In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 464
Online now 664 Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
i know what it means. its just that you always have to go against the grain. the board talks about a crappy band who somehow is still out doing their thing, you say the board is wrong for singling them out specifically. if the op was about Fall Out Boy, you'd post the same thing just using fallout boy.
No...Nickelback is pretty much the poster boy for crappy bands. I've long felt that. Being a contrarian is saying shit like "pearl jam isn't that good"
This post was edited by ravensnterps 12 months ago
Yes. This thread has basically devolved into a "what band do you like / hate" discussion so I happen to hate 80's springsteen. I like 70's springsteen but in the 80's they had that least common denominator quality that makes also nickelback popular. And it's like some sort of sacrilege to speak ill of bruce springsteen the same way it's become sacrilege to speak ill of DMB.
Mellencamp had Jack and Dianne and then a giant bowl full of shit but everything he put out ended up getting tons of radio play... much like nickelback.
Not a jack ass. I am a 4 star poster on RCMB - spartanfan48413
in fairness, i said it first.
Phatboy if you had any balls I'd meet you at the AFA Boxing gym and have Coach Weichers put some gloves on us.
Springsteen put out "The River" in 1980 and "Nebraska" in 1982, the latter of which is absolutely whatever the opposite of lower common denominator is.
1984 was Born in the U.S.A., which while probably overplayed as a whole on the radio (because of Dancing in the Dark and Born in the U.S.A.), gave us darker tunes like My Hometown, Workin' on the Highway, and Glory Days.
Darlington County also kicks ass.
Then in 1987, he did Tunnel of Love, which gave us Brilliant Disguise, a really, really sad song that doesn't exactly make you crank up the radio.
With the exception of the radio overplay of Dancing in the Dark and Born in the U.S.A. (itself vastly misinterpreted by the average listener as a dick-swinging, FUCK YEAH AMERICA! song), I would argue that 1980s Springsteen is 180 degrees from lowest common denominator.
NJT will back me up on Nebraska, if nothing else.
"And I try to har-mo-nize with songs the lonesome sparrow sings...
There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden."
Nebraska is fucking brilliant. 80's Bruce is so wrong...so so wrong
Why is this premise so hard to grasp?
A) is a shitty band
B) Has no particular sound
C) Sells a lot of records
D) Is inexplicably popular
pick an artist or band from the 70's 80's 90's that meet these criteria and any other (not listed) that Nickelback meets.
Yeah, but in someone's opinion, they could think Pearl Jam sucks. I think they were great. But, some dumbass could really not like them.
As a huge Springsteen fan, I would have gone for 1990s Springsteen if I wanted to make a negative comparison. Two lackluster to poor rock albums and an acoustic album.
80s Bruce makes zero sense to me.
Springsteen and GNR were two artists that I knew someone would eventually throw out and they are both so, so wrong. I'm eagerly awaiting Tom Petty next.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports