Join the best erotica focused adult social network now
Login
EDWolfe
20 hours ago
Bi-curious Male, 40
United States
Forum
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Kitanica
Quote by EDWolfe
Quote by Kitanica
Quote by EDWolfe
You say "worst band" as if there's only one. I'd have to say any so-called "band" or "singer" who does "live" shows by lip-syncing, or make use of digital effects to hide how sucky they really are. If you're going to be a performer, then actually perform; there's no point in paying for tickets to see some over-hyped, over-privileged pretty person dancing around a stage.
Live music blows, studio albums are ten times better, why would I want to watch a blurry, noisy, low quality video of a band with tons of girls screaming in the background and all you hear is bass screeching (that's all YouTube is) or spend hours to stand in a crowd of people and get stuck in a parking lot? I'll take the studio album any day that's crystal clear and has the cool effects that are put there for a reason: they make the song ten times better.
I'll give you the point about the crowds, and the horrible YouTube videos of live performances. But the point I'm trying to make is if an artist can't perform their music without all the techno toys, then they don't deserve to be famous for their music.
I agree for solo artists, if Madonna can't sing live she shouldnt be famous, but for indie and other stuff alot of them build specific sounds and use the toys to get them right. the live versions aren't what the music is supposed to sound like. You buy studio albums for the superior sound and quality, it doesn't make them less of a good band because they don't sound good live.
I doubt anyone would call Picasso a bad artist if he liked to paint meticulously in private, he just wants to put out the best painting he can. When it takes years to finish, I don't want to see a 5 minute Picasso doodle live. It's not going to be good. I don't expect it to be good, it doesn't make his studio work bad. It's still art.
I'm not trying to put down studio albums at all. In fact, I enjoy a good studio album every now and again. The problem I have is when an "artist" decides that the best show they can put on is playing their studio-recorded song over the sound system at an arena while they dance around lip-syncing.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Pixie
23. Make beeping noises when a large person backs up.
If you want to be more annoying, follow the same large people around with a tuba or sousaphone a la Family Guy.
Quote by Pixie
24. Invent nonsense computer jargon in conversations, and see if people play along to avoid the appearance of ignorance.
If the framistan starts to pingol, purge the cache or the wingeye will explode. ^_^
Quote by Pixie
40. Write the surprise ending to a novel on its first page.
"It's his sled. He misses his sled. See, I just saved you two hours."
Quote by Pixie
46. Dress only in clothes colored Hunters Orange.
For some people, it still won't help. I'm thinking of people who shoot people while hunting for a bird not even a foot in length.
Quote by Pixie
56. Pay for your dinner with pennies.
Why stop there? Pay for your groceries with pennies, and piss people off while you count out 20,000 coins.
Quote by Pixie
94. Stare at static on the TV and claim you can see a "magic picture."
Unfortunately, this one has been made obsolete thanks to digital TV. But you can try and watch pixellated programming and say the same.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Kitanica
Quote by EDWolfe
You say "worst band" as if there's only one. I'd have to say any so-called "band" or "singer" who does "live" shows by lip-syncing, or make use of digital effects to hide how sucky they really are. If you're going to be a performer, then actually perform; there's no point in paying for tickets to see some over-hyped, over-privileged pretty person dancing around a stage.
Live music blows, studio albums are ten times better, why would I want to watch a blurry, noisy, low quality video of a band with tons of girls screaming in the background and all you hear is bass screeching (that's all YouTube is) or spend hours to stand in a crowd of people and get stuck in a parking lot? I'll take the studio album any day that's crystal clear and has the cool effects that are put there for a reason: they make the song ten times better.
I'll give you the point about the crowds, and the horrible YouTube videos of live performances. But the point I'm trying to make is if an artist can't perform their music without all the techno toys, then they don't deserve to be famous for their music.
Active Ink Slinger
You know when it comes to alcohol, weight makes a difference. I think I can safely say I've never had enough alcohol to be "drunk." (I've also never driven after having a few, just in case.)
In fact, there was an infamous incident where I had about half a dozen Mike's Hard in a couple of hours, before getting a phone call from work. They did everything they could to try and get me to come in to get a performance review, but I declined. They eventually wound up giving me my performance review over the phone. I don't even think they were aware I'd been drinking; if they did, they didn't say anything.
In fact, there was an infamous incident where I had about half a dozen Mike's Hard in a couple of hours, before getting a phone call from work. They did everything they could to try and get me to come in to get a performance review, but I declined. They eventually wound up giving me my performance review over the phone. I don't even think they were aware I'd been drinking; if they did, they didn't say anything.
