FlaSoxxJim

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 10, 2009 -> 10:24 AM) It's not craproballistic? I love it. Biologists are fairly obsessed with bodily functions like that. I probably had to take too many liberties with spelling to make it fit. It's correctly spelled copro- not capro- but what the heck.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 10, 2009 -> 08:54 AM) Not a word either, but, I like it. Well, it may be an alternate spelling of Kaproballistic which I unsuccessfully tried to introduce to SoxTalk canon a while back. That would itself be a Kapified alternate spelling of caproballistic which is a tongue-in-cheek scientific term referring to the habit of primates throwing their feces.

Lots of funny bits and great 80s homage in the music sequence, but the episode sort of left me wanting as well. I'm sure I'll watch it again and it will seem ridiculously funny.

That Anvil film actually looks like an outstanding film.

QUOTE (The Critic @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 12:11 PM) This is the next movie I have to see: http://www.anvilthestoryofanvil.com/ "At 14, Toronto school friends Steve "Lips" Kudlow and Robb Reiner made a pact to rock together forever. Their band, Anvil, went on to become the "demigods of Canadian metal," releasing one of the heaviest albums in metal history, 1982's Metal on Metal. The album influenced a musical generation, including Metallica, Slayer, and Anthrax, that went on to sell millions of records. But Anvil's career took a different path - straight to obscurity." Opens at the Music Box Theatre ( ) on April 24th, and I will be there! Music Box was my favorite old Chicago movie house.

In one of the most awesome moments of my unexciting little life, a friend of mine is about to go into space on STS-119 this Wednesday! Way to Go, Mission Specialist Educator Joe Acaba!!! :notworthy :headbang

QUOTE (knightni @ Mar 8, 2009 -> 08:55 PM) There better not be a sequel. Alan Moore will have them burned alive if they try. BTW, lovin' that Silk Spectre II. Alan has already disavowed himself of everything Hollywood does with his creations, so he'd probably see a sequel to any of them as just more confirmation that Hollywood studios don't give a damn about intellectual property.

QUOTE (Cali @ Mar 6, 2009 -> 04:18 PM) Even though the last season of Curb SUCKED. I will tune in to see this for sure. I've been watching a lot of Seinfeld in syndication lately and not only does it hold up, it almost gets better with time... I didn't think last season sucked, but I disliked some aspects of the story arc -- Larry and Cheryl separating, etc.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Mar 5, 2009 -> 07:54 PM) I remember it getting horrible reviews, and I watched some of it Comedy Central, and it sucked. Since you thought the Love Guru is funny, I will continue to pass on Death to Smoochy. No, Death to Smoochy was pretty funny. There is that twisted sub-genre of iconic kid's entertainment entities gone bad that I get a kick out of. Maybe I'll call it the Sideshow Bob Phenomenon. Smoochy, Bob Goldthwait's very under-appreciated Shakes the Clown, Bad Santa, etc. . . I get a kick out of all of those.

QUOTE (maggliopipe @ Mar 5, 2009 -> 10:24 PM) If you do go, check out The Brewer's Art. Fantastic restaurant in a decent enough neighborhood and they've got some outstanding brews, specifically the Resurrection Ale. I've been there twice and it's been great both times. I highly recommend it. Second on Brewer's Art. Well done Belgian-style beers, including a very nice seasonal wit. Cool old refurbished building as well.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 5, 2009 -> 10:02 AM) Ask around for Avon Barksdale. Pfft, look up Carol Heathrow instead.

QUOTE (The Critic @ Mar 5, 2009 -> 05:43 PM) Nope. Don't like either one of 'em. I understand their place in rock history, but I don't enjoy their music. QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 5, 2009 -> 07:40 PM) Thank you. I like them both. Ditto for Little Richard, Carl Perkins, Roy Orbison, Buddy Holly, Chubby Checker, the Everlys, etc. Great, pure stuff that thumbed it's nose at the social and musical establishments as much as anything since, and laid out the rules that everybody since then has been bending but never quite breaking.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 5, 2009 -> 02:58 PM) we all listen to Chuck Berry and Elvis then, right? We do if we appreciate rock and roll heritage. Scotty Moore was a brilliant guitarist, technically very skilled, who brought jazz and country motifs into his music along with the rock and R&B. If you are a guitar player you listen very closely to what Scotty is doing on the Elvis records. Ditto for Chuck Berry. Every rock guitar student goes through a Chuck Berry period in their evolution. "All of Chuck's children are out there playing his licks", as the song lyric goes.

QUOTE (longshot7 @ Mar 4, 2009 -> 06:16 PM) I didn't say the Beach Boys were JUST AS popular as the Beatles - they weren't, but they were FAR AND AWAY number 2 - and still insanely popular through Pet Sounds (which inspired Sgt Pepper.) And don't forget "Good Vibrations", which had its part in the Summer of Love too. You said "By late 1963/early 1964, the Beach Boys sound was largely played out, and a post-JFK assassination America was ready for a new direction", and that is JUST NOT TRUE. Played out is not a term for a artist that is still popular and having #1 hits. If you're trying to argue that Nirvana's arrival changed the rock and roll landscape more than the Beatles' arrival, then okee dokee. At least it's an entertaining opinion. The Beatles coming on the scene had everything to do with Brian Wilson's push to evolve the Beach Boys into more than the teen idol band that they were, and their music grew well beyond the ground it had been retreading prior to that. Rubber Soul was the album that made Brian realize that you didn't need filler material in between the hits, that an album could be vital and relevant from the first track to the last. There wouldn't have been a Pet Sounds otherwise. Absolutely, Pet Sounds in turn influenced the Beatles – it was wonderful one-upsmanship between the two groups. Eventually Brian pulled the plug on Smile when Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane came out, which is the probably the biggest tragedy of 1960s music. The Beatles changed the landscape entirely, and of course it's a credit to Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys that they were able to change as well.

Great news, Congrats!! :headbang

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Mar 4, 2009 -> 10:41 AM) Got this e-mail today for a Superman White Sox t-shirt; http://www.tattooedtees.com/index.php?page...rt&Itemid=1 Those are pretty cool actually. Why didn't I think of that?

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Mar 4, 2009 -> 10:02 AM) Im prepared. I brought my brass knucks I could make you one of these bad boys. . . but you'll have to give me at least a week.

QUOTE (shipps @ Mar 3, 2009 -> 08:47 PM) You know what I love? I love how flaxx keeps on posting random catch thoughts in the video game thread on accident.lol f***ing hilarious. Dang, I did it again. Two threads with "Catch All" in their titles appears to have totally baffled me.

QUOTE (mreye @ Feb 28, 2009 -> 10:27 AM) Or pink. I saw what you did there.

This side of The Pond, the Beach Boys and the Beatles were not contemporaries in terms of when they emerged. The Beach Boys had already released 4 albums and were recording number 5 in January 1964 when Introducing the Beatles and meet the Beatles were released. Sure, they continued to record, and yes they sold, but there is no disputing that the Beatles won the battle or rock and roll superiority and eclipsed the Beach Boys. As to the late 1960s decline of the Beach Boys being a product of the counterculture but not because of the Beatles. . . what album release ushered in the Summer of Love? I'm a Beach Boys fan, mind you. I'm only pointing out an historical fact, that the Beatles knocked them from the top spot and they never took it back.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 3, 2009 -> 01:54 PM) but that's leading you to discovery, not enjoyment. I probably found the beatles because of their significance, but I don't think you can trick your mind into enjoying something just because of that. I may have *found* woody guthrie because of his influence on other musical acts I've enjoyed, but I couldn't trick myself into liking him, I just did. Though I'm well aware of can and neu's influence on LCD soundsystem's sound of silver, I can't listen to neu!, i just don't have it in me. I can hear the correlation, I can, just don't enjoy it all that much. I know robert johnson had quite an influence on everyone, but I never want to put on robert johnson. I can understand its importance, but it's not like i'm gonna throw it on just for significance. Music is about its affect on my life, and the bands that have affected me, not who have affected them. That's fair enough. I'm only questioning the validity of accepting that you can value a piece music more than you should because of a personal significance (prom song, first kiss song, etc.) while not accepting you can do the same based on historical significance. It's not a dichotomy I can say I share.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 3, 2009 -> 10:36 AM) You are confusing something, with music there is a heavy sentimental value that can make music you normally wouldn't find as good to be much better. But I don't think there is the same for historical significance. I don't agree with that. I definitely will preferentially view certain bands, musical trends or forms, etc. in a different light if they represent an historical antecedent to something of musical significance or something I connect with. That's probably not a great thing to admit from the standpoint of unbiased listening, but curiosity over those historical precursors has led me to some really wonderful things. Let me try to give an example. As a teenager listening to and reading all things Hendrix, I kept running into references to an early electric jazz guitarist named Charlie Christian and it made me seek out his stuff which I ended up loving. Now I could have randomly encountered Barney Kessel or Tal Farlow without knowing about Christian or that their styles were very much predicated on that of Charlie. And the stuff I've heard from them is quite good, but because Christian was the pioneer I hold him in higher esteem even if they are all technical near-equals and even though I wasn't around to experience any of this first-hand. So, here's a case where history is really what dictates hoe I view Christian relative to the others. Years later I became aware that Christian was really one of the pioneers that help forged the style that became bepop, so I feel entirely vindicated by letting an established historical significance guide a lot of my digging into music that predates me.

QUOTE (The Critic @ Mar 3, 2009 -> 10:10 AM) No, I'm saying that if Nirvana hadn't come along, someone else would have "killed hair metal". That crap had run its course, so Nirvana didn't kill it, Nirvana was just the next band people took to. There are still bands out there playing that hair metal drivel for 50 people in barns and "spectaculars" like Rocklahoma, but I'm talking about mainstream acceptance. That s*** was so awful and played out that it was bound to fade away, it was just a matter of who got latched onto next. I agree if not Nirvana, it would have been someone else. The historic fact remains that it was Nirvana that sped the demise. Right place right time. The Beach Boys/Beatles situation is similar. By late 1963/early 1964, the Beach Boys sound was largely played out, and a post-JFK assassination America was ready for a new direction. It could have and would have been some lesser band, but fortunately for music it was the Beatles. They were astounding and fresh and different, but there certainly is a right time/right place component there as well.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Mar 3, 2009 -> 09:40 AM) I also enjoyed the discussion with the Elton John impersonator(cant remember his name, the voice from ratatouille) when he was angry at the skinnier Elton John impersonator for ripping off his ripped off look. He's just doing his thing. I mean Elton's thing. Or his thing that happens to be Elton's thing.

QUOTE (The Critic @ Mar 3, 2009 -> 08:44 AM) I know this has become the accepted theory, but I do not subscribe to it. The way I see it, the s***ty hair bands created the need for a Nirvana (or someone like them) to come along. The hair scene was becoming more and more horrible, and there was a real sense of disgust among the people I knew who loved heavy metal that hair metal was being seen as passing for heavy metal. When you had s***ty bands like Mr. Big, Firehouse, and f***ing Nelson passing for metal, it was only a matter of time until something different - anything different - was going to come along and grab the attention of the mall-shopping music fans. The real fans of metal had ditched those bands, or never got into them in the first place, so all that was left was to take away the MTV kids. Nirvana had just recorded a glossy, poppy album and the time was right. It was "rock enough" to appeal to fans of heavier rock, but not so heavy as to scare the "casual fan" away. Cobain claimed to hate the production of that album, and basically said that Nevermind wasn't a true reflection of Nirvana's music. Give them credit for being in the right place at the right time, but they didn't kill hair metal. If anything, it was assisted suicide. Sure, but you're arguing two sides of the same coin. Without something. . . anything better than the hair band drek, that's what the labels would have kept signing and ramming down people's throats for as long as they could have gotten away with it. The Beach Boys could have put it on autopilot and mailed it in for several more years if the Beatles hadn't come along when they did and give pop music an alternative.