BillsFanNC
-
Posts
20,757 -
Joined
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by BillsFanNC
-
-
I grew up in the village and I'm one year older than him, but I don't recognize the name. I'm assuming he went to St. Francis with Polian's son.
-
Tiger can get just about any peach he wants, he's not missing anything.
Yes he can indeed.
-
That was quite the hiatus. The Dean has nothing on you. Welcome back.
-
My personal favorite was the Retatta thread because of how it happened. One of the board's more milquetoast posters was getting piled on for some topic or another, and out of the blue someone questioned his intelligence based on a fritatta recipe he posted in what was, at the time, the Cookbook section of the board. Something about taking an hour to cook pasta. The thread would have died an early death had the poster not opted to defend his recipe instructions. But no. He kept coming back for more.
Of course, that was back when you could call someone here a retard (Fritatta + Retard = Retatta) without hurting everyone's feelings.
That thread can never be topped. To this day I don't think I've ever laughed as hard as I did the night that the retatta thread unfolded. This friggin' abortion...
What about Johnny Coli's blog? That was some great writing, funny as hell.
-
Why the hate for the Seahawks? Seattle might be the one sports city more miserable than Buffalo.
No hate. I just don't want any other Lomabardi-less teams winning the Super Bowl before the Bills.
-
I can only say who I'll root against.
No Texans, Bengals, Falcons, Seahawks or Vikings because misery loves company.
No Patriots* because I just f%#&ing hate them.
-
Remember when we didn't suck?
Barely.
-
I was there with my father. I wanted to leave at halftime and he talked me out of it. I was halfway up the aisle to the exit at 35-3 when he got me to come back to my seat again. He promised we would leave if Houston scored again. When Houston scored next to tie it at 38, I asked him if he still wanted to leave. What a game, and I'm one of the few who can say he stayed and watched the whole damn thing thanks to my dad.
With the joke this team has become in the past decade, this game seems like it happened even longer than 20 years ago.
-
Obviously you have never had a Lord Chesterfield Ale or a Black & Tan. Both are terrific. My hunch is that you had a old skunky can of lager once, or that the cheap price colors your opinion.
Don't get me wrong. I like a snobby expensive beer as much as the next snobby expensive beer drinker. Many Unabroue offerings like Raftman and La Fin du Monde are favorites.
PTR
I've had plenty of all the Yuengling styles. They are just ok beers when put up against other craft beers of the same styles, none are great or outstanding.
-
Of course not. Don't be ridiculous. My point is that longevity does matter. No one doubts that the Stones are greatest RnR band ever, but their later stuff? Meh....
I dont think being the Ramones was easy. You seem to think that playing Jacobs Ladder in13/8 time was easy. It's not.
I don't see a clear lineage for the VU to the New York Dolls. I've always read and heard that the NYD were the FIRST glam rock band, without whom there may not have been a Bowie, a Kiss, 80's hair metal, grunge and punk.
The Dead Kennedy's, the Clash, Richard Hell and the Voidoids, Black Flag, and then the more mainstream T-Funk Heads and Blondie (vastly under-acted band) all happen with or without the SexPistols floating down the Thames.
I know what your point is. Rock n Roll is leather jackets, sex, rebellion, the Beatles in Hamburg, etc. and to a certain extent, the Hall more than welcomes that. It's the Madonna's, James Taylor's and their ilk that rub me the wrong way. Yes, Genesis, Rush, and ELP were monstrously huge bands that were fathered by Sargent Pepper. To deny them recognition in the Hall because they don't fit the jingle-jangle, leather jacket, rebellion mode is silly.
Music at some point has to be about music. These bands incorporated actual musicianship into the craft. Not everyone started their musical journey by picking up Strat copy and some decent headphones. Some of us started with musician parents and piano lessons and a father's massive collection of jazz albums. To hear rock played with the same intricacy, care, masterful musicianship as a Billy Cobham or Buddy Rich was indeed a revelation and a rebellion all it's own.
Good post. It captures much of what I've been trying to say, only better.
I'm not a big fan of The Smashing Pumpkins, but I think Billy Corgan puts it most succinctly in regard to Rush and their HOF worthiness: "At the end of the day, rock is a people's game, and the people have consistently and overwhelmingly voted for this band."
-
There are a lot of great craft beers. In fact there is one, White Birch, that opened right at the end of my street. Superb, but costs anywhere from $13 to $24 for a 22oz bottle. There comes a point when the slight improvement in taste isn't worth the extra cost.
PTR
When you're using Yuengling as your baseline, I don't think you can use slight improvement when comparing it to a lot of the beers mentioned in this thread. A proper analogy would be getting a burger from Wendy's vs. a steak from Ruth's Chris. The difference is night and day, and you pay for it accordingly.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no so much of a beer snob that I totally sneer at Yuengling, Bud or PBR. There is a time and a place for almost every beer. Almost.
-
I don't think that list is doing your argument any favors
Why not?
-
We used to always save vacation time to make it back to Buffalo for the holidays, however the past few years with other vacations and kids activities during the year. I just don't have the vacation time left in December to travel north.
I will be making it back in early January though. My wife and I celebrate our 10th wedding anniversary on 12/27. I asked her where she wanted to go to celebrate, and she answered very quickly with Buffalo!
-
Gotta say I love the craft beers, but any one else get the feeling this is going the way of the cigar craze?
I was just talking about this the other day with a friend. There is no question that there is a craft beer bubble that about to burst. There are four new breweries planned to open here in the Triangle area next year, adding to the explosion that's already occurred since they raised the legal abv limit in NC to 15% a few years back.
-
2007 Tacoma TRD Sport. Just hit 100k miles and its paid for, plan to drive it until it dies.
-
the Younger is by far the better beer....i think it gets ignored because its so hard to come by whereas the Elder is the one they make more of for distribution...
funny Beer advocate even puts it higher than the one in the original post....i like how the elder comes in slightly behind it...must be tough to have that problem as a brewer
I've had both. I don't know if Younger is better by far, but it's another damn good beer. It's just like you said that it's such a rare occasion that they actually release it and on such a limited distribution scale that I think that's why it's ignored in the AHA rankings.
Edit: I take that back, Younger is actually tied for 48th in the AHA rankings.
-
Russian River Pliny the Younger is often considered the best beer in america...but of course it is very subjective based on personal preference
Actually it's Pliny The Elder that has won the crown for the fourth straight year. I enjoyed a bottle of Pliny yesterday as a matter of fact, just an awesome beer.
http://www.homebrewersassociation.org/pages/community/news/show?title=2012-best-beers-in-america
-
i think you will hear from him on the difference between "influenced... insert band here" and "without them there would be no...insert band here"
whether right or wrong, i read his comment and yours to be slightly (potentially hugely) different things.
its possible im putting words in his mouth, and im not chiming in here with whether i agree, but instead trying to speak to the nature of the comments at a base level.
You're right, if that's what he meant then those are two hugely different things. One of them is just an opinion (one that many people also have regarding Rush and those that followed) and the other can be easily vetted by the quotes from the bands themselves.
-
without Rush ....
A quick google search reveals bands crediting Rush as an influence...
Smashing Pumpkins, Soundgarden, Tragically Hip, Foo Fighters, Metallica, Rage Against The Machine, Pantera, Nine Inch Nails, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Tool, Primus, Muse, Opeth, Mastadon, Anthrax, Dream Theater, Wilco, Slash/GnR, Porcupine Tree, Mars Volta, Queensryche, Coheed and Cambria etc, etc, etc....
I know, I know they all suck too.
-
and from the Rush folks, i'm still awaiting to hear an answer to why Rush gets in before Yes. that's a little astounding.
I think Yes should be in too. They probably aren't in because outside of 90125 they took the progressive route even farther out there than Rush did and it's pretty clear that the nominating committee doesn't appreciate the prog rock so much. But like Rush, just get them on the ballot and they're likely in right away.
Any argument for Styx getting in before or after Rush is bound to be a rather flimsy one.
-
your defense of Rush essentially goes like this: "I like them. Lots of people like them. To hell with those who don't like their banshee wailing and tepid song lyrics." pardon me if i missed something, but you seem to want to make this personal, while i don't.
Actually it's the opposite. I want to make this less personal and subjective and ask you to step back and evaluate things more objectively. It IS about lots of people and musicians liking them, this is what I don't think you're willing to acknowledge. For everything you're saying Rush is not, they ARE those things to more fans and to other bands than the ones you listed combined. That's gotta count for something. It doesn't matter if you don't dig them or how they present themselves, ultimately the preponderance of the fans and other acclaimed musicians has to carry the day.
and what is all this about "world's biggest cult band." what does this all mean in the big picture?i don't know if i'd want to be associated with a cult, to begin with. and good for them that they've enjoyed plenty of success.
They've been on the outside looking in as far as critical acclaim for their entire career, that's where it comes from. I have personally heard of all of the bands that you listed for what it's worth. That's why I know that most of them aren't that well known outside of a small, dare i say cult-like, following. I'm on board with Cheap Trick getting in for sure, and maybe a few others but none deserve to be in before Rush.
if Rush gets in, why not Styx. a case could certainly be made for them, no?First Asia, now Styx? Seriously? This more than anything displays how out of touch you are with the situation. Cut away everything Rush has done post 1982 and you might have a valid Styx or Asia comparison.
Rush might one day belong. but that day is not today. there have been far too many wrongs made, and a near entire generation of bands nearly completely overlooked, groups and artists who have done far more in pushing modern music forward in the true spirit of rock and roll than a mere niche trio that could hit all the notes and engaged the imaginations of youth who spent the 1970s and early 80s closeted in their basements, where some still, apparently, remain.Again, you're clearly the one stuck in the 70's when it comes to objectively evaluating Rush's hall worthiness.
-
i can do that. and i will.
Sure you can, if you want to continue being intellectually dishonest.
you suggest that the rock and roll hall of fame should have some kind of push-button incentive program. bands should stick around for a long time, have influence, hit the right notes and be excellent.
No I don't, the RnR HOF does. Again it's right there on their website if you want to go read it. Those are the rules and criteria I'm playing by and you're not.
well, that rules out the clash on two counts as well as the sex pistols. and heaven forbid we mention the ramones. these rules aren't rock and roll, they're put forth by bean-counting arbitors that have nothing to do with the spirit of the noise. heck, muddy waters doesn't belong, nor do many of the early so-called blues masters.
It's all about flying in the face of the establishment, F the man of faceless corporate rock, right? We'll get to that later and why you're once again wrong when it comes to Rush
by your standard, it's only a matter of time that creed gets in because they influenced nickleback.Again, not my standard and you're forgetting the musical excellence and innovative part with these two.
world's biggest cult band, somehow i doubt that. and you're trying to have it both ways, so pardon me if i call bullcrap.because how can you write in one post Third most consecutive gold or platinum albums behind only the Beatles and the Stones. Commercial success check." and now attempt to make the case that they're somehow some unknown gem.
That was a title given by Geddy himself, and he is absolutely correct. Rush's success after nearly 40 years producing music has been in spite of the rock n roll establishment. Like you've so stubbornly displayed in this thread Rush has been panned by critics for almost 40 years based on how Geddy sounded in 1977 and for a popular record with synthesizers that came out in 1980.
Rush was dead in the water in 1975. Caress of Steel had bombed and Rush was under intense pressure from the record company to produce an album with some radio friendly songs. They responded with 2112, an decidedly radio unfriendly album, with a 20 minute song as it's centerpiece. Essentially a big FU to the record company. And that album launched their careers the old fashioned way, through word of mouth. That's what it's largely about after all with all your underground cult bands right? FU to the mainstream, run against the mill and we'll do it our way, dammit!! Since that day Rush has done it their way and have not let the critics or record companies dictate what they do. Worlds biggest cult band.
i have no problem with people liking rush, it's the evangelical nature of their "believing" i find hard to justify or put up with it.and here's my problem, there are far too many bands and artists with far more depth and influence that are not in the Hall of Fame who belong there well ahead of rush.
need i go down the list:
Steve Earle
The Boxtops/Chilton/Big Star
Cheap Trick, for heavens sake.
heck, i don't think The Jam's in there.
The Cure's not in there.
and let me get this straight, Joan Jett and the Black'heads' are in, but the Runaways aren't?
for cripe's sakes: THE JAM!
the Faces aren't in ...
and let's not even start with America's misfits -- the mats, campers, minutemen, huskers, dead kennedy's -- who carried the torch of rock and roll through the 80s. nothing, nada.
like rush all you want, just don't pretend that they've suddenly been legitimized because they're heading to cleveland.
jw
We're talking about a music HOF here, so that on it's own lends itself to a lot of subjectivity. However, at the end of the day you have to have some objective criteria that you can stand back and look at. Which means, that you need to put aside your biases and prejudices about any band, do some research and look objectively at the breadth of their work, career and influence etc. You don't get Rush, understood. Yet you keep responding with a bunch of bands most people haven't heard of who have largely influenced bands that nobody knows. Ultimately, this is a RnR Hall of FAME we're discussing here, right?
Look, there are plenty of bands already in the hall that I don't care for. Steely Dan for example. Do I get their music? No. Will I change the channel almost every time a SD song comes on? Yes. Do they belong in the RnR HOF? Absolutely.
Here is an article by a guy who panned Rush's Signals album (again, 30 years ago) and why they got his vote for the RnR HOF.
http://www.theglobea...018/?cmpid=rss1
In a sidebar, there were excerpts from reviews slamming this Rush album and that, among them being a 1982 slam of Signals which complained that “Geddy Lee’s congested vocals float through the songs like swamp gas.”
The author? Yours truly.
What changed my mind?.... it’s that Rush has gotten better over the years. Unlike most rockers, who peak in their first decade and spend the rest of their career either treading water or slowly sinking, Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson and Neil Peart have continued to grow over the decades. They play better now than they did then, they take more chances musically, and they write more interesting material. Frankly, I can’t think of many other bands I could say that about.
Still all we keep hearing about is Geddy's banshee wailing, synthesizers and pretentious lyrics from 30 years ago.
Save your outrage for the ABBA's of the hall, you're just simply dead wrong here.
-
not going to convince me different. Rush isn't terrrible, they're quaint.
1) commercial success is something reserved for people's choice awards and the grammy's: it shouldn't be a criterion for induction into the hall.
2) touring in support of an album, means they just put out an album and they're touring. this gets me nowhere. The Clash stopped touring, and yet they're in. the Rolling Stones are "touring," who cares. i don't. doesn't take away what they've done. Mickey Dolenz is touring, still, i believe. he should stop, but that doesn't mean the Monkees belong.
3) peers. i guess. Steve Earle's been paid tribute by his peers in song and in covers, and that i don't think has gotten him a sniff at anything. and i think Steve Earle will forever be more relevant than Rush.
4) Nirvana named its first album "Nevermind" after a replacements song. ... as for smashing pumpkins, pantera, soundgarden, they don't qualify for me as belonging in any elite rock and roll hall of fame. i'm sure the members of nickleback credit Rush, too, given their canadian roots.
5) the dave matthews band is accomplished, as was supertramp and genesis. so? it's the rock and roll hall of fame, not the rock and roll hall of accomplished. if that were the case, Toto would be in it -- though, i'm not sure, they might already be for cripes' sake.
see, i'm not even sure Cheap Trick belongs, as much as i like them. i'm not saying i don't outright dislike Rush. i just don't know if they belong. because if they do, why not induct Asia. ... in fact, Yes belongs in the hall, and i'm not a big Yes man, to pardon the pun.
jw
I'm fully aware that I'm not going to convince you, I'm just going to continue proving you wrong. Rush detractors are just as vehement in their disdain as their supporters are in their advocacy. That just tends to endear me more to the worlds biggest cult band.
Everything I mentioned are things the hall looks for as criteria for induction, and you respond through the prism of your anti Rush prejudices. You can't do that. Longevity, influence, musical proficiency and excellence, these are all criteria the hall claims they look for for eligibility, its right there on their website. You disagree that Rush has achieved in these areas, but legions of fans, musicians and critics worldwide know that they indeed have. That's why they're in, albeit 14 years late.
-
well, if you want to base it on longevity, i guess rush is in. what genre they represent is a more apt question to me.
though technically sound, they're odes to red borshetta's kind of leave me lost in its insincerity. that said, they seem to have captured and reflected the cold concrete fourth-rate metropolis of a city they hail from. to me, they made it somehow despite themselves, kind of like genesis and its odd fairy tale odes.
they sold records, and yet, is that what makes rock and roll the vibrant mess that it was and remains?
i don't think so. and that's my opinion.
this isn't a modern music hall of fame. this is the Rock and Roll hall of fame. and there is a distinction, i think, when i think of what defines rock and roll.
it's Elvis being filmed from the waist up so his hip-shake swivel isn't broadcast.
it's what the Rolling Stones did in bridging the past and what's still the present with Exile.
it's everything that Joe Strummer did, and Keith Richards pumped into his veins.
and it's the 'Mats being banned from Saturday Night Live for refusing to follow Lorne Michaels' orders and going ahead and swearing on live TV.
it's not three guys standing on a stage, impersonally and with no connection to the crowd in some big arena, going on in some high-pitched squeal about tom sawyer.
the Tragically Hip have done far more in pushing music forward with their unique grumble than most any Canadian artist has done this side of Neil Young and Joni Mitchell.
but that's just me.
jw
ok, so most of it can be boiled down to "I just don't like them" which is fine, but it doesn't count for exclusion.. By every single criteria that they look for Rush is there. I agree that the hall is largely a joke, but if you're gonna have one Rush has got to be in, there's no two ways about it.
Third most consecutive gold or platinum albums behind only the Beatles and the Stones. Commercial success check.
They are still touring supporting albums nearly 40 years into their career. Not endless nostalgia tours like the Stones or The Who. Longevity check.
All three members have consistently been recognized by their peers as among the best at what they do. Musical excellence check.
Smashing pumpkins, nine inch nails, pantera, metallica, red hot chili peppers, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam etc, etc have all mentioned how influential Rush was to them in their formative years. Infliuence on rock music check.
Rush is a polarizing band, I get that, but to deny that they haven't accomplished well beyond the minimum for what should be required for induction into an artistic HOF is just weak IMO.
Finally I leave you with this.
New Nike golf commercial featuring Tiger & Rory
in Off the Wall Archives
Posted
Always remember Tigers best advice...three holes are better than a hole in one.