Jump to content

EMB Blog: 2022 OTAs thru Pre-Season


Connecticut Eagle

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, RLC said:

 

8 hours ago, justrelax said:

Was good against the Jets too.

Makes Richard Rodgers expendable ... finally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 23k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Goedert, Stoll, Togiai, and Calceterra is a solid rotation with some solid rotational players. I assume Calceterra would stick on the practice squad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Doc S. said:

Last year, 8 yrs old, after hunting Pheasant all day...yeah, that's an Eagles cap...B-)

IMG_0495.thumb.jpg.a606390a28e335837e4511b7f3b3d7ab.jpg

 

I once had a Springer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if it's been mentioned in the 70's talk...but one of the most underrated albums of that decade IMO.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cutdowns mostly as expected.

Nice to see JJAW headed down the road. Guy just never seemed to get it.

We trimming with scissors or a machete?....time to cut the fat off the meat. Allow Howie to maybe make deal here and there but move some of these losers outa here. Nice swap for JJAW...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

😂😂😂

 

He should have done the R. Wilson, "Seahawks, let’s ride” thing.  
 

 

Lol that’s an Eagles banner in the background. Also this dude either has a massive lip in or is having a stroke in his Twitter pic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, justrelax said:

That's him in my avatar.

Here's a picture of Benjamin from last November

 

Justrelax's cat Benjamin.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

I have a signed glove of the real life rocky. At least he’s the guy the movie was loosely based on.  Chuck Wepner. 

D4D23E44-8064-4957-991C-BE9615E675B2.jpeg

That’s awesome. You have to pay for that? Was at boxing HOF few years ago can’t believe how shi**y it was. Basically in someone’s basement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing about age is you slowly develop perspective.

With music, there are two aspects, the bands you grew up with that became the language of your adolescent "tribe," and then later on, when you shed those prejudices and discover there a hell of a lot of music out there that you had ignored.

My wakeup call was moving to Austin in the early 1980s, between the Lubbock boys on one side (the Flatlanders crew and related singer songwriters), Antones (best blues club south of Chicago located just north of campus back then) and an older lover who was steeped in the 1960s, I branched out both forward and backwards (reassessing music I had ignored).

Nowadays I have a fantastic bootleg collection (2000 or so), an expanding CD collection (with exact audio copy, digitize them and store them as a physical archive), covering a wide range - but there is some music that never floated my boat. I embrace the Stones, Who, Zep, Hendrix, early Clapton - but what's interesting being in Texas is seeing that the English groups picked up the blues second hand (off records), while as ZZ Top sang, in the south and southwest "they heard it on the X" then saw these performers live, by the 70s they were performing with these guys. So the Brits sorta perverted the blues whereas the American rockers absorbed them.

To me, it's more about groups than categories, I liked Nirvana for a couple albums, but most grunge left me cold, same with Punk (there was nothing authentic about it, if they wanted to be authentic they should have gone back to Chuck Berry, or at least "Nuggets," and write better songs - thrashing around off key is not authentic, it's just amateurism. But the Clash were great, the Ramones in small doses, but I never got the hype for the Replacements or Big Star for that matter.

The first King Crimson album is a classic, whereas early Genesis is a muddle. The problem wasn't prog rock, but the people trying to play it.

 I don't get  "alternative or indy" rock, it seemed to be a label for what was popular on college campuses in the 1990s, but still the same thing, some hard edged, some soft, but either you got chops or you don't.

Biggest problem I see with current music is technology gives everyone a studio in their bedroom, but the Beatles paid their dues for years, learning to play, learning to write, THEN they got with Martin and learned to use studio tricks to augment what they already had learned. Now young musicians never have to focus on the basics because they can use technology in place of skill.

The heart of rock n roll (and just about any popular music form) isn't the beat, but the song - great songs can be interpreted in numerous ways by different artists and still retain their greatness - Leonard Cohen's songs, for example. You can put together a band with a great singer and kick ass musicians, but if they can't write good songs, they're going to be boring. The one exception are singers with the ability to adapt songs and make them her (his) own - but that has to be combined with great taste in songs - Linda Ronstadt had a great track record finding songwriters, Karla Bonoff, Warren Zevon, JD Souther (didn't have to look far), etc.

I have no interest in going to concerts in any venue over a 1,000 or so people any more, a stadium, no way. Because so much of live music is the connection between musician and audience, and as Garcia noted in the early 1970s, when you play to a stadium crowd, you're no longer playing to people but to a blur. There is nothing to match seeing live music in an intimate venue. Otherwise, I can hear the music better on good speakers at home, and don't have to look at a big screen to even see the band.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, austinfan said:

One thing about age is you slowly develop perspective.

With music, there are two aspects, the bands you grew up with that became the language of your adolescent "tribe," and then later on, when you shed those prejudices and discover there a hell of a lot of music out there that you had ignored.

My wakeup call was moving to Austin in the early 1980s, between the Lubbock boys on one side (the Flatlanders crew and related singer songwriters), Antones (best blues club south of Chicago located just north of campus back then) and an older lover who was steeped in the 1960s, I branched out both forward and backwards (reassessing music I had ignored).

Nowadays I have a fantastic bootleg collection (2000 or so), an expanding CD collection (with exact audio copy, digitize them and store them as a physical archive), covering a wide range - but there is some music that never floated my boat. I embrace the Stones, Who, Zep, Hendrix, early Clapton - but what's interesting being in Texas is seeing that the English groups picked up the blues second hand (off records), while as ZZ Top sang, in the south and southwest "they heard it on the X" then saw these performers live, by the 70s they were performing with these guys. So the Brits sorta perverted the blues whereas the American rockers absorbed them.

To me, it's more about groups than categories, I liked Nirvana for a couple albums, but most grunge left me cold, same with Punk (there was nothing authentic about it, if they wanted to be authentic they should have gone back to Chuck Berry, or at least "Nuggets," and write better songs - thrashing around off key is not authentic, it's just amateurism. But the Clash were great, the Ramones in small doses, but I never got the hype for the Replacements or Big Star for that matter.

The first King Crimson album is a classic, whereas early Genesis is a muddle. The problem wasn't prog rock, but the people trying to play it.

 I don't get  "alternative or indy" rock, it seemed to be a label for what was popular on college campuses in the 1990s, but still the same thing, some hard edged, some soft, but either you got chops or you don't.

Biggest problem I see with current music is technology gives everyone a studio in their bedroom, but the Beatles paid their dues for years, learning to play, learning to write, THEN they got with Martin and learned to use studio tricks to augment what they already had learned. Now young musicians never have to focus on the basics because they can use technology in place of skill.

The heart of rock n roll (and just about any popular music form) isn't the beat, but the song - great songs can be interpreted in numerous ways by different artists and still retain their greatness - Leonard Cohen's songs, for example. You can put together a band with a great singer and kick ass musicians, but if they can't write good songs, they're going to be boring. The one exception are singers with the ability to adapt songs and make them her (his) own - but that has to be combined with great taste in songs - Linda Ronstadt had a great track record finding songwriters, Karla Bonoff, Warren Zevon, JD Souther (didn't have to look far), etc.

I have no interest in going to concerts in any venue over a 1,000 or so people any more, a stadium, no way. Because so much of live music is the connection between musician and audience, and as Garcia noted in the early 1970s, when you play to a stadium crowd, you're no longer playing to people but to a blur. There is nothing to match seeing live music in an intimate venue. Otherwise, I can hear the music better on good speakers at home, and don't have to look at a big screen to even see the band.

 

Blah, blah, blah, I’m a pillar, blah, blah, blah, I’m so old

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, austinfan said:

One thing about age is you slowly develop perspective.

With music, there are two aspects, the bands you grew up with that became the language of your adolescent "tribe," and then later on, when you shed those prejudices and discover there a hell of a lot of music out there that you had ignored.

My wakeup call was moving to Austin in the early 1980s, between the Lubbock boys on one side (the Flatlanders crew and related singer songwriters), Antones (best blues club south of Chicago located just north of campus back then) and an older lover who was steeped in the 1960s, I branched out both forward and backwards (reassessing music I had ignored).

Nowadays I have a fantastic bootleg collection (2000 or so), an expanding CD collection (with exact audio copy, digitize them and store them as a physical archive), covering a wide range - but there is some music that never floated my boat. I embrace the Stones, Who, Zep, Hendrix, early Clapton - but what's interesting being in Texas is seeing that the English groups picked up the blues second hand (off records), while as ZZ Top sang, in the south and southwest "they heard it on the X" then saw these performers live, by the 70s they were performing with these guys. So the Brits sorta perverted the blues whereas the American rockers absorbed them.

To me, it's more about groups than categories, I liked Nirvana for a couple albums, but most grunge left me cold, same with Punk (there was nothing authentic about it, if they wanted to be authentic they should have gone back to Chuck Berry, or at least "Nuggets," and write better songs - thrashing around off key is not authentic, it's just amateurism. But the Clash were great, the Ramones in small doses, but I never got the hype for the Replacements or Big Star for that matter.

The first King Crimson album is a classic, whereas early Genesis is a muddle. The problem wasn't prog rock, but the people trying to play it.

 I don't get  "alternative or indy" rock, it seemed to be a label for what was popular on college campuses in the 1990s, but still the same thing, some hard edged, some soft, but either you got chops or you don't.

Biggest problem I see with current music is technology gives everyone a studio in their bedroom, but the Beatles paid their dues for years, learning to play, learning to write, THEN they got with Martin and learned to use studio tricks to augment what they already had learned. Now young musicians never have to focus on the basics because they can use technology in place of skill.

The heart of rock n roll (and just about any popular music form) isn't the beat, but the song - great songs can be interpreted in numerous ways by different artists and still retain their greatness - Leonard Cohen's songs, for example. You can put together a band with a great singer and kick ass musicians, but if they can't write good songs, they're going to be boring. The one exception are singers with the ability to adapt songs and make them her (his) own - but that has to be combined with great taste in songs - Linda Ronstadt had a great track record finding songwriters, Karla Bonoff, Warren Zevon, JD Souther (didn't have to look far), etc.

I have no interest in going to concerts in any venue over a 1,000 or so people any more, a stadium, no way. Because so much of live music is the connection between musician and audience, and as Garcia noted in the early 1970s, when you play to a stadium crowd, you're no longer playing to people but to a blur. There is nothing to match seeing live music in an intimate venue. Otherwise, I can hear the music better on good speakers at home, and don't have to look at a big screen to even see the band.

 

Let me guess. You just smoked a joint and had to get your deepest musical thoughts on paper and chose this as the forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alphagrand said:

The best Steely Dan guitar solo is Larry Carlton’s from Kid Charlemagne; the outro is pretty damn good too.  He has done some fantastic session work, and his performance of Room 335 with Lee Ritenour is a must-listen 

Never knew that there was so much Steely Dan love on the board (or Steely Dan love in general).  A friend just got done managing my tour and was texting me every town he went to see if I knew anyone who wanted tickets.  The only person I knew that wanted to go was my best friend in Portland.  He said it was a great show and he was in the 3rd row.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Cliftoma said:

Never knew that there was so much Steely Dan love on the board (or Steely Dan love in general).  A friend just got done managing my tour and was texting me every town he went to see if I knew anyone who wanted tickets.  The only person I knew that wanted to go was my best friend in Portland.  He said it was a great show and he was in the 3rd row.

They have a great collection of material and always take a cracker jack band on the road for their tours.

Are they "rock n roll?" Who knows. But they're good.

18 minutes ago, Texas Eagle said:

Let me guess. You just smoked a joint and had to get your deepest musical thoughts on paper and chose this as the forum.

If I just smoked a joint, I wouldn't bother  with you people. 😋

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my best friends is in a big metalcore band and they're doing their first headliner tour in the United States, they just played at the Fillmore in Philly Sunday night. A few of their songs are over a million views on YouTube and I think at one point recently they had 400k monthly listeners on Spotify

This is a Muse cover

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Wentz_Era said:

At least we can all agree that nickel back sucks?

They sold lots of albums though. They try really hard and I like that their frontman has a certain swagger about him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, hputenis said:

That is amazing because they were definitely unknown by almost everyone back then. Jimmy Pop’s sister graduated high school with me, so I figured back then nobody knew who they were. One Fierce Beer Coaster is by far my favorite album by them. The looks I get from anyone under 30 in my car when any song from that album comes on is priceless. 

Jimmy Pop worked at Philly Steaks in the King of Prussia Mall food court… I worked a few stores down at Bain’s Deli. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest justrelax
6 hours ago, downundermike said:

Blah, blah, blah, I’m a pillar, blah, blah, blah, I’m so old

You are most definitely not a pillar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Doc S. said:

Last year, 8 yrs old, after hunting Pheasant all day...yeah, that's an Eagles cap...B-)

IMG_0495.thumb.jpg.a606390a28e335837e4511b7f3b3d7ab.jpg

 

Have two Springers right now.  Great dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Texas Eagle said:

Lol that’s an Eagles banner in the background. Also this dude either has a massive lip in or is having a stroke in his Twitter pic.

Thats Novacare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mattmcginley7 said:

One of my best friends is in a big metalcore band and they're doing their first headliner tour in the United States, they just played at the Fillmore in Philly Sunday night. A few of their songs are over a million views on YouTube and I think at one point recently they had 400k monthly listeners on Spotify

This is a Muse cover


At first It’s surprisingly similar to the Muse version, It’s as if they ran that version through distortion or something (even moreso than the original). I was wondering where they were going with this. He’s even singing the first verse in a Bellamy-esque way… but then I almost spit out my peanut buster parfait when he went into his death growl. That stuff always cracks me up

I can picture a father using it to recite the big bad wolf’s lines in "3 little pigs” to his infant children to make them laugh. It’s always so goofy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, austinfan said:

 

The heart of rock n roll (and just about any popular music form) isn't the beat, but the song - great songs can be interpreted in numerous ways by different artists and still retain their greatness 

 

 

 The songs greatness can be up for debate, but the interpretation is untouchable, mostly because of the dude playing the guitar. 
 

 


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...