5_moves_of_doom

Ah yes, we're getting back on topic now... forgot what this post was about. Well yes, I essentially agree with the last few posts. The reason that this HHH/Cena feud is dead is because HHH gives a smarkish shoot-style stand-up comedy bit that usually ends up putting the audience on his side (which should not be his goal) and then after he talks for about ten minutes about how he is THE GAME, Cena says "You can't see me!" and the crowd boos because it is the 900th time that he has said it. Both men are pretty boring, but when Trips gives himself the "right" to go out there and make "shoot" comments the crowd ends up liking him because it's actually something that hasn't been said before. This has nothing to do with creativity on the mic. It does, however, have everything to do with the fact that everyone else is not aloud to say these things. The man (even when he is booked to lose) books himself as God and won't let his opponents do practically anything in return. The Batista/HHH feud was meant specifically to put Batista over, but whenever I look back on that the only thing that I can remember is HHH standing in the ring talking. I remember nothing of Batista's role in the feud aside from him just standing there and listening to HHH talk.

This is all relative. Orton's heat wouldn't be considered too bad if he was facing Lashley at Mania in the second or third match on the card, but for a "Main Eventer," the man is heatless. The crowd boos when he says "Eddie is in HELL!" but that's almost an obligation. Outside of that, he only receives negative reactions when facing a super-over face -- he has no heat on his own. If he cheats to win against a huge fan favorite like Rey, then obviously he will be bood, but in a situation where he walks down to the ring to cut a promo by himself, the crowd simply does not care and only reacts when he uses things like the "Eddie in hell" comment to get painfully cheap heat. EDIT: The point being that a man's true individual heat can only be determined by how they get reactions BY THEMSELVES. Flair will get bood to no end for cheating to beat Randy Savage (or anyone else for that matter,) but then, two weeks after that heat wears off, the man can walk out to the ring, by himself, and have the crowd in the PALM OF HIS HAND booing the hell out of him within one minute. Orton has no such talents. And while charisma is a factor here, the much more important factor is the raw overness of a talent. Men like Undertaker, Flair, HHH, Angle, and Rey (though I've been down on Rey lately because of this cheap-pop-getting Eddie angle) are in the Main Event because if they weren't, well... the reactions that they get from the crowd would make people think "Why the heck isn't this guy in the Main Event?" Orton, meanwhile, with the heat that he has at this point, would fit in just as comfortably in the undercard if he was booked that way. While the actual vocal projection of the crowd is basically in proportion to who Orton is facing, by himself he is about as over as Finley, who has been in the company for only two months. That is not "Main Event of Wrestlemania" material.

I do not see how even one single person on this planet could possibly try to defend Orton at this point. From the fans' point of view, he is a heatless piece of shit with no credibility. No one likes him, and not in a way where people "love to hate him" (RE: Flair, heel Rock, sometimes HHH, Eddie, etc. etc.)... they just do not want him on their fucking television screens. He has said that Eddie G. is in HELL for crying out loud and he still is not even in the top three heels in the company heat-wise. Mark Henry gets a bigger reaction than him, for crying out loud. Why does this happen? Well a.) he has no charisma b.) he has little talent and c.) (this one is most important) he was booked in a year-long feud where him and an old man beat up on another old man and ran away screaming every time the odds weren't in their favor until finally that old man KICKED THE SHIT out of him and his Dad AT THE SAME TIME in one of the most one-sided Main Events in history. He is treated like a chump because he has been booked like a chump. Just because he starts making fun of dead people doesn't mean that he's a "threat" of any kind. Now, from a wrestling standpoint, things look just as bad. He is either completely average and bland or just plain bad depending on what day it is. Fucking KING KONG BUNDY was a more compelling ring worker because at least he had in-ring presence for crying out loud. Orton has had three (four or five tops if you stretch it) good matches after being in the company for YEARS. Angle has had three good matches in the last month, including one that is being heralded as a modern classic of sorts. Mysterio is not far behind. Orton got absolutely carried on Benoit's back through a match that was bad by Benoit standards, he had a decent match with Taker which was only good because it took place back when that feud still had heat, and he had one good match with Foley because it was a Hardcore match. He could not have a good singles match with Foley any day of the week. Angle meanwhile, could have a classic with Mick even considering how out of shape he is these days. Now (and I apoligize for this rant being a bit long,) if Kurt Angle just had a feud with UT where he stood up to the man's face and told him that he was going to break his ankle, and then proceeded to beat him in a ****1/2 match completely and utterly clean, while Randy's feud with UT a few months ago ended with him and an old man being DESTROYED by Taker every time they didn't attack him from behind (and sometimes they got destroyed even then,) then how in the holy fuck is Orton supposed to look like he even has a 1/100 chance against Angle? Even if he is booked to win, the fans are not retarded -- they will shit all over it. It does not make any fucking sense. Randy Orton is horrible, whether you ask the "smarts" or the "marks." And that's that.

Oh, and does anybody here know if his live album -- The Big Time -- is any good?

I got The Black Rider about a week ago and do not understand the hate for that album at all. In my opinion it's just as good as anything else the man has ever done. Absolutely twisted and brilliant. I own: Closing Time The Heart of Saturday Night Swordfishtrombones Rain Dogs Franks Wild Years Bone Machine The Black Rider Mule Variations Alice Blood Money Real Gone That's essentially all of the Islands stuff and his first two albums. I really, really want the third and fourth albums, as well as One From the Heart. My top seven (seven because that's where the newly-purchased The Black Rider comes in.) 1.) Swordfishtrombones 2.) Real Gone 3.) Rain Dogs 4.) Bone Machine 5.) Alice 6.) Franks Wild Years 7.) The Black Rider I really cannot see how both Alice and The Black Rider are so criminally underrated. EDIT: I wouldn't say "Innocent When You Dream" is too long, but for someone who doesn't like the song, it obviously could be. There are a few Waits songs that do run out of ideas and then go on for an extra minute, but Tom's enigmatic and downright badass charisma essentially nullifies this problem, as far as I'm concerned.

Its Waits' baby (written with his wife, as is the norm with his later work) and both the Ramones and the Violent Femmes, as well as a few other artists, I believe, have all recorded their versions of it. Waits recorded his original version on 1992's Bone Machine. The Ramones, meanwhile, released their version of the song on their final album -- 1995's ¡Adios Amigos! I'm not sure if the Violent Femmes have a studio version of it but they often perform it live.

I don't think I actually went as far as to dimiss it, did I? I was trying to say that It's a shame that Stummer/Jones weren't writing songs like that anymore. I'd easilly put Police on a best of the Clash comp. I can understand how Inc misunderstood you. But nonetheless, have you heard the original version of the song? The Clash did for this song what Jimi Hendrix did for "All Along the Watch Tower."

I second Wilco. They've become pretty massively popular (relative to their original popularity, I mean) and every time I try to catch them live they're already sold out. Not only that, but I think that one of their next two records or so could actually top anything that they've done up until this point. They've had a couple (or a few, depending on your opinion) of near-perfect albums already, but with their new guitarist and Tweedy more creatively active than ever, they're definitely not out of steam yet.

I'm a pretty huge Clash fan and see Sandinista! as an underrated album. Of course, that's not to say that it doesn't suck -- it does, a lot of the time, but there is a large cult of Clash followers who will swear by the fact that a ***** single-album can be condensed from the 2 and a half hour running time. And while I have no track list of my own, I'm pretty sure that I would agree with this statement, as there definitely are quite a few worthwhile songs on the album. All in all though, I would only truly recommend the album for historical purposes. I think that every true Clash fan should buy it at some point, just to have an idea of the band's evolution, but as for sitting through the whole thing from start to finish more than once in a lifetime... that just doesn't work out. "Police On My Back" is fucking awesome. And, as a fan of lame rapping (Blondie's "The Rapture" is a classic) I fully support "The Magnificent Seven." Jones' contributions to the album are pretty solid, but -- as Inc said -- all of them are either rehashed ideas or slightly-altered melodies of the past. Finally, I will agree that the production is Shitcore Deluxe. EDIT: Which is indeed a term that I made up specifically to describe the production of this album.

Hrm... 1.) Swordfishtrombones 2.) Real Gone 3.) Rain Dogs 4.) Bone Machine 5.) Alice

This is a common misconception. The primary writing force behind the Silver Jews is David Berman, and Malkmus hasn't even played on all of the Silver Jews records. While many people get into the Silver Jews because of the Pavement connection, by no means is Silver Jews "Pavement 2" or anything, and often the two sound nothing alike. EDIT: However, the band is really, really good.

Last time I watched this (New Years a year ago) I remember Hendrix NOT making the list. I could have sworn that he was only mentioned in a little segment around the mid-point of the program where they said something like: "What exactly qualifies as a one-hit-wonder? Well, technically, the term refers to only one mega-hit in a band's entire career. But the VH1 staff have decided to leave off a few one-hit-wonders for obvious reason. For instance, did you know that Jimi Hendrix is technically a one-hit-wonder? And Lou Reed's only mega-hit was 'Walk on the Wild Side'! The difference between these artists and the artists that made the list is obvious." It was worded different than that but still my memory is pretty solid and I remember that. I also remember being surprised that Devo was listed for "Whip It." It kind of pisses me off that Devo are regarded by many as a one-hit-wonder along the lines of Flock of Seagulls.

I'd say the Vines were definitely the worst out of those. They're just the worst thing I've ever heard, really. Nothing to them, except that they're horrible. The Hives are cartoony and harmless punk along the same lines as the Ramones, only they're not the Ramones, so it's not as cool. When I hear them I think "oh, hmph, this is good" but I don't think I could ever sit through an entire album. The Strokes sound like a band trying to be average in every aspect of their sound. They have absolutely nothing original in their sound. And I don't see the Velvet Underground comparison, really. Just for the record. A few songs are okay, but... well, exactly, they're "okay." The White Stripes, unlike these other three, are a band that I like. The drumming isn't *good* but there's some solid beats, and guitar playing/guitar tone is absolutely grungy-feedback-Detroit-status-deluxe. Which is a term that I just made up. But most importantly, they're catchy as hell. The Black Keys are almost exactly the same thing, only without the catchiness and the color scheme, and they really just are not that good. Plus, another thing that the Stripes don't get enough credit for is the variation of their sound. The fact that all their songs sound exactly the same is a myth, and that becomes more and more true as they evolve as a band. That said, I think that a guitar-drums two-person band can only go so far before burning out, especially when they're as committed to certain types of music as the White Stripes are. I'll give them two more albums of interesting material.

I don't think this statement is quite fair. The two post-Cale albums are great, in my opinion, and the reason that they resemble "vaguely edgy pop songs" has nothing to do with Cale leaving. Right around the time Cale left the group, in a Sonic-Youth-esque occurance, the band got all of their equipment (electric guitars, distortion units, amps, fuzz boxes, etc.) stolen. That's why The Velvet Underground is a much softer, reserved affair; not because Cale left the group. After that, Loaded came along, and as is widely known, that album was a very deliberate and almost sarcastic take on pop music and #1-single-material. That's why it was called Loaded -- it was "loaded" with hits. Doug Yule is a total wanker, though. But yes, I'd say that the contributions of Maureen, Sterling, and John are greatly underrated... but it definitely was Lou's show a lot of the time. He had a lot to do with the band's sound, and his "charging the members of the band fifty-cents every time one of them plays a blues lick" approach was a lot of what made the band so original. If you want kind of average pop songs, sometimes of the "vaguely edgy" sort, pick up Vintage Violence by John Cale. If you want an innovative, edgy and interesting piece of music, pick up Berlin by Lou Reed. Don't get me wrong -- I love John Cale like any other guy, and he definitely had an effect on the band's sound, but going all out and calling him the Velvet Underground's "brains" simply isn't true. Especially since a lot of the songs on The Velvet Underground & Nico were written alone by Reed a little bit before he had even met any members of the group. And finally, "Stephanie Says" is one of the band's weakest songs, but they also have some harmless semi-shitty throwaway songs from the Cale period, too.

That's an interesting tidbit of Zappa/Reed interaction. Though as far as I've collected over the years, Reed was a pompous little fucker and Zappa was an asshole (one with a great sense of humor, that is.) Neither of these things get in the way for me when it comes to listening to their music, however.

I don't know how to feel about this. Frustrated and confused?

This, to me, is absurd. Name five bands that have been heavily influenced by VU that have improved on their sound. And I want reasons. Joy Division is a band that I love, but I could see what you're talking about with them. Maybe it's just that I really don't like Lou Reed for bashing Zappa, but I don't think the VU was THAT outstanding on its own, not compared to their West Coast contemporaries in the Mothers. I don't know, I thought it'd be pretty safe to say they were groundbreaking for their time, but got overshadowed by their followers. That's just the natural progression of music. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I still disagree, but am a big Zappa fan too, and had never heard of Lou bashing him. Ellaborate?

This, to me, is absurd. Name five bands that have been heavily influenced by VU that have improved on their sound. And I want reasons. Joy Division is a band that I love, but I could see what you're talking about with them. As for the bands that Banky doesn't get... I don't know, I think Radiohead is overrated as hell, but I think all of those bands are great. How much Floyd have you heard, anyway? The others could just be your tastes, but I'm convinced that Pink Floyd produced at least one album for everybody. Anyway, I like all of the bands that I'm going to list, and in some cases I like them quite a lot, but all of these are heralded as some of the greatest of all time and all that, and I've always had trouble realizing just what makes them great, per se. 1.) The Rolling Stones -- Prince can play every member of this band's instruments better than they can (including singing and dancing in Mick's case.) He can write more sensual ballads, more raunchy sex songs, and can rock twice as hard. The fact that one man could so flawlessly destroy one of the "greatest rock & roll bands of all time" is amazing to me. The Stones were blues-rock... there were many, many artists who did the blues better; many, many artists who did rock better; and many, many artists who did blues-rock better. I think they've got some solid albums, and I highly enjoy the early guiter interplay between Brian Jones and Keith, but nothing in my mind makes them distinctly great. 2.) Echo & the Bunnymen -- Good band, some great singles and sometimes even better albums... but this is definitely a band where I think that the bands that they influenced surpassed them by miles. 3.) Devendra Banhart -- He's cool and everything, but... what the hell? There is no originality in what this guy is doing. Marc Bolan, anyone? He's just a guy with long-hair playing folk music, and there is plenty of better folk out there. He's just decent, and nothing more, in my opinion. 4.) Tupac -- Eh, Biggie is better. 5.) Bob Marley -- Solid albums. Solid songs. But Jesus, the Congos expanded the sounds of reggae 100x more than Bob Marley ever did, and they did it with one fricken' album. In fact, every single highly-acclaimed reggae band that I've gotten into has been better than Marley, making him the worst major reggae artist I've ever heard. I guess he had just been way too overhyped as the man who popularized the genre in America and all that for me not to be completely underwhelmed by the time I actually got into his music. Oh, and finally... 6.) The Sex Pistols -- They're important, but they're pretty bad. And they're not even as important as they're supposed to be.

My favorite line goes something like (and this is just from memory...) M. BISON: "What's wrong Guile?? You came here expecting to face a MADMAN, and instead you found a GOD!?!?!?" And then he shoots lightning bolts out of his hands at him.

I've seen the video... "Life On Mars" is just David and the piano. His voice is kind of shot. "Wake Up" is fun as heck to watch but doesn't sound too great at all... and I'd say that "Five Years" is pretty solid. Does anyone here listen to Buckethead? Because I must say, he puts on the greatest live show that I've damn near ever seen. And that says a lot, seeing as how I was going into the show depressed because I only bought tickets after I found out that the Animal Collective show that night had sold out.

Additionally, what the fuck is a gangchant. It sounds like something that the Ewoks would do.

...I haven't seen a SWF card in a while... ...And so I have no idea what the fuck is going on here. But I'm still amused, somehow.

I change my vote to:

EDIT: Nevermind.

Only mentioned my favorite so far, but this would be among my top five. Definitely their best ever in my eyes, and I'm a pretty big fan. Flows really well and their twin guitar attack finally has reached perfection. Seeing them live opening for Sonic Youth at the end of this summer definitely helped, too. Another one I feel I should mention is Animal Lover. Not so much in that it's one of the year's best albums, but just in how amazing it is that the Residents are still producing good music after all these years. Truly haunting in some places. Truly awesome in others. Did anyone listen to OK Cowboy by Vitalic? My favorite electronica album of the year... perhaps even in years. Just amazing.