Semjaza

This argument would be good if people [i]actually did it[/i]. Who the hell does? Many people download random songs from random bands. Many also download entire CDs or even entire discographies online. Now, you expect me to believe that they're willing to go buy $20 shirts or pay for concert tickets for every single one of those groups/musicians instead? Maybe for every CD someone downloaded, someone bought merchandise or went to a show... we'd be fine. These people don't exist in that large of a number. I don't see anyone downloading tons of [insert band name here]'s stuff running to shows to negate their downloading amounts. To me this proves absolutely nothing. Do people honestly think that the label will even support these bands without record sales? Guess what? They don't. Two good examples... Example One: NIN - NIN is largely successful for their type of band. Everyone knows them in some form. However, The Fragile didn't sell as well as Interscope had expected. It was a 2 CD album, and did something around platinum in sales. Still wasn't enough. So what did Interscope do? They pulled most of their funding from the tour. Luckily Trent had enough to cover most of the costs out of his own damn pocket. That was for Fragility 1.0 in the US... Fragility 2.0 in the rest of the world was still upcoming, but he took care of that as well. Example 2: Curve - Curve isn't as successful. They are doing fairly well for themselves though. They also had the record sales problem. Unfortunately, unlike Trent and NIN, they didn't have the money to take care of any funding their label couldn't. So then what? That's right, no tour. This goes for a lot of smaller bands as well. Tickets to these shows seem to go between $4 and $15. They still have to pay a bunch of middle men and the club and whatever else, just like with the industry. They don't exactly get tons out of that either, but at least there is merchandise, which helps. To me, that argument is a bunch of crap. I really don't think most people go through with it. They get what they get because it's free. Not because they really care about it. There are obviously better ways to go about this. The industry in general screws everyone over. It's not just the RIAA. The Smashing Pumpkins put their last release online for example, which I thought was a good idea. Many bands put up samples, but it's not really the end of the world for the recording industry. The RIAA would be smart to embrace what is obviously the future. Instead, they are morons who want to stick to archaic, unfair business models that bring them in as much money as possible. On the other hand, I don't like the idea that people who don't "support" the RIAA think they are some modern Robin Hood. You're not. This doesn't hurt the RIAA as much as you'd like to think. It hurts the little guys that need that tiny bit of money to stay alive. Also, for all the stuff people have downloaded... has the RIAA gotten more sympathetic? No. They've gotten worse and worse and just keep coming down harder and harder. I do dislike the RIAA, I hope this is obvious. At the same time, I do what I have to do. This means putting up with **** I don't agree with and voicing my complaints by other means rather than stealing the songs and helping no one. If I shop around, I rarely spend more than $12 for a CD anyway. Most of the time I spend under $10. Why people shop at these yuppie CD stores and pay nearly $20 a disc, I have no clue. Also, open up a CD booklet. There are far more people involved than just the artist and the suits. In addition to those people, you also have to add in the stores, deliveries, package artists and everything else. There is far more to it than just that. The RIAA is whithered old hag that should just be brutally put out of its misery. However, I don't really think what people are currently doing is the most beneficial route... nor do I think the RIAA threatening their consumer base is the best idea either. They really need to get with the times. Edit - I really think the best course of action would be for these bands to take these things into their own hands. Curve, Rasputina and many other bands have already released entire albums strictly online. You pay them and you download it, bypassing most of the moneygrubbers. At this point, I think that's the best course of action for everyone involved. Although I doubt they sold as many copies doing that, they most likely got more actual returns on it. If larger bands embraced this idea it would probably work. There is probably an entire system they could set up just to make it work. I guess we'll see.

Kazaa just connects people. It has no control over what they share or send. It's not as if Kazaa is the only program to be used anyway. In the past, most of the people they seem to go after either host or download things from FTPs. They mostly seem interested in the uploaders though. I mean come on, it says the 60 people they targetted downloaded over 1,000 songs. 1,000 songs. That's a lot of stuff considering most CDs contain on average about 14 tracks. I think at some point, these people just need to go outside and buy something. Maybe if people read the disclaimers on these programs before getting whatever the hell they wanted, they wouldn't get into these messes. On top of that, it says one lady paid $29.95 for Kazaa. First of all, who pays for it? It's free! She knew enough to pay for the Plus version, but not enough to read disclaimers and know what she is doing isn't exactly legal? Second of all, she thinks that makes everything else okay? People need to be educated about the law, honestly. While I'm not defending the RIAA, which I hate passionately, I still blame the stupid *** people who use these programs. Yes, the RIAA sucks. They are insane with these copyright protections; they are fighting a system that could benefit them if they played their cards right; between them and the rest of the industry, many rather successful bands are lucky to get around $5,000 after all the CD sales are added up. They suck horribly... but to me, some of these people are just stupid and deserve what they get. I also know some random person is going to say that record sales are up despite this. I don't know what you read, but they're down like 30% on average right now. So I hope someone doesn't try that argument yet again.

I personally think it's an incredibly stupid idea. I remember first hearing about it almost a year ago, and it was just as stupid then. Divx didn't survive for a reason. I really just think it is wasteful. I'd rather spend three times as much and get a DVD that will last far, far longer. What is the point? I can't imagine how much garbage this would create, assuming it even did well enough. Not everyone will bother to recycle them.

Rush's 2112 is probably the greatest concept album ever created, in my opinion. That's including Dark Side of the Moon, which I'd probably put really close after it. Their releases after that really kept improving though. They're really underrated at this point.

We used to have this wonderful radio station here known as the Blaze. It was later renamed Rock 103.5, but basically stayed the same. They'd play all sorts of just great rock songs. You'd go from B.B. King to Pantera to Soungarden to who knows what else. It was just all sorts of great music. Of course, their main personality was Mancow. I'm sure some people here know the guy. He's based here in Chicago. He wound up moving his show to Q101 and Rock 103.5 slowly just died. Q101 is just terrible, in my opinion. At least we have the classic rock station though. The Loop. I listen to that, and that's pretty much it outside of the random college station. It's really my only chance to get to listen to most of these older bands anymore.

This has nothing to do with whether or not you agree with the name of the sport. Who gives a ****? I hate these stupid semantics debates in football threads. I luckily was at Six Flags during the Bears game. I remember hearing someone saying "The score is 33 - 3" or something horrible like that... and since the guy he told it to didn't sound remotely excited, I just assumed the Bears got their butts kicked. Being in Chicago, I just assumed it was about the Bears lol. It's hard to know what to expect with them anymore. They somehow pulled off a decent draft. They have some excellent players. People just randomy can't pull things together. They're not remotely consistent. It's rather aggrivating, but somehow most people here stick by them.

I like the bands you've mentioned so far. I'm surprised you mentioned Velvet Underground. No one seems to talk about them anymore, but those who know them always seem to think really high of them. My English teacher Senior year had a big poster of theirs in the classroom heh. I have a CD of theirs lying around, but I've not played it in a very long time. My favorite "old" band... well I guess, musician would be David Bowie. He's been playing since the late 60s. He obviously still puts stuff out though. His next CD actually comes next Tuesday I think (along with the new APC LP too). I've not heard great things, but I think it's mostly that people are tired of Bowie trying new things and not sticking to his roots. It makes little sense to me considering that he's always changed like this. I must admit most of his new stuff outside of Heathen doesn't compare though. Anyone that dislikes Bowie should be shot a few times. I also love The Doors. Jim Morrison was someone I looked up to in quite a few ways, although not as much anymore. They have so many good songs in my opinion, my personal favorites being Crystal Ship and Five to One. They were listed in Blender's Top 50 Worst Bands Ever or some crazy nonsense. Stupid *** magazine. They also listed Oingo Boingo, Skinny Puppy and Toad the Wet Sprocket... well totally ignoring most boy bands, crap pop groups and terrible mall punk bands. Makes no sense to me. Then The Cure. I don't have as much of a history with The Cure as I would like to. They're not as old as the others mentioned here, since they debuted in '79, but I figured I could include them anyway. My favorite release would either be Pornography or Bloodflowers. Bloodflowers is something I think most anyone should listen to once. It's just a really solid, emotionally depressing album... probably up there with Beck's Sea Change. There's more, but I'm finished. I probably include quite a few bands from decades before that and mostly 80s only bands too... but I don't know how recent you want to get heh.

Everyone has accents. Even people who have been in America and have totally American parents. I'm in Chicago. If I go to some other state, or even southern Illinois... people can tell. I apparently have a Chicago accent, even though I can't notice it at all. You're probably thinking more in terms of weird accents like Fez on That 70s Show or something though heh.

Seems like a rip off of White Wolf, honestly. My girlfriend wants to see it. I personally can't get all that interested. However, I really, really want the soundtrack. Lots of great collaborations... Bowie, Lohner, Maynard, etc. Good stuff.

It's actually their sixth real album, not their fourth. I'm not a big fan of Sing the Sorrow. It always seems like its on the fringe of breaking into something great, and never really does (with a few exceptions). Personally, I much prefer Art of Drowning and Very Proud of Ya, followed by Black Sails.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by terra [/i] [B].......(particularly [i]The Emperor's New Groove[/i]!!)...[/B][/QUOTE] You are how officially one of the coolest people here. I don't think it has anything to do with competition. If you pay attention to past years, it's not as if there are 10 animated films released in a short time period. No animated film ever really has competition in that aspect. The movie was great. It had great buzz, great reviews, great commericals. It all was done right, and so many people wanted to see it. I saw it with a friend of mine and we're both around 20 years old. It didn't really matter. That's why it did so well. The movie kept rising up the charts everytime it faltered. It made tons and tons of money. People wanted to see it because of what it was, not because of what else was out.

Pluh.com hosts a whole bunch of people. I'm under the impression it isn't his site. They let you make one for free. Kind of like myotaku does. His site itself doesn't seem to be viewable at the moment lol.

That's the most bizarre reason I've ever heard. So I was more stupid as a kid than most now? Some people here sure don't seem to back up that idea lol. Maybe in the sense that kids now are more aware of the bad things around them, I guess. I think it's more that Disney wanted to mature and have their movies appeal to a wider audience. Most teenagers don't want to go see a cartoon in the first place, let alone one where everyone wants to randomly break out in song. They were musicals, which hadn't been popular for a really long time until stuff like Moulin Rouge and Chicago hit theaters. This makes them seem like they're not totally just for children to many people. Of course, it seems to be backfiring... although I can't blame that on lack of music as much as I can blame that on lack of charm and interest. Musicals don't have to explain why they have songs in them. They never really have and most never will.

I was thinking more in terms of their animated features... so I won't even mention James and the Giant Peach or others like it. I came in here and was going to be like "No, because blah blah blah", but when I started typing, I realized that I can't remember one damn song from [i]any[/i] of the movies you mentioned. They went from being musicals to just being movies, really. There is a substantial amount of music, that obviously has a lot of time spent on making it, but it's background stuff. Tarzan had that part where the monkeys play the pots... but I can't remember most of it. Besides it had Rosie singing, so it obviously sucked. The first movies I remember doing this from Disney were the Rescuer films. Both the original, and The Rescuers: Down Under. I don't think either of them had points were people sang. They had voiced music, but like the current ones, it was a background thing that fit the scene. I can't remember any of those songs either. I don't think it's because they weren't good... I think it's just because they weren't being shoved down your throat like in every other Disney movie. You could just pay attention to something else in these, but in the character singing one you had to pay attention to it or basically just leave. The difference between The Rescuers and recent movies of theirs is that I actually liked The Rescuers.

Okay...? You might want to try and keep up with the topics you're posting in. We're far beyond that lol. I understand why they went and changed a lot of the universe. Between things that would take too long to explain, things that would be too confusing without backstory, things that would be far to expensive to make a normal addition (that's a huge factor in Archangel's appearance, I'd imagine), the fact that they have to constrain themselves to what normal people want in movies, and so on... It's just expected, in my opinion. Some of the choices are questionable though. Sometimes I wonder why they do things the way they do, especially when they could obviously play off some of these ideas with the correct characters instead of shifting them around and changing some of their backstories.

I'm not grouchy when I wake up. I'm more grouchy when I've been up forever and am simply tired. My only problem when I wake up is that it takes me forever to actually fully awaken. I feel half asleep for hours sometimes, and don't feel myself until well into the afternoon. That, among other things, seems to make me more of a night person. When I wake up, I have a very hard time talking though. Sometimes I can't even get any sound out. I'm probably too dead to even make my voice work lol.

That and Speed Racer is from like the 60s... heh.

As I said before, Microstars is somewhat of a concept album. I don't even know that I'd refer to it as punk, at least not compared to their older stuff. I've been listening to the CDs of theirs I own. Specifically House of the Rising Sun of a *****, Daterape Nation/ Jerk Lessons and Microstars... and after all this time, I realized how good the individual members are. Daterape Nation/Jerk Lessons is the older of the three. It has some really great songs on it... but the time difference between that and House of the Rising Sun of a ***** is years, and it's obvious. Some of the work put into Rising is just excellent. I'm sometimes just really surprised by how damn good the drum work is. You can just picture him sitting there and going nuts on the kit, but it's obviously so calculated. Just excellent stuff while still staying within the ideas of what you expect from a drummer in this type of band. A lot of the guitar work is just excellent too. With most punk bands I don't expect much outside of basic chords, but AH manages to do so many other things. There are a lot of just really catchy riffs, in my opinion. I love these guys.

For some reason you put a / after each link. It makes it so they don't show up. I'll edit your post to fix that. I honestly think these would be far more successful without the screenshots. Especially the last one.

I don't know how F-Zero could be an anime in the 80s considering the game was created in the 90s. I don't know what the hell you're thinking of, but it wasn't F-Zero. F-Zero isn't even popular in Japan. It has very little to cash in on at all over there. I think it's an attempt to make a quality show so that people might actually go [i]buy[/i] the game. If you've played F-Zero GX, go read the character profiles... they all have a surprising amount of past history, even in the little blurbs in the game. I think they could make something quite good from it.

I had noticed your Naru banner all over the place. It's honestly one of the most successful banners I've seen here in quite some time. It's not all that complex, which is great considering all the people here who like to take a drawing and plop some colored 3D mess on it. It's really nice. The only thing I'd do is move the Naru text up several pixels. It's not centered, and it's throwing me off for some reason heh. The wallpaper is also quite good. I can't see anything wrong with it. Even though it has flowers and pink stuff, I don't find it so girly that I'd not use it... but then again I like flowers and one of my favorite colors is hot pink lol. I am curious about the "an ellie design" thing though. What font is "ellie" in? I thought maybe it's your real writing, but I don't know... not many people do that for things.

Kittys? Do you mean kiddies? heh I really like the show. I've not watched in quite some time because it seems to have gone downhill. There used to be a lot of good episodes, and now it just seems overly stupid. The fact of the matter is that many adults think ANY cartoon is for kids. Spongebob or otherwise. I still can't get my grandfather to even try the Simpsons, simply because it's a cartoon and cartoons are for kids... according to him. He hates sitcoms though, so I doubt he'd like it anyway.

Stop tormenting him. Geez. It's also spelled "liar". The kid attacks him for no reason, he tries to defend himself. Now saying he'd call the police makes him a wimp? Come on. We're not living in the Stone Age. Maybe after he goes back and kicks the kid's *** he can go club a girl on the head and drag her by her hair to his room on the way home. I'm closing this, because obviously it will just descend into a pointless flame fest.

Double posts aren't allowed here... I'll just edit them together before someone else does. [quote]The character was created sometime earlier however, and was not originally intended for the X-Men. In fact, he was first offered to Marvel?s ?distinguished competition?, DC Comics, for their Legion Of Superheroes offshoot, The Outsiders, but was deemed ?too funny looking? by DC?s editor Murray Boltinoff. Created primarily by artist Dave Cockrum, who had sketched the demonic looking character several years earlier, Nightcrawler ended up in the X-Men when it was decided to include a non-human, almost scary character in the new team line-up. Another of Cockrum?s designs, the bat-winged Vampyre, was also considered, but the entire creative team preferred the blue-furred, barbed-tailed Nightcrawler, and didn?t think there was room for two good-hearted, freaky looking characters, so Vampyre was scraped in favour of Nightcrawler.[/quote] So obviously all the X-Men tinged stuff came later. I remember reading he originally was from Hell or something like that, although I'm probably mistaken. I know the creator never understood why he took that whole religious angle. I questioned that mostly because I'm not totally familiar with Nightcrawler's history with Marvel. Oh well.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Double_B_Daigo [/i] [B]How can you deny Good Charlotte? Is it because there, 'main stream'? I also forgot to metion Sum 41 and Bling 182. Say what you want, but those guys are awsome. [/B][/QUOTE] I don't like them because I think they sound bland and bring nothing new to the table. All these groups sound the same to me. It has nothing to do with some lame "selling out" theory. Also, it's Blink, not Bling lol. I've not liked them since I first heard them, which was well before they got popular. I can't stand the vocals, and it's rather aggrivating that so many copy cat bands think that's a great signing style. Yuck.