T1B

smackaholic wrote:dees nuts makes a good point. talented musicians tend to be talented people in general who could be successful in other vocations. there is a pretty good chance that jimmy page would have moved on to a paying career by his early twenties had he come along today.

I saw a college housemate of mine and his band last night. He's a born front man, decent guitarist and can wail on the harp too. If he had put his mind to it, he could have had a paying career in music. Instead he got his PhD, a Fulbright Fellowship, is a fully tenured professor and has been published twice in the last 10 years.

Oh yea, and he's recorded an album and plays out with two different bands.

Meanwhile, you "publish" on Facebook and T1B and lord knows where else.

You mad, bro?

I'm mad, because you haven't done a radio show in 6 months.

The fuck?

War Wagon wrote:Meanwhile, you "publish" on Facebook and T1B and lord knows where else.

You mad, bro?

I'm mad, because you haven't done a radio show in 6 months.

The fuck?

I ain't mad. He's a freaking polymath of the highest order. An all around brilliant person. And a complete fucking maniac to boot. He worked his ass off for that gig. Why should I be mad?

And radio will be coming back soon. And when it does... Well let's just say that there will be even more variety.

Dr_Phibes wrote:

Dee Snutz wrote: Which permitted another million more mediocre recording artist to dilute their already mediocre product w their ego. So now here we are in 2012 and it's like the 1960's where bands release a singles. And considering the state of the music industry the last 10 yrs, what young brilliant artist would still enter into a career in music? Until they figure out how to get back to actually selling records, and people can make money, those geniuses can ply their wares in some other creative field. .

So what's wrong with that? From say, 60-63 there was a huge volume of one-hit wonders, making for a brilliant collection of work. No one was really dominating, why is that a problem? There's no shortage of talent out there and there never will be, all the creative 'geniuses' getting into tech-fields instead of music for lack of money? Fuck 'em, they won't be missed.

I don't see how it's a problem that people are left to their own devices to seek things out, what you haven't got is everything served up on a platter for you.

Let's not compare 1960-63 to today's music scene because it wasn't even cool to be in a band until the Beatles showed up on the Ed Sullivan Show in Feb of '64. So I'm a assuming you're not a musician. Because if you were a musician, you'd be pissed that you're not getting paid for your talent. So you must be a fan of music. And enjoying the benefits of today's bountiful, talent heavy music scene. And by today's music scene I mean, where you can now afford to listen to ALL that beautifully diverse music. Because it's free. An age where you're never pissed that you spent your hard earned money on some shit band. Or do you actually enjoy all that diverse talent while paying pay for it?

Dee Snutz wrote:Then came the CD/indie age. Now EVERYONE could make a cd. And it wasn't just 18 mins on two sides of vinyl. Now it was 80 mins. Which permitted another million more mediocre recording artist to dilute their already mediocre product w their ego.

Dee Snutz wrote:So you must be a fan of music. And enjoying the benefits of today's bountiful, talent heavy music scene. And by today's music scene I mean, where you can now afford to listen to ALL that beautifully diverse music.

I'm confused. Which is it?

BSmack wrote: And radio will be coming back soon. And when it does... Well let's just say that there will be even more variety.

Sorry to here about your impending unemployment.

ML@Coyote wrote:

Dee Snutz wrote:Then came the CD/indie age. Now EVERYONE could make a cd. And it wasn't just 18 mins on two sides of vinyl. Now it was 80 mins. Which permitted another million more mediocre recording artist to dilute their already mediocre product w their ego.

Dee Snutz wrote:So you must be a fan of music. And enjoying the benefits of today's bountiful, talent heavy music scene. And by today's music scene I mean, where you can now afford to listen to ALL that beautifully diverse music.

I'm confused. Which is it?

You should hone your sense of sarcasm.

Dee Snutz wrote:...it wasn't even cool to be in a band until the Beatles showed up on the Ed Sullivan Show in Feb of '64.

Try again, shitty.

mvscal wrote:

Dee Snutz wrote:...it wasn't even cool to be in a band until the Beatles showed up on the Ed Sullivan Show in Feb of '64.

Try again, shitty.

Great, some other idiot that has no clue about the history of music w an opinion.

Dee Snutz wrote:

ML@Coyote wrote:

Dee Snutz wrote:Then came the CD/indie age. Now EVERYONE could make a cd. And it wasn't just 18 mins on two sides of vinyl. Now it was 80 mins. Which permitted another million more mediocre recording artist to dilute their already mediocre product w their ego.

Dee Snutz wrote:So you must be a fan of music. And enjoying the benefits of today's bountiful, talent heavy music scene. And by today's music scene I mean, where you can now afford to listen to ALL that beautifully diverse music.

I'm confused. Which is it?

You should hone your sense of sarcasm.

Okay. So you're still bashing today's music and the fact so many musicians are on the scene. Like I said before, I'm not a big expert on modern music, but the fact that so much music is now available seems contrary to your position. I don't see how increasing the talent pool could result in worse music. Just doesn't make sense to me. You might have more to sort through, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. And having the scene dominated by a handful of popular bands is not necessarily a good thing. Or am I misunderstanding you again?

I do like that Empire State of Mind song. When Jay Z is grunting "Yeah, Yeah". And then he does all that talking. Right up until Alecia Keys comes in to do all the heavy lifting by actually implementing talent and a melody. That's pretty cool.

Dee Snutz wrote:I do like that Empire State of Mind song. When Jay Z is grunting "Yeah, Yeah". And then he does all that talking. Right up until Alecia Keys comes in to do all the heavy lifting by displaying talent. That's pretty cool.

Not quite as cool as Donny Osmond singing Puppy Love in the early seventies.

Ask yourself this: If you were alive way back in the day, would you have been one of those crazies in the audience chomping at the bit over Stravinsky's Rite of Spring? You are a music history expert, no?

New is not necessarily worse. Old is not necessarily better.

BTW, it was cool to be in a rock band pre-Beatles.

Dee Snutz wrote:I do like that Empire State of Mind song.

i haaaaaaaaaaate that song

ML@Coyote wrote:

Dee Snutz wrote:I do like that Empire State of Mind song. When Jay Z is grunting "Yeah, Yeah". And then he does all that talking. Right up until Alecia Keys comes in to do all the heavy lifting by displaying talent. That's pretty cool.

Not quite as cool as Donny Osmond singing Puppy Love in the early seventies.

Ask yourself this: If you were alive way back in the day, would you have been one of those crazies in the audience chomping at the bit over Stravinsky's Rite of Spring? You are a music history expert, no?

New is not necessarily worse. Old is not necessarily better.

BTW, it was cool to be in a rock band pre-Beatles.

How old are you, and how do you know it was cool to be in a band pre-Beatles?

haaaaaaaaaaaaaate

Comrade Snutz, you're the best

Dee Snutz wrote:How old are you, and how do you know it was cool to be in a band pre-Beatles?

I was raised in CA, so my experience might be regional. I am 57 years old. I can remember in elementary school prior to the Beatles invasion, the Beach Boys were about the coolest guys on the planet. All of us wanted to be like them. I would imagine there were others older than us who thought it would be pretty cool to play with Elvis and others, no? I just don't think the Beatles brought "cool" to rock bands. I don't know where you got this idea.

ML@Coyote wrote:

Dee Snutz wrote:How old are you, and how do you know it was cool to be in a band pre-Beatles?

I was raised in CA, so my experience might be regional. I am 57 years old. I can remember in elementary school prior to the Beatles invasion, the Beach Boys were about the coolest guys on the planet. All of us wanted to be like them. I would imagine there were others older than us who thought it would be pretty cool to play with Elvis and others, no? I just don't think the Beatles brought "cool" to rock bands. I don't know where you got this idea.

Same place he shits from, with similar results.

ML@Coyote wrote:

Dee Snutz wrote:How old are you, and how do you know it was cool to be in a band pre-Beatles?

I was raised in CA, so my experience might be regional. I am 57 years old. I can remember in elementary school prior to the Beatles invasion, the Beach Boys were about the coolest guys on the planet. All of us wanted to be like them. I would imagine there were others older than us who thought it would be pretty cool to play with Elvis and others, no? I just don't think the Beatles brought "cool" to rock bands. I don't know where you got this idea.

Nobody's going to dispute Elvis was cool. Or the Beach Boys. And you can add Buddy Holly to that. And yes, there's always been musicians that played in bands. But after the Beatles appeared on Sullivan, EVERYONE wanted to be in a band. Was I born then? No, not quite yet. Where did I get this idea? By hearing and reading, first hand, every musician and composer I've ever idolized that succeeded in music. But don't take my word for it. Go back and listen to every speech from the R&R Hall of Fame inductees over the years and see how many credit seeing the Beatles on Feb 9th, 1964 for sending them on their career path.

Dee Snutz wrote:A lot of things have happened to music since the 80's. One is MTV. Substance was discarded for image. Great musicians weren't always the best looking people. The best musicians were losers who had nothing better to do than get great at their instruments/craft. Now they can't get signed because they're compromising the bands MTV cred.

As ML said, I do not believe that substance was sacrificed for image. The visuals were intended to accentuate the music, to give the artist a chance to not only give their music to a different audience, but to allow for a method of enhancing or altering the story in the song. To suggest that the best musicians were "losers" or were of questionable appearance is just marginally accurate at best. Of course it helps when an artist or act has strong visual appeal, but it is by no means essential. Most people care about the music, period. And to also suggest acts cannot get signed due to the influence or creation of MTV and the medium it represents, is simply not true, at least not in the total sense of that idea. I would love to hear you cite some examples of this concept. Which bands or singers are having trouble getting representation or sales because of "compromising" MTV?

Then came the CD/indie age. Now EVERYONE could make a cd. And it wasn't just 18 mins on two sides of vinyl. Now it was 80 mins. Which permitted another million more mediocre recording artist to dilute their already mediocre product w their ego.

Again, I concur with ML on this point as well. The more the merrier. I have discovered or been exposed to more new music over the last twenty to thirty years that I never would have known about if it hadn't been for the independent age. I loved the fact that not only could you embed more music per disc on a c.d. vs. an album, but you could store more discs in your collection due the smaller size of the product. They were portable and easier to listen to on the road, as opposed to tapes, and they were cleaner sounding. Of course, I will always prefer the rich and full, warm sound of a piece of analog vinyl over the sharper, cold sound of digital any day, but that's a minor quibble.

As to the ego thing, an artist will "dilute" their product with throwaway filler regardless of format. The Beatles White Album is proof of that, and I love that record. But there are certainly a couple of tunes on it that would have been better left on the editing room floor. "Revolution 9" as example.

So now here we are in 2012 and it's like the 1960's where bands release a singles. And considering the state of the music industry the last 10 yrs, what young brilliant artist would still enter into a career in music? Until they figure out how to get back to actually selling records, and people can make money, those geniuses can ply their wares in some other creative field. And by today's music scene I mean, where you can now afford to listen to ALL that beautifully diverse music. Because it's free. An age where you're never pissed that you spent your hard earned money on some shit band. Or do you actually enjoy all that diverse talent while paying pay for it?

Kind of an odd question. And a true dichotomy of what you seem to be advocating. There is a veritable deluge of new artists on the horizon every year. Hell, every month. Dozens of new artists pop up all the time, especially in light of the availability and easy access to their music due to the internet. The web, as well as reality television have spawned a multitude of musicians and singers who otherwise would never have seen the light of day. And therein, lies a major problem with new music. The actual selling of records. Because of downloading and the ability to pick and choose a playlist at will, artists are getting the royal screw over when it comes to sales. Consumers just don't buy records (or c.d.'s) the way they used to. A potential buying audience may never know what an artist intended for them because they won't hear the album in the sequence it was intended to be played. Imagine listening to "Tommy" or "Quadrophenia" out of order. The experience would be ruined. The only way we can go backward, to the way the music business should be, would be to eliminate downloading, period. While it would surely limit access to new and old music alike, at least the artists could once again generate the income from album and c.d. sales they so richly deserve. The whole aspect of downloading is a tricky affair when it comes to the argument of sales versus access. In my own personal view, as one who sides with the artist and their intellectual and creative properties, I would abolish downloading. However, I'm sure I'm in the minority on that. And sadly, we aren't going back down that old road any time soon, if ever.

The state of the music industry over the last 10 years has indeed suffered, at least in the sense of what old school music and business represents versus most of the schlock and over-produced, auto-tuned drivel we are currently exposed to. True talent can be tossed out the window if you have a nice piece of eye candy to represent.

However, I suppose, as ML and Papa Willie both attest to, it's a generational thing. Each passing one shakes their head with misty-eyed regret at what was, and will never be again, as the new one raises its fist and turns a mocking glare backward, thinking how foolish and close minded their elders are. Each generation looks at the other and wonders what the hell they were or are actually listening to, and why they think 'our' music is so much better than 'theirs'. In the end, to paraphrase Paul McCartney, the music you make is equal to the music you take. Or something like that.

^^^This.

And back on the subject of "cool:"

Funny thing about the Beatles. When they first came upon the music scene, they were the Justin Bieber's of the day. I think their cute Moe Howard hairdos were more important to fans than their music. At that point in time, their music was comprised of several very simple and catchy pop songs. Young girls adored them, well because they were the Beatles. My cousin went to one of their early concerts, and she said she couldn't even hear the music over all the screaming and crying. Kids went to see them to see them, not to hear them play. That was the state of things when they appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show.

It's hard for me to understand how that suddenly made rock bands "cool," unless of course by cool you mean attaining the adulation of mass quantities of young females.

So, is Justin Bieber "cool?"

ML@Coyote wrote:Funny thing about the Beatles. When they first came upon the music scene, they were the Justin Bieber's of the day.

that statement is so preposterously ridiculous as to not even deserve a serious response other than to say you probably know a lot more about Bieber than The Beatles because you obviously don't know jack shit about them.

War Wagon wrote:

ML@Coyote wrote:Funny thing about the Beatles. When they first came upon the music scene, they were the Justin Bieber's of the day.

that statement is so preposterously ridiculous as to not even deserve a serious response other than to say you probably know a lot more about Bieber than The Beatles because you obviously don't know jack shit about them.

Name the first great Beatles song, in your opinion.

ML@Coyote wrote:

War Wagon wrote:

ML@Coyote wrote:Funny thing about the Beatles. When they first came upon the music scene, they were the Justin Bieber's of the day.

that statement is so preposterously ridiculous as to not even deserve a serious response other than to say you probably know a lot more about Bieber than The Beatles because you obviously don't know jack shit about them.

Name the first great Beatles song, in your opinion.

This song is way sophisticated for a couple 22 yr old kids. They have an intro that never returns totally defying conventional structure. Beautiful three part harmonies. And a timeless melody. Whether it meets your criteria for great, that's your opinion. But it certainly is an early indicator that there's greatness brewing here.

All My Loving

Deez whiffed big on the "wasn't cool to be in a band" before teh Beatles on Ed Sullivan.

As has been mentioned, the Beach Boys came immediately to mind. Paul Revere and the Raiders (homer pick), The Kingsman (ditto), Elvis' band (Scotty Moore changed everything), Bill Haley, Ritchie Valens, Buddy Holly, several R&B crossovers... this list goes on forever.


And I guess I'll tell my friend his band, which is on the cusp of national fame, sucks, due strictly to the year they were born.

Certainly Jack White must not be amazing, because he's a product of the last 15 years. Modest Mouse must be lame due to their birth in the 90s. Pantera was obviously talentless, since they didn't come around til the early 90's.

What an amzingly asinine take.

Re: The Beatles -- they were pretty much a glorfied doo-wop band until Rubber Soul

There's no way you can call the Beatles the Justin Beibers of their day. These guys grinded their chops out in the shitholes of Hamburg for years. That's how they honed these amazing 3 part harmonies and learned how to compose a song after yrs of doing covers. This song is ridiculous w the clever use of a major7 and a great bridge. And this is live w no Autotune.

War Wagon wrote:

ML@Coyote wrote:Funny thing about the Beatles. When they first came upon the music scene, they were the Justin Bieber's of the day.

that statement is so preposterously ridiculous as to not even deserve a serious response other than to say you probably know a lot more about Bieber than The Beatles because you obviously don't know jack shit about them.

Wags, not only is what ML said not preposterous, it is quite dead-on. He's talking specifically of their early days. When the Beatles first started, they were a club band, playing covers and old standards. Their first commercial songs were pure pop, nothing more. Of course they were catchy as hell, and better than most of the rest of the pack, but they weren't anything deep or significant. The Beatles were initially famous for their image especially. The mop-top haircuts, the matching suits, etc. Did you actually see the Ed Sullivan appearances? The concert at Shea Stadium? You couldn't hear a damn thing because the girls in the audience were screaming their heads off, not because they wanted to hear the music, but because they loved and wanted to see THEM. Comparing their early popularity to the rise of Justin Bieber is quite accurate.

Now then, what the Beatles became and still remain is something the Biebs will never ever accomplish. He's a cute face for the teeny boppers to cream over, writing and performing sugar-pop songs of fluff and nonsense that nobody will remember 10 years from now. The Beatles are legendary and will never be duplicated. But their early rise and success is not so far removed from the Britney Spears and Justin Biebers of the world.

Dinsdale wrote:Deez whiffed big on the "wasn't cool to be in a band" before teh Beatles on Ed Sullivan.

As has been mentioned, the Beach Boys came immediately to mind. Paul Revere and the Raiders (homer pick), The Kingsman (ditto), Elvis' band (Scotty Moore changed everything), Bill Haley, Ritchie Valens, Buddy Holly, several R&B crossovers... this list goes on forever.


And I guess I'll tell my friend his band, which is on the cusp of national fame, sucks, due strictly to the year they were born.

Certainly Jack White must not be amazing, because he's a product of the last 15 years. Modest Mouse must be lame due to their birth in the 90s. Pantera was obviously talentless, since they didn't come around til the early 90's.

What an amzingly asinine take.

Let's just pretend the ridiculous and assume you were right. What joy is there in being right if you still come off like an asshole? In this instance, you're clueless and come off like an asshole.

Dee Snutz wrote:There's no way you can call the Beatles the Justin Beibers of their day. These guys grinded their chops out in the shitholes of Hamburg for years. That's how they honed these amazing 3 part harmonies and learned how to compose a song after yrs of doing covers. This song is ridiculous w the clever use of a major7 and a great bridge. And this is live w no Autotune.

Dee and Wags, you're missing MLs point. He isn't dismissing their songwriting or talent, nor am I. He is saying that their early rise was greatly enhanced due to their image. He isn't saying they were the Justin Beibers of their day exactly, just that there is a direct correlation between their initial popularity and what it is that makes the little girls go ape-shit over Biebs. Take a step back and look at the history.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:

Dee Snutz wrote:There's no way you can call the Beatles the Justin Beibers of their day. These guys grinded their chops out in the shitholes of Hamburg for years. That's how they honed these amazing 3 part harmonies and learned how to compose a song after yrs of doing covers. This song is ridiculous w the clever use of a major7 and a great bridge. And this is live w no Autotune.

Dee and Wags, you're missing MLs point. He isn't dismissing their songwriting or talent, nor am I. He is saying that their early rise was greatly enhanced due to their image. He isn't saying they were the Justin Beibers of their day exactly, just that there is a direct correlation between their initial popularity and what it is that makes the little girls go ape-shit over Biebs. Take a step back and look at the history.

I get what you're sayin and ML, as well. But you're wrong in people's assessment of them as only a boy band. Yes, the little girls were shrieking and it was very Fab Four fad-ish. But beyond all the mania were writers like Bob Dylan and Leiber and Stoller that were fans and knew it wasn't a fad. So yes, they were a boy band on the surface. But real musicians knew otherwise.

Dee Snutz wrote:I get what you're sayin and ML, as well. But you're wrong in people's assessment of them as only a boy band. Yes, the little girls were shrieking and it was very Fab Four fad-ish. But beyond all the mania were writers like Bob Dylan and Leiber and Stoller that were fans and knew it wasn't a fad. So yes, they were a boy band on the surface. But real musicians knew otherwise.

Okay, maybe I'm not being specific enough. I did not, and would never suggest that the Beatles are a "boy band". Far, far from it. I, like ML, am speaking only to their initial popularity and image. This is the mirror I'm holding up for contrast. I not only understand and respect their influence, even from the start, I am a champion of it. But let's separate what we are talking about here. If the Beatles didn't possess their early image, would Beatlemania have been the monster that it was in the early days? Possibly, even probably. But as the saying goes, image is everything. And they had it and used it. So does Beiber and company.

Beiber, in all likelihood, is nothing more than an extended fad. The Beatles are the quintessence of modern pop and rock. Yet, in the beginning of the groundswell of their success, lies a nifty little processed package wrapped up in haircuts and matching suits. In that very specific sense, how does that differ from what we see today?

Jay in Phoenix wrote:The Beatles are the quintessence of modern pop and rock. Yet, in the beginning of the groundswell of their success, lies a nifty little processed package wrapped up in haircuts and matching suits. In that very specific sense, how does that differ from what we see today?

Well, if you discount the fact that they actually wrote their own songs and arranged them and performed all the instrumentation (save for the occasional George Martin piano contribution). And that the songs were way advanced for 20-22 year old kids. I guess they don't differ.

ML@Coyote wrote:Name the first great Beatles song, in your opinion.

That's a tough question as I would've been in diapers about the time they first became popular. Too many songs to name actually, but I'll toss this one out as a good example.





Point being, comparing The Beatles to Justin Bieber is ludicrous, no matter how hard Jay tries to equivocate that statement in his earnest, but misguided effort at defending you. You might want to send him a Christmas card or something.

I'll take it a step further and say that when the Beatles arrived on the scene, their appearance was of equal or more importance than their music. The girls went crazy over these guys. John, Paul, George, and Ringo! When these girls went to concerts, they didn't give a shit about the music. They were drooling and shouting over the Fab Four and their crazy hairdos and British accents. The Beatles' opening salvo of music was great catchy pop music, no doubt about it. But there was lots of great and "cool" pop and rock music preceding them. You know, this whole discussion started with Dee's assertion that it wasn't even "cool" to be in a rock band until the Beatles appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show. That assertion is wrong. When the Beatles appeared on the scene, the Beatles were (like Justin Bieber) first and foremost teenage hearthrobs. Appreciation of their music came later, in light of their subsequent efforts. Anyone who tells you their Ed Sullivan Show appearance suddenly (and for the first time) made being in a rock band "cool' just isn't telling it like it was. Unless, of course, you define "cool" as making young girls scream and cry and hang pictures of you on their bedroom walls; I guess in that case Dee might have a point.

ML@Coyote wrote: Unless, of course, you define "cool" as making young girls scream and cry and hang pictures of you on their bedroom walls; I guess in that case Dee might have a point.

Guitar and drum mfrs didn't quadruple their business overnight because suddenly a bunch of kids were "on the pavement, thinkin 'bout the government".

Dee Snutz wrote:

ML@Coyote wrote: Unless, of course, you define "cool" as making young girls scream and cry and hang pictures of you on their bedroom walls; I guess in that case Dee might have a point.

Guitar and drum mfrs didn't quadruple their business overnight because suddenly a bunch of kids were "on the pavement, thinkin 'bout the government".

Like I said.

ML@Coyote wrote:You know, this whole discussion started with Dee's assertion that it wasn't even "cool" to be in a rock band until the Beatles appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show. That assertion is wrong.

With all due respect, you were nine yrs old in 1964 (if I am recalling your post correctly). What did you know about cool? Were you rockin in a band, smokin cigarettes, picking up chicks, contemplating Gene Vincent? Unless you were some glandular freak, probably not. I'm not asserting it was not cool because I was there. I'm quoting people like Little Steven Van Zandt, Bruce Springsteen, Lindsey Buckingham and other people who have related how and why they got into music. Accomplished folk whose memory is probably a lot more vivid of the musical climate of the time than you at nine. And let me clarify, nobody's saying the Beach Boys weren't cool. I'm saying that it was much cooler to be a jock in school than in a rock band on Feb 8, 1964. On Feb 10th, not so much.

Dee Snutz wrote:

ML@Coyote wrote:You know, this whole discussion started with Dee's assertion that it wasn't even "cool" to be in a rock band until the Beatles appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show. That assertion is wrong.

With all due respect, you were nine yrs old in 1964 (if I am recalling your post correctly). What did you know about cool? Were you rockin in a band, smokin cigarettes, picking up chicks, contemplating Gene Vincent? Unless you were some glandular freak, probably not. I'm not asserting it was not cool because I was there. I'm quoting people like Little Steven Van Zandt, Bruce Springsteen, Lindsey Buckingham and other people who have related how and why they got into music. People whose memory is probably a lot more vivid of the musical climate of the time than you at nine.

Are you saying these people got into music because they thought it wasn't cool to do so? Did they go into music because they felt it was less cool than, say, becoming a CPA? Can you give me some direct quotes so I can see what you're talking about?

BTW, I was a very cool kid.