Question:
Um, yes, …
SPAM ! — Ken Fortenberry
Response:
Um, yes, I’m new to FF and I’m trying to find an online site that makes it really EASY to buy fly fishing gear. You know, really, really E-Z. Any ideas? 
–Steve
Response:
After a thorough and exhaustive search of my backyard and Alta Vista.Com, I came up with this: One dead bird One half of a semi-live earth worm Some fresh dog shit (first step find) and this: www.e-zfly.com/ Opie
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Um, yes, I’m new to FF and I’m trying to find an online site that makes it really EASY to buy fly fishing gear. You know, really, really E-Z. Any ideas? –Steve
Response:
Um, yes, I’m new to FF and I’m trying to find an online site that makes it really EASY to buy fly fishing gear. You know, really, really E-Z. Any ideas?
What are ya – an idjit? I typed "EZ" into AlteredVister and got five million hits, and the 248,094th one led me right to the source! You *must* be an idjit! Sheesh! Send an email to Louie’s grand daughter. I hear she’s a wizard with search engines… /daytripper (And stop spamming the group ;^)
Response:
Send an email to Louie’s grand daughter. I hear she’s a wizard with search engines… /daytripper (And stop spamming the group ;^)
sniff….sniff…..sniff…..nope, thet ain’t no spam. Thet ther is a troll!
Response:
you will find what you want within the 1st 5 hits every time<g.
Unless, of course, those *are* your key words<g. — Charlie…
Response:
What are ya – an idjit? I typed "EZ" into AlteredVister and got five million hits, and the 248,094th one led me right to the source! You *must* be an idjit! Sheesh!
The key to an effective web search is not as much what you *include* in the search as what you *exclude*. In HotBot, for example, if you exclude the keywords "moist", "teen", "anal" and "eBay" you will find what you want within the 1st 5 hits every time<g. — Charlie…
Response:
you will find what you want within the 1st 5 hits every time<g. Unless, of course, those *are* your key words<g. — Charlie…
you keep raising the bar, chocolat! fabulous work. wayno, recovering from hysteria
Response:
In HotBot, for example, if you exclude the keywords "moist", "teen", "anal" and "eBay" you will find what you want within the 1st 5 hits every time<g.
Regards, Jeff
Response:
In HotBot, for example, if you exclude the keywords "moist", "teen", "anal" and "eBay" you will find what you want within the 1st 5 hits every time<g.
I INCLUDE ONLY those keywords, and I find what I’m looking for 4 hits out of 5! Regards, Jeff
Response:
Steve: Try www.TroutWorld.com – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Um, yes, I’m new to FF and I’m trying to find an online site that makes it really EASY to buy fly fishing gear. You know, really, really E-Z. Any ideas? –Steve
Response:
Whiff! Steeeerike One! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Steve: Try www.TroutWorld.com Um, yes, I’m new to FF and I’m trying to find an online site that makes it really EASY to buy fly fishing gear. You know, really, really E-Z. Any ideas? –Steve
Response:
Question:
#but hes like the Senator from my state Jesse #Helms. You may not always agree with him but you always know where #he stands, #he doesn’t teeter or waiver from his beliefs. somebody said back there a bit–if it’s true, why isn’t Jesse insisting that the coons stay in their own part of town as he did back in the good old days? Helms changes, like everybody whose standards are flexible and who considers himself to be a man of principle but returns to the senate voluntarily. (and many thinking folks hope he comes to his senses.) As for Gierach, he’s an excellent stylist with an ironic wit, and it’s all fiction mind you, which appellation our BB seems to aspire to much more recently. "Strait-laced" as Shakespeare (or should I say the Earl of Oxford?) had it–the pompous Malvolio of Twelfth Night made a fool of himself by coming around in the opposite look, the dandified and contrived "cross-gartered" style. . .in other words, he went out as what he wasn’t, and was laughed off the creek for it. Went insane, if I remember correctly. And Shakespeare wrote about what he wasn’t for a buck, collected "such rascal counters" happily; he would have signed his name for more if he’d had the chance, I reckon. Dave
Response:
I actually met John Gierach in Lyons, Colorado at Mike Clarks shop this last fall. We stopped by the shop on our way to the Frying Pan. John G. was actually very pleasant and eventhough he didn’t have to stay and talk, he did. I haven’t read all the posts about him, but wanted to put in me 2 cents worth about my brief contact with him and how he seemed like a pretty decent guy, besides being a great writer!
Response:
I met John Gierach in Lyons, Colorado at Mike Clarks shop… John was
actually very pleasant and even though he didn’t have to stay and talk, he did. … he seemed like a pretty decent guy,besides being a great writer! Hey Skilch, you’re right about Gierach. I live "up the road" from John, and bump into him, Mike, and the clan on the high country streams occasionally. I’ve also yakked with him at Mike’s rod shop, and been to John’s fly tying clinics. I don’t know Gierach very well, but I like the guy – and I certainly admire what he’s been able to accomplish in his career. Anybody who can win the Robert Traver Award for excellence in outdoor writing, author thousands of magazine articles, newspapers columns, and ten of the best selling fly fishing books in recent history is bound to invite some criticism from those who wish to hell they had his gift – and his success. Too bad. Regards, Dennis
Response:
[deleted] and ten of the best selling fly fishing books in recent history is bound to invite some criticism from those who wish to hell they had his gift – and his success.
Please. Noone (at least not me) is being critical of either: 1) the fact that john is a nice guy or 2) that they envy his gifts. If you read past the subject line in these posts, you would have had no need to defend him on those scores. In my critical estimation, as a consumer of flyfishing books, John Gierach is a good writer, but not a great writer. He got someone to publish him, in my opinion, and the rest is history. Steve Spinolio is a better writer, in my book, than John Gierach, or Russell Chatham. I enjoy John Geirach at least as much or more than E. Donnel Thomas, "Whitefish Can’t Jump", but they are very much on the same, simple, short story format that does not define great writers. I like Ted Lesson’s writing better than Gierach. Again, it has nothing to do with John being a good guy or a clever successful hard-working man. I am certain that he is all that. You don’t buy a flyrod or a car for that matter just because the builder is a ‘nice guy’. I liked James Bashline, who was not a writer, really…but offered me something of value in "Nightfishing for Trout". A sad truth is, IMO, the sale of books often has as much to do with the publishers backing them and the level of gloss on the dust jacket as it does quality of content. The best thing you could do as a writer is get Nick Lyon’s in your court. That is power there. The number of sales define the number of awards and some of us are simply critical of the writing itself and are not star struck, nor do we have penis envy. In Johns case, he has moments of really good stuff, but overall the stuff is repetitive, monotonous, politically correct and often boring. To me, life offers more exciting fishing trips than John Gierach does in his writing. So sue me. — TimW Halfordian Golfer
Response:
: In my critical estimation, as a consumer of flyfishing books, John Gierach : is a good writer, but not a great writer. He got someone to publish him, in : my opinion, and the rest is history. Steve Spinolio is a better writer, in : my book, than John Gierach, or Russell Chatham. I didn’t know Spinolio had written anything beyond a post or two, one of which I have on my office wall. Where can I find his writing? To be a writer, one must write. I battle with this everyday. I suspect most do. At the very least, Gierach writes in large amount. That’s something to be proud of. — Rick T. Rick Fletcher – http://www.chem.uidaho.edu/~fletcher/ Associate professor of chemistry | That’s Idaho, not Iowa. | ad hominem University of Idaho | Upper Left Hand Corner. | ad hominem Moscow, ID 83844-2343 | No, I don’t grow potatoes. | ad hominem
Response:
Does Gierach still live in Lyons? I spent summers there (I’m an East Coast boy) in the early ’70’s and fished the St. Vrain top to bottom–my grandfather owned the trailer park in the big bend just outside of Lyons (next box up from the park.) I think I trespassed on his property a few times. Dave
Response:
:I enjoy John Geirach at :least as much or more than E. Donnel Thomas, "Whitefish Can’t Jump", but :they are very much on the same, simple, short story format that does not :define great writers. You were doing just fine Moe until you said the above which caused me to laugh out loud. You can’t take those darn short stories seriously, you slay me sometimes… TC
Response:
they are very much on the same, simple, short story format that does not define great writers.
I gotta wonder what Ernest Hemmingway woulda said about that. Big Two Hearted River for example, is far from simple. Ben
Response:
: In my critical estimation, as a consumer of flyfishing books, John Gierach : is a good writer, but not a great writer. He got someone to publish him, in : my opinion, and the rest is history. Steve Spinolio is a better writer, in : my book, than John Gierach, or Russell Chatham. I didn’t know Spinolio had written anything beyond a post or two, one of which I have on my office wall. Where can I find his writing?
Any idea when he is to return? Or if he will? Kiyu
Response:
I actually met John Gierach in Lyons, Colorado at Mike Clarks shop this last fall. We stopped by the shop on our way to the Frying Pan. John G. was actually very pleasant and eventhough he didn’t have to stay and talk, he did. I haven’t read all the posts about him, but wanted to put in me 2 cents worth about my brief contact with him and how he seemed like a pretty decent guy, besides being a great writer!
If Geirach is really the guy he says he is in his writing, then he reallly doesn’t give a rat’s ass about all these postings about him, pro and con. If he logs on to defend himself, you may be assured he is a fraud. I predict with the former. One problem I see here is that many insist on judging him as a flyfisherman, based on his writings. The only way you can judge him as a flyfisher, is to fly fish with him. As a reader, you must judge him as an outdoor writer, an entertainer, if you will. On that basis I find him well worth an evening in the easy chair. Since I haven’t fished with him, I can’t comment on the other. DAO DAO
Response:
If Geirach is really the guy he says he is in his writing, then he reallly
doesn’t give a rat’s ass about all these postings about him, pro and con. If he logs on to defend himself, you may be assured he is a fraud. Funny you should bring that up, Dale. I was with John for an hour or so last week, and asked him if he was aware of the dialog about him on the internet. He just chuckled and said, "Yeah, the guys told me about it. Sounds like those people are pissing away some good fishing time wrangling over nothing." … or words to that effect. He won’t be logging on. He doesn’t own a computer. As a reader, you must judge him as an outdoor writer, an entertainer, if you
will. On that basis I find him, well worth an evening in the easy chair.< Precisely.
Response:
If you read past the subject line in these posts, you would have had no needto
defend him on those scores. Your right Moe, I was arguing apples and oranges here. My apologies. He got someone to publish him, in
my opinion, and the rest is history. Right again, but he didn’t get just "anyone" to publish him. Pruett, Lyons, Simon & Shuster and Stackpole are hardly the kind of publishing houses to invest in ho-hum writers. < Steve Spinolio is a better writer, inmy book, than John Gierach, or Russell Chatham … or E. Donnel Thomas I’m not familiar with Spinolio. Is he someone I should be reading. Know where I can find any of his stuff?, but they are very much on the same, simple, short story format that does not
define great writers. I suspect you may open a real can of worms with that judgement, Moe. A sad truth is, IMO, the sale of books often has as much to do with the
publishers backing them and the level of gloss on the dust jacket as it does quality of content. Maybe, but again, big publishing houses aren’t likely to invest in writers whose work doesn’t sell. As for" quality of content", that’s a pretty subjective matter. The number of sales define the number of awards… I’m not so sure that’s an accurate statement. Lyons didn’t publish Trout Bum, nor much of Gierach’s other works. And if I’m not mistaken, John won the Traver Award for a fictional piece that appeared in FR & R. nor do we have penis envy.
????Where’d that come from? In Johns case, he has moments of really good stuff, but overall the stuff is repetitive, monotonous, politically correct and often boring. To me, life offers more exciting fishing trips than John Gierach does in his writing. So sue me. Actually, I’d rather go fishing with you, but If I were to sue- and win – how much could I get? later DES
Response:
To be a writer, one must write. I battle with this everyday. I suspect most
do. Amen to that. At the very least, Gierach writes in large amount. That’s something to be
proud of. And to that one, as well. DES
Response:
Much of Shakepeare’s work was "formulaic" and "Typical" yet in retrospect his work is viewed as "ground breaking". Perhaps Gierach’s stuff needs the appreciation that only time and distance can impart to the nonappreciative and overly cautious segments of his audience.
Response:
I find it humerous that all these straight laced flyfisherman find the time to criticize one of their own. I pose a question to any of you who find it within your right to criticize John at a personal or professional level:Have you ever had a conversation with the man? Do you know him and how he lives and his quality of life? I think that most critics would say NO to these questions. John is a very simple man. He’s a very acute journalist who has developed a style both in and out of the newspapers of his own. He is a fine flyfisherman and a generally nice guy to know. Most people who know him feel the same way. If one thing you can say of John, and I hope not to insult him with this comparison, but hes like the Senator from my state Jesse Helms. You may not always agree with him but you always know where he stands, he doesn’t teeter or waiver from his beliefs. A quality I believe to be a goal for most men. The other point is I believe that most flyfisherman, a strangely stoic bunch as it goes, are somewhat jealous of a man who can do what most of us want to do ALL the time instead of just some of the time, like most of us. So don’t wander down a road that you’re not familiar with, you may hit a tree or a parked car or Butch, the local dog who everybody in town knows would be sleeping in the road at 2:00pm on a tuesday. It might be hazardous. Jim Brady
Response:
I was with you until you last paragraph. Literature, great and small, is open game to critics and it is wonderful for an author to have a defender. But, to think that people offer an descenting opinion because they are jealous of a guy who fishes for a living is absurd. By in large, my fly fishers are smarter and better read than that. It’s an opinion. Agree. Disagree. Who cares. I can speak to the issue with a decent amount of authority. I have been in the communications industry for 27-plus years and have only fly fished for half that time. Gierach is a fine writer. I have most of his books. But, I think we all can agree that he is not producing groundbreaking work here. His stuff is Day Berry In Waders, whihc is fine. Hell, Dave Berry won a Pulitzer. As much as I like Gierach, he gets, like anyone else who writes for pay alot, myself included, formulaic, and hence some of his stuff becomes "typical". Knowing where someone stands is not necessarily the greatest commendation one can make about literature. Read Mein Kampf and you know where that guy stood too! My view is simple, stuff like Gierach’s should entertain and inform. Period. I do not expect it to change my life or create a new vision for my life. I leave that to far better writers with something to say on the topic. But, as for whiling away an evening after slaving over a hot word processor all day, I’ll take Gierach any day of the week. Ask the man and I am sure he will tell you he is not out to change the world. He’;s a writer and damn few of us are good enough to change the world. But, if we any good at what we do, we can inform and entertain for a while, even a moment. So, lighten up! Besides, I think Gierach is a big boy and can defend himself nicely. Hollis – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I find it humerous that all these straight laced flyfisherman find the time to criticize one of their own. I pose a question to any of you who find it within your right to criticize John at a personal or professional level:Have you ever had a conversation with the man? Do you know him and how he lives and his quality of life? I think that most critics would say NO to these questions. John is a very simple man. He’s a very acute journalist who has developed a style both in and out of the newspapers of his own. He is a fine flyfisherman and a generally nice guy to know. Most people who know him feel the same way. If one thing you can say of John, and I hope not to insult him with this comparison, but hes like the Senator from my state Jesse Helms. You may not always agree with him but you always know where he stands, he doesn’t teeter or waiver from his beliefs. A quality I believe to be a goal for most men. The other point is I believe that most flyfisherman, a strangely stoic bunch as it goes, are somewhat jealous of a man who can do what most of us want to do ALL the time instead of just some of the time, like most of us. So don’t wander down a road that you’re not familiar with, you may hit a tree or a parked car or Butch, the local dog who everybody in town knows would be sleeping in the road at 2:00pm on a tuesday. It might be hazardous. Jim Brady
Response:
Another follow-up on this thread… Just don’t read or buy the books he has written if you don’t like his writing. As for me, I like a lot of what John has written. Most of his writing is non-technical, and therefore fine pleasure reading, if I’m into it. While Christmas cleaning btw, I perused through a lot of old Fly Fisherman and Rod and Reel Mags in my collection dating all the way back to the early eighties. The writer in question (John) has been around for a long time, has "paid his dues," and in a professional sense is worthy of respect even if many people don’t like his work. No need for debate or slander of the individual on a ng forum. Wayne Fenior Midland, MI – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I was with you until you last paragraph. Literature, great and small, is open game to critics and it is wonderful for an author to have a defender. But, to think that people offer an descenting opinion because they are jealous of a guy who fishes for a living is absurd. By in large, my fly fishers are smarter and better read than that. It’s an opinion. Agree. Disagree. Who cares. I can speak to the issue with a decent amount of authority. I have been in the communications industry for 27-plus years and have only fly fished for half that time. Gierach is a fine writer. I have most of his books. But, I think we all can agree that he is not producing groundbreaking work here. His stuff is Day Berry In Waders, whihc is fine. Hell, Dave Berry won a Pulitzer. As much as I like Gierach, he gets, like anyone else who writes for pay alot, myself included, formulaic, and hence some of his stuff becomes "typical". Knowing where someone stands is not necessarily the greatest commendation one can make about literature. Read Mein Kampf and you know where that guy stood too! My view is simple, stuff like Gierach’s should entertain and inform. Period. I do not expect it to change my life or create a new vision for my life. I leave that to far better writers with something to say on the topic. But, as for whiling away an evening after slaving over a hot word processor all day, I’ll take Gierach any day of the week. Ask the man and I am sure he will tell you he is not out to change the world. He’;s a writer and damn few of us are good enough to change the world. But, if we any good at what we do, we can inform and entertain for a while, even a moment. So, lighten up! Besides, I think Gierach is a big boy and can defend himself nicely. Hollis
Response:
Tim, I think if I could paraphrase your response–if you’re gonna set up shop as an icon (or let others set you up), you better expect some iconoclasts will come along. It goes with the job. I have to agree…good, not great. Trouble is, good writers don’t usually stay in print 50 years later. And in 100 years, no one remembers who the good writers were. That’s a tribute for great writers, and I don’t think we should start throwing that appelation around lightly. BTW–do you know where these straight-laced, stoic fishermen are. They’re not around here, that’s for damned sure! I don’t think I last an afternoon fishing with one of ‘em! Roger
Response:
I find it humerous that all these straight laced flyfisherman find the time to criticize one of their own.
(lots of stuff snipped) , but hes like the Senator from my state Jesse Helms. You may not always agree with him but you always know where he stands, he doesn’t teeter or waiver from his beliefs. A quality I believe to be a goal for most men.
let me tell you, jack, that he is also my senior senator, a fact that renders me nauseous, but is presently unavoidable. and if you think ol jesse wouldn’t sell every goddam inch of hazel creek to the highest bidder in the tree cuttin industry, then you are blind as a bat. and having read gierach, i can’t believe he would accept such a comparison. The other point is I believe that most flyfisherman, a strangely stoic bunch as it goes, are somewhat jealous of a man who can do what most of us want to do ALL the time instead of just some of the time,
how much the guy fishes has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of his prose. which, imho, is very high. but your apology for him, in the face of timbo’s protestations, is lamentable. a. wayne harrison
Response:
Much of Shakepeare’s work was "formulaic" and "Typical" yet in retrospect his work is viewed as "ground breaking". Perhaps Gierach’s stuff needs the appreciation that only time and distance can impart to the nonappreciative and overly cautious segments of his audience.
Is it really you ? I thought you were dead ? Comparing Gierach to Shakespeare ? Like the guy that painted a happy face on a dairy cows underside. Udderly Silly. — TimW Halfordian Golfer
Response:
I find it humerous that all these straight laced flyfisherman
I’ve spent enough time around this group the past couple of years to know that most of the laces don’t get any crookeder than the ones you’ll find round here. Nope…not a straight lace in the bunch (I say that with pride, so don’t anyone get offended). Roger
Response:
Much of Shakepeare’s work was "formulaic" and "Typical" yet in retrospect his work is viewed as "ground breaking". Perhaps Gierach’s stuff needs the appreciation that only time and distance can impart to the nonappreciative and overly cautious segments of his audience.
I would have to disagree on calling much of Shakespeare formulaic or typical. Sure, he may have used some common conventions and story lines adopted from other sources, but if you compare Shakespeare’s King Lear, for example, with contemporary version’s like Nahum Tate’s, Big Bill the Bard’s on a whole new plane. As for Geirach I don’t think the same can be said. I have read and enjoyed his work as light reading over my lunch hour. Or on a camping trip. Groundbreaking? Unconventional? Original? I don’t think so. There is very little that hasn’t been done before by others, and won’t be done again. It’s not even a terribly distinctive voice. This doesn’t make it unpleasant or without value. But I don’t think it’s the kind of stuff posterity is going to elevate into the canon of great works. If you went back 100-200 years and looked at the best selling books…other than the bible, you probably wouldn’t recogize many of them. The reason they were so popular was not that they were original, but rather that they perfectly mimicked the conventions of their day. They appealed to contemporary tastes. That…I think…is what Geirach does. He ain’t writing for the ages. Roger
Response:
Seems to me that how nice a guy a person is, how authentic or otherwise attractive his lifestyle might ain’t got a lot to do with the quality of his writing, and thus the orig. poster just misses the point of some of Gierach’s detractors entirely. Hemmingway, for instance, does not seem to be the kind of guy one would enjoy spending lots of time with, and while through happy circumstances I can afford to fish as much as Gierach (or maybe even more), that don’t make me a writer. That said, I think that most if not all of Gierach’s detractors miss a point too, and that is that almost no author I know of who has turned out more than just a book or two is able to maintain the same quality of prose over and over and over again. But even then, there are authors who write one great great work and then are either silent or write crap, and others who simply maintain a fairly high level consistently throughout their careers. For my money I suspect some of Gierach’s stuff
Question:
My view on people who have sold out is someone who used to make good, innovative, sometimes dangerous music who signed to a major and now seem intent on making enourmous amounts of money playing dull, uninteresting music made with a safe formula and relying on media hype to boost their income. My list of major sell-outs would include:- the Rolling Stones, Genesis, M.Jackson, Madonna, Guns ‘n’ Roses (you get the message) To the ones underlined (using "^"): I do not recall that they _ever_ pretended to be "alternative" at any time. They were _always_ mainstream from the outset. By this technicality and by your reasoning, they cannot be sellouts, since none of them were ever "innovative" or "dangerous" by your (and my own) criteria at any time in their carreers, in my opinion.
I stand corrected, on re-reading what I had written I can see that I had slipped out of context for a while. I think I went away from the subject (i.e. "alternative" music) and instead lingered on the sell-out topic. What I tried to say (not very clearly) is that these people had made a large quantity of good music that amassed them a very large fan-base, but when their music quality dropped to a sub-standard level their record sales (and hence their income) stayed at a high level due to media hype.
Response:
Personally I think Nevermind was pretty much a sellout album, with me it hasen’t stood the test of time, or maybe it was just overplayed too much. — Richard Stride… ‘Master Myoclonis Meets Mephisto’
Response:
[Stuff Deleted ...] To the "alternative" loser, I was listening to alternative music before it was grouped into a catagory -Isn’t this a contradiction, surely you’ve categorised alternative music. I can’t speak for people in America, but in England "alternative" music is just that – an alternative. It’s not a type of music, you don’t listen to a song and think "Oh yeah, that’s alternative". It’s a category into which you can slot many types, styles and fashions – i.e. Punk, Metal, Grunge, crusty, indie etc, etc.
Same here in Canada. And I get annoyed over such interpretations of "alternative" for the same reasons. My view on people who have sold out is someone who used to make good, innovative, sometimes dangerous music who signed to a major and now seem intent on making enourmous amounts of money playing dull, uninteresting music made with a safe formula and relying on media hype to boost their income. My list of major sell-outs would include:- the Rolling Stones, Genesis, M.Jackson, Madonna, Guns ‘n’ Roses
(you get the message)
To the ones underlined (using "^"): I do not recall that they _ever_ pretended to be "alternative" at any time. They were _always_ mainstream from the outset. By this technicality and by your reasoning, they cannot be sellouts, since none of them were ever "innovative" or "dangerous" by your (and my own) criteria at any time in their carreers, in my opinion. Sure, the Stones began their carreers with much controversy and were known as "the Bad Boys of rock and roll" and still are; but IMO, they were merely attracting attention to themselves for commercial gain and success based on the free publicity of the news media. Their "cock-rock" musical style hasn’t changed in the past 30 years, qualifying them as probably more "conservative", and less versatile, IMO, than Frank Sinatra. Same for Madonna’s "cunt-rock" style. The unchanging nature of her music kind of ranks up there with Marie Osmond. BTW, you can also add Paul Simon, and most "resurrected" ’60s rock groups, like Starship (the most extreme example), The Greatful Dead, CSN&Y, Bob Dylan, Eric Clapton (all playing it safe to a lesser extent), and Elton John (another extreme example — recall 11-17-70, Empty Sky, Yellowbrick Road & compare with ANYTHING he’s done since 1980). —
Response:
Hiya, Could someone help me make an informed decision and post the track listing for the latest Pavement album. Thanks, E. | Eric J. |
Response:
Where the hell has anyone seen a ripped sweater for $300 for crissake!?!? This I gotta see…js
Response:
How do you think I must feel? I’ve been listening to snotty nosed little dweebs whining about poser’s since grade 10. Ten years ago.
wow, you were in the 10th grade in ‘83, me too. do you remember the really bad post-punk bands of the day. too bad i missed out on the poser bashing. you know what’s really funny: i still were the same clothes i did then. then i was called a dirt-boy, now you can buy a ripped sweater for $300. go figger. — Jeff Scott
–
Response:
To all the "alternative" losers, I have a little news for you. You all seem to think that you are just the coolest calling bands sell-outs and making fun of all the ‘grunge’ dressers. I’ve been sitting here reading your little arguementative articles and I think you’re all full of crap. I was listening to alternative music before it was grouped into a catagory and just because some of my favorie bands happen to have had maybe one album hit mainstream doesn’t mean that now I should change my taste in music. It also doesn’t mean I won’t be attending Lollapalooza’s anymore. Those were some of the best times of my life and will be for years to come (hopefully). It really turns my stomach to read about your opinions. Maybe if you weren’t so close-minded you’d realize how stupid you really sound. I didn’t post this to get a hostile response, only to make you think. Really, you do sound like a bunch of losers. Sorry. -Joanna
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – To all the "alternative" losers, I have a little news for you. You all seem to think that you are just the coolest calling bands sell-outs and making fun of all the ‘grunge’ dressers. I’ve been sitting here reading your little arguementative articles and I think you’re all full of crap. I was listening to alternative music before it was grouped into a catagory and just because some of my favorie bands happen to have had maybe one album hit mainstream doesn’t mean that now I should change my taste in music. It also doesn’t mean I won’t be attending Lollapalooza’s anymore. Those were some of the best times of my life and will be for years to come (hopefully). It really turns my stomach to read about your opinions. Maybe if you weren’t so close-minded you’d realize how stupid you really sound. I didn’t post this to get a hostile response, only to make you think. Really, you do sound like a bunch of losers. Sorry. -Joanna
yes!!! i posted an article to this effect a little while ago. i thought the whole idea of the mindset that this newsgroup is supposed to represent was being open to new things. lets stop bitching about who liked what groups when, and what groups have sold out because they need to make a living. lets start discussing music for what it is… music. its not grunge, its not alternative, its not rock, its not punk, and its not even disco. its fucking music. those terms are good as catagories for easier identification. kind of like male and female. that is all they are. what matters is the music. burnt
Response:
How do you think I must feel? I’ve been listening to snotty nosed little dweebs whining about poser’s since grade 10. Ten years ago. — Jeff Scott
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – To all the "alternative" losers, I have a little news for you. You all seem to think that you are just the coolest calling bands sell-outs and making fun of all the ‘grunge’ dressers. I’ve been sitting here reading your little arguementative articles and I think you’re all full of crap. I was listening to alternative music before it was grouped into a catagory and just because some of my favorie bands happen to have had maybe one album hit mainstream doesn’t mean that now I should change my taste in music. It also doesn’t mean I won’t be attending Lollapalooza’s anymore. Those were some of the best times of my life and will be for years to come (hopefully). It really turns my stomach to read about your opinions. Maybe if you weren’t so close-minded you’d realize how stupid you really sound. I didn’t post this to get a hostile response, only to make you think. Really, you do sound like a bunch of losers. Sorry. -Joanna
To the "alternative" loser, I was listening to alternative music before it was grouped into a catagory -Isn’t this a contradiction, surely you’ve categorised alternative music. I can’t speak for people in America, but in England "alternative" music is just that – an alternative. It’s not a type of music, you don’t listen to a song and think "Oh yeah, that’s alternative". It’s a category into which you can slot many types, styles and fashions – i.e. Punk, Metal, Grunge, crusty, indie etc, etc. What it’s an alternative to is the "mainstream". This is nothing more than an enourmous financial institution providing financial security and massive wealth to many "rock stars". Corporate back-handers ensure radio and TV play to boring, and safe music makers. These bands are of course not all guilty many just using the extra spending powers to produce better music (mostly former indie bands who have signed to majors). My view on people who have sold out is someone who used to make good, innovative, sometimes dangerous music who signed to a major and now seem intent on making enourmous amounts of money playing dull, uninteresting music made with a safe formula and relying on media hype to boost their income. My list of major sell-outs would include:- the Rolling Stones, Genesis, M.Jackson, Miss Madonna, Guns ‘n’ Roses (you get the message) Bands who I think are getting dangerously close to sell-out time (their records are getting more and more boring):- U2, REM, and Simple Minds There are countless bands I could add, but I’m not going to (so there). I don’t think people can be critical of Nirvana yet as they haven’t released any new material, everything they’ve released since Nevermind was recorded before Nevermind. They could go on to write better songs (like Mettalica have) they could progress back to their old (and less popular) style which is more likely or they could come up with some absolute bollocks. Time will tell. Meanwhile people’s opinion will come and go, birds will fly, fish will swim and polar bears will do whatever it is polar bears do. So my dear Joanna, let people say what they want, insults breed nothing but contempt and statements like, It really turns my stomach to read about your opinions. Don’t say much for freedom of speech, do they. Bye, Rob
Response:
