Clams wrote:Nothing like trashing the new record before you hear it!
I've seen folks trash records just based on artwork alone without having heard a single note of the music.
I remember a time when the DBT's would be playing nearly an entire album in concert for months prior to it's release. While the tunes may not have resembled their studio counterparts it was still a good indication of what to expect.
So, you were on the Springsteen board when Workin' on a Dream came out. Four months before the album came out, people saw the artwork, proclaimed WOAD "shit," and then refused to let the generally terrific music dissuade them when it actually came out.
Not I. Never been much of a Springsteen fan. Difficult as it may be to do sometimes, I do my best to hold to the "don't judge a book by it's cover" perspective though.
Clams, you are wrong wrong wrong! The title track is pretty awful, but there is some just amazing stuff on there. It's Springsteen experimenting with 60s pop and 70s album rock and doing it well. I love that record.
Kevidently wrote:Clams, you are wrong wrong wrong! The title track is pretty awful, but there is some just amazing stuff on there. It's Springsteen experimenting with 60s pop and 70s album rock and doing it well. I love that record.
Isn't that the one with queen of the supermarket and cowboy pete?
Kevidently wrote:Clams, you are wrong wrong wrong! The title track is pretty awful, but there is some just amazing stuff on there. It's Springsteen experimenting with 60s pop and 70s album rock and doing it well. I love that record.
Isn't that the one with queen of the supermarket and cowboy pete?
Yes, and I happen to like them both. Not necessarily his top-notch stuff, but "Outlaw Pete" is hilarious and steeped in the myth-making he was interpreting on the Seeger Sessions, and "Queen" is a perfect Beach Boys type song that we haven't heard in forever. Corny? Sure. But fun!
Focus people, focus. New album, object of your obsession...ring any bells? Maybe we could start working on a star rating for the record before anyone's heard it?
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved
Clams wrote:Nothing like trashing the new record before you hear it!
I've seen folks trash records just based on artwork alone without having heard a single note of the music.
I remember a time when the DBT's would be playing nearly an entire album in concert for months prior to it's release. While the tunes may not have resembled their studio counterparts it was still a good indication of what to expect.
So, you were on the Springsteen board when Workin' on a Dream came out. Four months before the album came out, people saw the artwork, proclaimed WOAD "shit," and then refused to let the generally terrific music dissuade them when it actually came out.
You HAVE listened to WOAD, right? Because it's about 76.9% shit.
Kudzu Guillotine wrote: I've seen folks trash records just based on artwork alone without having heard a single note of the music.
I remember a time when the DBT's would be playing nearly an entire album in concert for months prior to it's release. While the tunes may not have resembled their studio counterparts it was still a good indication of what to expect.
So, you were on the Springsteen board when Workin' on a Dream came out. Four months before the album came out, people saw the artwork, proclaimed WOAD "shit," and then refused to let the generally terrific music dissuade them when it actually came out.
You HAVE listened to WOAD, right? Because it's about 76.9% shit.
Smitty (or anybody), can you expand on your explanation of "shit shots count?" I understand that it has something to do w/ the game of pool but I still don't know what. I even proved my lack of searching skills because I tried looking it up and failed. Thanks.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard
beantownbubba wrote:Smitty (or anybody), can you expand on your explanation of "shit shots count?" I understand that it has something to do w/ the game of pool but I still don't know what.
Not that I was ever a big pool player--my dad, now--but when I did play, a shit shot was one that went in by luck. If you aren't playing where you call your shots, then shit shots count.
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be
beantownbubba wrote:Smitty (or anybody), can you expand on your explanation of "shit shots count?" I understand that it has something to do w/ the game of pool but I still don't know what.
Not that I was ever a big pool player--my dad, now--but when I did play, a shit shot was one that went in by luck. If you aren't playing where you call your shots, then shit shots count.
Yep, if you shoot a ball in and don't call the shot - down to exactly how it's going to go, how many rails it'll hit, what balls it plays off of, etc - it's a shit shot.
beantownbubba wrote:Smitty (or anybody), can you expand on your explanation of "shit shots count?" I understand that it has something to do w/ the game of pool but I still don't know what.
Not that I was ever a big pool player--my dad, now--but when I did play, a shit shot was one that went in by luck. If you aren't playing where you call your shots, then shit shots count.
Yep, if you shoot a ball in and don't call the shot - down to exactly how it's going to go, how many rails it'll hit, what balls it plays off of, etc - it's a shit shot.
There are few things in this world quite so satisfying as calling a complicated shot you have absolutely no chance of making and then making it anyway.
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be
beantownbubba wrote:Smitty (or anybody), can you expand on your explanation of "shit shots count?" I understand that it has something to do w/ the game of pool but I still don't know what.
Not that I was ever a big pool player--my dad, now--but when I did play, a shit shot was one that went in by luck. If you aren't playing where you call your shots, then shit shots count.
Yep, if you shoot a ball in and don't call the shot - down to exactly how it's going to go, how many rails it'll hit, what balls it plays off of, etc - it's a shit shot.
John A Arkansawyer wrote:Not that I was ever a big pool player--my dad, now--but when I did play, a shit shot was one that went in by luck. If you aren't playing where you call your shots, then shit shots count.
Yep, if you shoot a ball in and don't call the shot - down to exactly how it's going to go, how many rails it'll hit, what balls it plays off of, etc - it's a shit shot.
Around here that's called "slop".
Slop was always the preferred choice of words around here too. Used to hang out in a local pool room all the time when I was in high school, some of the most fun I ever had.
While it's mainly called a "shit shot" around here, I've heard it called "slop", "bullshit" and even a racial epithet shot, depending on where you're at. As far as regions where different games constitute different rules per calling shots, it has a lot to do with where the APA is the strongest which seems to be the Northeast. APA rules dictate that while playing eight-ball, no shot has to be called except for the 8. Since the APA is not as popular in the SE as it is the NE, mostly down here bar rules call for no called shots in 9 ball while they do in 8. I still believe despite "shit shots" counting, 9-ball is still a more skilled game than 8-ball; while you may have to call every shot in 8, you still have 7 balls to choose from (in the beginning); in 9, regardless if you luck a ball in, since you only have one ball to shoot in succession, english/shape/position plays a stronger role.
1. Shit Shots Count 2. When He''s Gone 3. Primer Coat 4. Pauline Hawkins 5. Made Up English Oceans 6. The Part Of Him 7. Hearing Jimmy Loud 8. Til He's Dead Or Rises 9. Hanging On 10. Natural Light 11. When Walter Went Crazy 12. First Air Of Autumn 13. Grand Canyon