| Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/ |
|
| The Rolling Stones https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=79502 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Curious Hair [ Thu May 30, 2013 12:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | The Rolling Stones |
Hawks have to play the Kings back-to-back to accommodate a decrepit prancing misogynist, a desiccated cokehead, and legions of aging boomers singing along to how nice it must be to fuck black women. |
|
| Author: | Scorehead [ Thu May 30, 2013 12:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Rolling Stones |
The Stones suck. |
|
| Author: | Don Tiny [ Thu May 30, 2013 1:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Rolling Stones |
And the Kings have to play the Hawks back to back as well .... whooptie-shit. |
|
| Author: | Curious Hair [ Thu May 30, 2013 1:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Rolling Stones |
Bad ice and fatigue favor the team with less finesse. I'll whoop your shit. |
|
| Author: | redskingreg [ Thu May 30, 2013 5:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Rolling Stones |
Les lacks finesse. |
|
| Author: | W_Z [ Thu May 30, 2013 6:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Rolling Stones |
just be glad the hawks are even still alive in the playoffs. they easily could've been eliminated. |
|
| Author: | Douchebag [ Thu May 30, 2013 8:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Rolling Stones |
Why not DB the UC bosses for booking this show at this time? This could have easily been an even bigger clusterfuck if the Bulls were still around too. Its simply bad planning. And the Stones don't give a fuck about hockey, just like everyone else. |
|
| Author: | Brian's Mojito [ Thu May 30, 2013 12:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Rolling Stones |
Nomination denied. |
|
| Author: | Redneckmommy [ Thu May 30, 2013 9:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Rolling Stones |
when were the stones last truly relevant? I honestly have gotten sick of them from hearing their music over and over again on the radio, and the same songs too. Play some of their deeper cuts, not satisfaction or brown sugar 20 times a day. |
|
| Author: | Regular Reader [ Thu May 30, 2013 9:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Rolling Stones |
Curious Hair wrote: Hawks have to play the Kings back-to-back to accommodate a decrepit prancing misogynist, a desiccated cokehead, and legions of aging boomers singing along to how nice it must be to fuck black women. It's all pretty damned glorious Sir. Excepting the coke part, but.... |
|
| Author: | Colonel Angus [ Thu May 30, 2013 10:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Rolling Stones |
Redneckmommy wrote: when were the stones last truly relevant? I honestly have gotten sick of them from hearing their music over and over again on the radio, and the same songs too. Play some of their deeper cuts, not satisfaction or brown sugar 20 times a day. 60s & 70s. By the 80s we were getting this: |
|
| Author: | RFDC [ Thu May 30, 2013 10:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Rolling Stones |
I wouldn't pay 600 dollars to hear anyone sing. |
|
| Author: | Rod [ Thu May 30, 2013 10:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Rolling Stones |
Keeping Score wrote: I love the Stones, but I heard the average ticket is going for $600 a pop. That can't be right, can it? There are $600 tickets but I don't think that's the average and I believe they're have trouble selling the most expensive seats. |
|
| Author: | shirtless driver [ Thu May 30, 2013 11:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Rolling Stones |
How is this even remotely the fault of the Stones? You're better than this, CH. DENIED. |
|
| Author: | Chus [ Fri May 31, 2013 6:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Rolling Stones |
Douchebag wrote: Why not DB the UC bosses for booking this show at this time? This could have easily been an even bigger clusterfuck if the Bulls were still around too. Its simply bad planning. And the Stones don't give a fuck about hockey, just like everyone else. It's Jerry Reinsdorf's fault. I knew it. |
|
| Author: | Chus [ Fri May 31, 2013 6:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Rolling Stones |
Redneckmommy wrote: when were the stones last truly relevant? When 'Some Girls' was released in 1978. |
|
| Author: | Brick [ Fri May 31, 2013 6:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Rolling Stones |
RFDC wrote: I wouldn't pay 600 dollars to hear anyone sing. What if it was a "cosmic live experience"?
|
|
| Author: | Bagels [ Fri May 31, 2013 6:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Rolling Stones |
RFDC wrote: I wouldn't pay 600 dollars to hear anyone sing. Jerry: "Naaaaaa...I can't watch a man sing a song." Elaine: "What are you..crazy?" Jerry: "They get all emotional , they sway. It's embarrassing." |
|
| Author: | Frank Coztansa [ Fri May 31, 2013 9:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Rolling Stones |
Redneckmommy wrote: when were the stones last truly relevant? I honestly have gotten sick of them from hearing their music over and over again on the radio, and the same songs too. Play some of their deeper cuts, not satisfaction or brown sugar 20 times a day. Says the person who loves Lynyrd Skynyrd and mourns the passing of Country Music artists who haven't been relevant in 3 decades...
|
|
| Author: | conns7901 [ Fri May 31, 2013 9:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Rolling Stones |
I'm guessing when the concerts were booked Jerry figured the Bulls would be done by now and Wirtz figured the NHL was going to cancel their season. |
|
| Author: | SomeGuy [ Fri May 31, 2013 10:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Rolling Stones |
Chus wrote: Redneckmommy wrote: when were the stones last truly relevant? When 'Some Girls' was released in 1978. I would say that's about correct. They've put out some strong stuff since then but it's patchy and way to "Rolling Stones Music by Numbers." |
|
| Author: | sjboyd0137 [ Fri May 31, 2013 11:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Rolling Stones |
Frank Coztansa wrote: Redneckmommy wrote: when were the stones last truly relevant? I honestly have gotten sick of them from hearing their music over and over again on the radio, and the same songs too. Play some of their deeper cuts, not satisfaction or brown sugar 20 times a day. Says the person who loves Lynyrd Skynyrd and mourns the passing of Country Music artists who haven't been relevant in 3 decades... But Lynyrd Skynyrd sings about Amurricah! |
|
| Author: | stoneroses86 [ Fri May 31, 2013 11:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Rolling Stones |
sjboyd0137 wrote: Frank Coztansa wrote: Redneckmommy wrote: when were the stones last truly relevant? I honestly have gotten sick of them from hearing their music over and over again on the radio, and the same songs too. Play some of their deeper cuts, not satisfaction or brown sugar 20 times a day. Says the person who loves Lynyrd Skynyrd and mourns the passing of Country Music artists who haven't been relevant in 3 decades... But Lynyrd Skynyrd sings about Amurricah! I thought those hillbilly hayseeds died in a plane crash. |
|
| Author: | 312player [ Fri May 31, 2013 11:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Rolling Stones |
Seen em once live in 95, they were washed up then. The DB should be for the people that keep going to see these hasbeens. |
|
| Author: | sjboyd0137 [ Fri May 31, 2013 9:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Rolling Stones |
stoneroses86 wrote: sjboyd0137 wrote: Frank Coztansa wrote: Redneckmommy wrote: when were the stones last truly relevant? I honestly have gotten sick of them from hearing their music over and over again on the radio, and the same songs too. Play some of their deeper cuts, not satisfaction or brown sugar 20 times a day. Says the person who loves Lynyrd Skynyrd and mourns the passing of Country Music artists who haven't been relevant in 3 decades... But Lynyrd Skynyrd sings about Amurricah! I thought those hillbilly hayseeds died in a plane crash. All but like 2 of them. Then the lead hillbilly's brother decided that he would be the new talentless frontman, and make money off the brain dead hicks that pay to see them play Freebird every damn year. |
|
| Author: | Regular Reader [ Fri May 31, 2013 9:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Rolling Stones |
sjboyd0137 wrote: Then the lead hillbilly's brother decided that he would be the new talentless frontman, and make money off the brain dead hicks that pay to see them play Freebird every damn year. Son, this was perfection in a post. 
|
|
| Author: | sjboyd0137 [ Fri May 31, 2013 9:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Rolling Stones |
There are many bands and artists that I don't like, but nothing irritates me as much as Lynyrd Skynyrd. I hear the opening notes of Sweet Home Alabama, and I want to snap. My fiancee saw them at Ravinia a couple of years ago because their show was one of her company's "free" dates. All she talks about is the look of horror on the faces of the candelabra crowd as they were besieged by "The South Will Rise Again" crowd. |
|
| Author: | Regular Reader [ Fri May 31, 2013 9:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Rolling Stones |
sjboyd0137 wrote: All she talks about is the look of horror on the faces of the candelabra crowd as they were besieged by "The South Will Rise Again" crowd. And then to realize they largely vote in lockstep 
|
|
| Author: | sjboyd0137 [ Fri May 31, 2013 9:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Rolling Stones |
Regular Reader wrote: sjboyd0137 wrote: All she talks about is the look of horror on the faces of the candelabra crowd as they were besieged by "The South Will Rise Again" crowd. And then to realize they largely vote in lockstep The irony is outstanding. |
|
| Author: | Urlacher's missing neck [ Fri May 31, 2013 9:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Rolling Stones |
When will the candyman "become" skynryd?? Maybe they could become Molly Hatchet and .38 special too and make it a 3 for weekend package of shows. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|