Red Mosquito

you ever seen a grown man naked in a small venue?

wait thats not Mel Brooks.

@SkitchP wrote:

Sgt. Crackpot wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:All of you can suck my dick.

And he means it!

Is he any good?

Chuds the best.

If he can make me do this, I'll happily agree with you. It's an especially rare talent.

Lament wrote: any band worth their salt will get better down the road.

You've got to be kidding with that, right?

Yeah, The Stones sure got better down the road. Those live shows two years ago blow away what they were doing in '65.

Sure bands get better and tighter as they go along. But that's only for the first three or four years. After that the live show becomes bloated and lazy. I defy you to name one musical act that is better live ten years after they first broke.

Son, I feel sorry for you that you have never experienced live a hot, young, vital band that is just breaking. Nothing compares to that. But you think, "Nah, they'll get better down the road. I'll wait to see them at Giants Stadium twenty years from now. That'll be a hot show!"

The Stones were always overrated crap.

Most bands do get better down the road, but that doesn't mean the path stays linear throughout their entire career.

It's all about the passion. Most bands over the years get more and more musically proficient as time goes by, but if they lose their passion for it - then it's just not the same. There are plenty of bands out there that have the same or better passion for playing music live, as they did when they first started (i.e. The Rolling Stones), and they are amazing now.

Sgt. Crackpot wrote:It's all about the passion. Most bands over the years get more and more musically proficient as time goes by, but if they lose their passion for it - then it's just not the same. There are plenty of bands out there that have the same or better passion for playing music live, as they did when they first started (i.e. The Rolling Stones), and they are amazing now.

Interviewer: "What makes a great rock drummer?"

Matt Cameron: "Having a passion for music."

harmless wrote:The Stones were always overrated crap.

Yeah, but at one time they must have been one hot live band. Back then there was no MTV, no rock radio, no massive music press, no youtube.... The way you made it was by live performances. Growing one's reputation. I can only imagine how phenomenal the early live performances of The Stones, The Beatles, and Elvis must have been.

Wishlist wrote:

harmless wrote:The Stones were always overrated crap.

Yeah, but at one time they must have been one hot live band. Back then there was no MTV, no rock radio, no massive music press, no youtube.... The way you made it was by live performances. Growing one's reputation. I can only imagine how phenomenal the early live performances of The Stones, The Beatles, and Elvis must have been.

Wishlist wrote:Son, I feel sorry for you that you have never experienced live a hot, young, vital band that is just breaking.

harmless wrote:

Wishlist wrote:

harmless wrote:The Stones were always overrated crap.

Yeah, but at one time they must have been one hot live band. Back then there was no MTV, no rock radio, no massive music press, no youtube.... The way you made it was by live performances. Growing one's reputation. I can only imagine how phenomenal the early live performances of The Stones, The Beatles, and Elvis must have been.

Wishlist wrote:Son, I feel sorry for you that you have never experienced live a hot, young, vital band that is just breaking.

PA-CHOW!!!

The fact that there was no TV or Internet doesn't negate the probability that performances on average were sometimes great, sometimes awful, just as they are now.

Wishlist wrote:I defy you to name one musical act that is better live ten years after they first broke.

Radiohead.

Lament wrote:

Wishlist wrote:I defy you to name one musical act that is better live ten years after they first broke.

Radiohead.

Yeah that was pretty easy.

Sigur Ros

Also, Pearl Jam was a better live band in 2000 than they were in 1990, but that is a lot more debatable than Radiohead.

cutuphalfdead wrote:Also, Pearl Jam was a better live band in 2000 than they were in 1990, but that is a lot more debatable than Radiohead.

Wishlist is going to tell you you're just wrong cause you didn't experience Pearl Jam in 1990 and he feels sorry for you and let him tell you about the time he saw Styx right before they broke it BIG.

Also, U2. And R.E.M.

Lament wrote:Radiohead.

Yeah, go ask the people who saw them at the University Of Warwick back in '91.
Sorry, son, you've got to do better than that.

Wishlist wrote:

Lament wrote:Radiohead.

Yeah, go ask the people who saw them at the University Of Warwick back in '91.
Sorry, son, you've got to do better than that.

Radiohead wasn't even that special of a band the first five or six years of their career.

So whose second account is this guy?