but I haven't ruled it out. If I catch a good ticket drop I'll probably grab one.
                          If you catch a "drop", let me know. I wouldn't mind upgrading. We had a technical glitch during the purchase process and ended up much higher than I'd like to be.

                          Curious what the second US leg will be other than Detroit and Cleveland. Surely Milwaukee will be in there? It doesn't look easy to try for multiple shows this time around.
                          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


                          • #58
                            Re: Phooey on Springsteen

                            Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                            Oh - and back on subject - I find the notion that Rock and Roll performers must only perform while young and retire before the crowsfeet show to be insulting and perhaps even racist. Nobody accuses black artists of not being "fresh" and "relevant" when they take their 50's 60's and 70's acts on the road. Nobody demands that Aretha Franklin hang it up just because the kids don't buy her records.

                            But as soon as the Stones tour without leaning on new material people claim that they are washed up? I call bull**** on that noise. If Paul McCartney can still bust out the Beatles hits to a crowd of 40,000, I say more power to him.

                            I mean - for Pete's sake - this is music we're talking about, and it is - by definition - simultaneously timely AND timeless.
                            Boy do I sound like a jerk in this post.

                            Sorry everybody. Don't drink and post.
                            “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


                            • #59
                              Re: Phooey on Springsteen

                              Mr. Rat,

                              They dropped some today. Not sure if you'd call them good or not.

                              Actually, there is a single in 323, which is where we already have tickets. Hoping for better during the next drop, if there is one...
                              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

                              Working...
                              X