NFL - Are you Ready For Some Football?! Super Bowl Hunting

[Imran Siddiqui]

As long as you are talking about the Rolling Stones, you can say overrated all you want

McCartney in 1960 was fantastic. McCartney in 2008 singing songs he sang in 1960 ... not so much. This is why God invented MP3's.

Rolling Stones are, of course, in no way overrated.

And McCartney in 2008 singing the 60s songs was great.

Springsteen, who could never really sing anyway, will be singing what exactly? His 80s songs? Yeaaah.

[Grandpa Troll]

yes, unfortunately he doesn't have a dog in this fight.

Get well soon Slowwy!

~ahem~..I was.. thinking...


Never mind...

[snoopy369]

1. Bruce Springsteen was not a member of a boy band in the 1980s; his voice now is not dramatically different from what it was in the 1980s.
2. He'll presumably play songs from the 80s, 90s, 2000s, and his current album (released on 1/27/09... a few days ago, you'll note!).

The Rolling Stones are practically by definition overrated. They're generally hyped as the best band, ever, in the history of time. Which they're clearly not; therefore, they are overrated. It's like saying Tom Brady is overrated; yeah, probably so, but that doesn't mean he's not good, he's just not the second coming of Christ... I don't claim they're not a good band - they are - but they're below the Boss in my book.

[Grandpa Troll]

Rolling Stones are, of course, in no way overrated.

And McCartney in 2008 singing the 60s songs was great.

Springsteen, who could never really sing anyway, will be singing what exactly? His 80s songs? Yeaaah.

Imran..Oh Imran..about the time you show up on my radar as a decent and just person..Oh..Imran...

I am so sorry..but

Per chance are you a David Bowie fan?..if so..this would explain your number one rating..

[Imran Siddiqui]

1. Bruce Springsteen was not a member of a boy band in the 1980s; his voice now is not dramatically different from what it was in the 1980s.

He couldn't sing then (seriously, "Dancing in the Dark" and "Glory Days" aren't exactly stellar), nor can he sing now.

The Rolling Stones are practically by definition overrated. They're generally hyped as the best band, ever, in the history of time. Which they're clearly not; therefore, they are overrated. It's like saying Tom Brady is overrated; yeah, probably so, but that doesn't mean he's not good, he's just not the second coming of Christ... I don't claim they're not a good band - they are - but they're below the Boss in my book.

But what if they are the best band ever?

Actually, I'd probably say it was the Beatles, but the Stones are oh so close.

Oh, and Gramps, Bowie is alright. But he's no Zeppelin or The Who (I consider Bowie really a 70s artist, even though he was active in the 80s) .

[Grandpa Troll]

Oh, and Gramps, Bowie is alright.

Yeah, that was a slight troll..since him and Mick Jagger
had a thingey with one another

[-Jrabbit]

McCartney in 1960 was fantastic. )

Ahem. Slight sidebar, snoop:

Maybe 1962 (The Cavern Club gigs, first releases of Love Me Do and PS I Love You) or 1963 (breakout year).

In 1960, the just-named Beatles (still with Stu Sutcliffe) had never yet been inside a recording studio (on business, at least). The first Hamburg shows were in August (after finally hiring a drummer, Pete Best). At that time they were basically unknowns, and the group was playing cover tunes almost exclusively.

The Beatles first recording (as backing band to Tony Sheridan) and first under their own name ("My Bonnie") were both in 1961. Stu Sutcliffe was on bass. McCartney (and Lennon) played rhythm guitar.

I realize you were just dissing the 64-year-old's recent work, but I felt compelled to point out that there are almost no Americans who can state with any confidence that Paul McCartney was "fantastic" in 1960.

Sorry to pick nits. Carry on.

[Grandpa Troll]

Ahem. Slight sidebar, snoop:

Maybe 1962 (The Cavern Club gigs, first releases of Love Me Do and PS I Love You) or 1963 (breakout year).

In 1960, the just-named Beatles (still with Stu Sutcliffe) had never yet been inside a recording studio (on business, at least). The first Hamburg shows were in August (after finally hiring a drummer, Pete Best). At that time they were basically unknowns, and the group was playing cover tunes almost exclusively.

The Beatles first recording (as backing band to Tony Sheridan) and first under their own name ("My Bonnie") were both in 1961. Stu Sutcliffe was on bass. McCartney (and Lennon) played rhythm guitar.

I realize you were just dissing the 64-year-old's recent work, but I felt compelled to point out that there are almost no Americans who can state with any confidence that Paul McCartney was "fantastic" in 1960.

Sorry to pick nits. Carry on.

Its ok -Jrabbit

Snoopy369 shows great potential, trust in the force will he and soon, shall be ready to accept what is his destiny

But Snoopy369, beware, much evile exists in that chamber you call Staff room, beware, the darkside is strong it is

Be on high alert, free your mind and your AZZ will follow

[-Jrabbit]

Rolling Stones are, of course, in no way overrated.

Springsteen, who could never really sing anyway,..

LOL. As long as I'm nit-picking this amusing thread, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that Mick Jagger has, hands down, the smallest vocal range of any of the artists mentioned.

Not that it matters. But it is FACT.

Carry on.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But he uses that limited range so well

[snoopy369]

Meh, anything that happened that far back is ancient history anyway. Be happy I can name the decade

[snoopy369]

But he uses that limited range so well

I'm not even sure why Mick is so famous.

He doesn't sing particularly amazingly; he's not a spectacular guitarist (which they do have a pretty decent one of course), and he doesn't really dance well (maybe he did in the middle ages, but certainly not in the last decade or two). I don't really get why he's the famous one of the group...

[Grandpa Troll]

Meh, anything that happened that far back is ancient history anyway. Be happy I can name the decade

Ok, back on topic folks...

Just how far back in N F L History will we search for the Greatest Charger Superbowl Team?

Id be remiss if I didnt tell you my sources still have them as the best AFC Team and will win it all...on Sunday

[-Jrabbit]

But he uses that limited range so well

No argument there. He knows his limitations and is a consummate showman. But I found it pretty laughable that the Stones supporter was dissing Springsteen on the grounds of vocal ability.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm not even sure why Mick is so famous.

He doesn't sing particularly amazingly; he's not a spectacular guitarist (which they do have a pretty decent one of course), and he doesn't really dance well (maybe he did in the middle ages, but certainly not in the last decade or two). I don't really get why he's the famous one of the group...

Cause he's got the right attitude. And the vocal on "I Can't Get No Satisfaction" & "Paint It Black", etc. is just so iconic.