Tim McG

Jesus has a better slider. That's how the Giants do it. Just sayin'.

Dunno. I haven't watched the Grammys for years.

Good point. Labels bring with them a fair amount of clout.

I have no problems with that one

Point well taken, Jim. I totally get that the Grammys are a popularity contest. But there again, my concern goes to the marketing and packaging process which bodes well for the sales but not for the quality of music. I don't know if I'd call GaGa "a marvelous keyboardist and vocalist", but I do like some of what I've seen and heard thus far. Rather than merely "ripping off" Madonna's music, I think she's a talented artist who's picked up the torch and carried it further in terms of celebrating diversity. More power to her! Oh, and one more thing. Given your checkered history on this board, I find it ironic that you should be calling someone else a troll. I say this based upon the streaming video for Clinton's birthday bash last year. She did a couple keyboard solos that were, IMHO, superb. She has the talent but prefers the glitz and glitter over substance. That I find to be sad.

That was one year, Jim. Anybody can find crappy music as winners. I'm talking about a three decade span.

Then how do you explain the continued success of Donald Fagen post-SD? ABC still supported him? C'mon, he was that good. It was because of it he continued to sell recordings. Period. If Fagen tried to break into the business today, the suits would want to see him dance first. How do you further explain young people's love of 70s rock bands? It is because they were that good. They have withstood the test of time and I am willing to bet the ranch people 20 or 30 years from now will wonder why in the hell Beyounce or Frank Ocean were ever given a music contract. The fact of the matter is it is not about what people want, it is about what people are TOLD what to want. Why you can't see that by way of comparison seriously baffles me...no disrespect intended, I assure you.

Yeah, the difference is that back then, the industry wasn't sure what would sell to the "youth market" or what wouldn't, so they put damn near anything out, good or bad. For every "classic" there were at least 1500 turds (and if I'm exaggerating, it's on the conservative side). Of course, selective memory has it otherwise, it always does, but look at everything that was released and everything that charted and everything that didn't chart (and how many "lost classics" there are now that sunk like a stone back then). Not all that much was too much more than ear candy for the day's sweet tooths (and that has not changed one bit - "ear candy is the point of pop music, always has been always will be. And for the record, yes, I like ear candy!). The industry was just throwing any damn thing out there to see what would stick. Now they know, and they really have since the mid-late 70s. It's just taken this long to really consolidate everything. ABC didn't support Steely Dan because they were really musical, ABC supported Steely Dan because they sold records and kept selling records. Let's not confuse luck with intent. Steely Dan sold records because they were good, Jim. Let's not confuse talent with marketability. I already stated that Disco and teeny-bopper crap were not a part of my consideration. Of course there was crap, one hit wonders and a lot of garbage. But the focus was on the music, not the show. That is my principle complaint. I have been to well over 250 concerts over the years dating back to 1971. I can tell you that the concert was always about showcasing the music. Light shows were rare and usually left to the psychedelic crowd. Now, pyrotechnics and glitz are the norm. If an artist is good looking, has ample cleavage and can dance to some pre-fabricated beat in a slinky short skirt, that's all the suits want. Am I saying album art back then didn't portray sexy images or include lyrics that were as sexual? No, not at all. But that wasn't the focus. If by "throwing every damn thing out there" can include CSNY, Jimi Hendrix, Cream, Beatles, The Band, Led Zepplin, etc, ad nauseum, then I will eat my hat. You simply do not see that type of quality Pop act out there anymore. But you will see plenty of flash and dance.

My "spies" tell me some of the worst performances ever done on national TV occurred last night. Off key whistling for starters.

I'm not talking generational differences here, Jim. I am talking about the quality of music has suffered greatly under the weight of the recording industry's need to market product first rather than letting talent be their focus. Basically, I was referring to the Pop [short for Popular] music of Bob Dylan, Simon and Garfunkel, Barbara Streisand among many, many others. To even suggest there is any realistic comparison to the sheer weight in numbers of piss poor music and performers of this day and age is to not understand the difference between the time periods and the way record companies sought out talent. A perfect example of what I'm talking about is Lady GaGa. She is a marvelous keyboardist and vocalist but she whores herself out to the recording industry with the showtime BS. She has the talent but instead goes for the wads of money the industry gives her just so they can market her glitz to the clueless minions they market to. The focus is no longer on the music it's on the bottom line. Back in the day, the focus was on the music to bring up the bottom line. There is a difference. Agreed.

I stopped watching the Grammy's years ago. I was just getting too angry over the abject and pointless schlock being passed off as "music". Music is not some sort of commodity to be prepackaged in glitter, flash and dance. It is an Art form. I pine for the day when top quality musicians, and not just past successful people, finally get the respect and chance to record from the suits in the music industry. Plenty of fine talent goes unsigned or completely ignored and at the certain detriment of this noble endeavor. Lip synced disco pop rehash is not music, it is only ear pabulum for the musically illiterate. The 60s, 70s and even a little bit in the 80s produced well written and musically relevant tunes and bands. That is, disco symptom "music" and the obligatory teeny-bop pop crap notwithstanding. Today it's all about the sex, glamour and dance. It's all show no substance. The more tattoos, cleavage and not so subtle sexuality equals more sales. The suits have turned everything into a marketing strategy replete with all the trappings of a carnival side show. No so back in the day. Music was the focus. Show took a back seat to quality. When does it end?

Mets ended up signing Brandon Lyon today, so it looks like you can have Brian Wilson back too. We shall see. All of it depends upon Wilson's ego.

Giants re-sign Sergio Romo to a two-year $9 million dollar deal. Things are looking up!

Pitchers and catchers by February 12! Full-team reports by February 15! http://aol.sportingn...ctus-grapefruit Go Giants!!!

Meh. I'm over it. Baseball season is nearly upon us

http://dfw.cbslocal....contemplations/ the tight end was covered. it was the flankers responsibility to back off the line. ------------------------------------ the only announcer who had a coherent thought or clue yesterday was boomer esiason, both on radio color and tv at half time. the other legions of old player announcers were worthless, and personally, i can't stand boomer I watched much of the game on mute. But I don't primarily blame the announcers. I primarily blame the network executives who give them their instructions. Let's dispense with the jargon. In plain English, what does it mean to "cover" or "shield" in this case? As I understand it, the wide out lines up in such away that he obscures the tight end from the ref. The TE needs to be off the line. And if you watch the tape, he was inches off the line and thus a ticky-tack call by the ref. It really has no application to today's intricate defensive schemes which, so far as I know, would have no real impact on the game itself either. But it is in the books. I am a fan of football, and didn't care who won the game. I think the call/non-call was fine, and the outcome was right. Biased Niners fans don't, biased Ravens fans probably do. I don't see boatloads of people who are football fans (but not fans of either of these two teams) whining about the outcome of this game. Do you? Well, coming from a biased fan who pigeon holes all Niners fans into one category and blithely casts aside any reasonable explanations, that works for you. But, let's be honest, you do have a tendency to broad brush things as an all or nothing at all scenario.

Stop it, Aggie. You don't know anything of the sort. And who are these "masses of people" you're talking about? On this forum? Geez. Just how many Californians inhabit this place anyway...2 or 3? Out West and especially in NorCal, "masses of people" are saying it was a bad call. Of course they are, they are biased Niners fans. People in Texas sure aren't screaming about it. Again, that tells me unbiased people aren't upset about it. Biased people are. People in Texas have nothing to scream about. Houston, might, [and i really thought they were going all the way this year] but not the rest of the state. Besides, you want to talk bias? Texans hate the 49ers. Is it at all possible that a person can be a fan and want the officials to call a fair game? Hence my point about these so-called masses of people.

That isn't what the ref called on field and it wasn't what the announcers were talking about in the booth. Obviously, ESPN has called it illegal formation to jibe with the rule on their broadcast. Listen/watch the replay you don't believe me.Bottom line, they still made that call but did not make the holding/interference [among many others I already listed] calls. The argument was they were letting the players play. I'm saying that is patent bullshit. You simply cannot enforce one rule and ignore the others. My point: The officiating was abysmally poor and I think fixed or messed with in a way which gave the Ravens the edge and eventually determined the outcome of the game. You are free to disagree.

Stop it, Aggie. You don't know anything of the sort. And who are these "masses of people" you're talking about? On this forum? Geez. Just how many Californians inhabit this place anyway...2 or 3? Out West and especially in NorCal, "masses of people" are saying it was a bad call.

So....the logic is if he complained the play was holding? How does this explain the no-call by the ref? Watch the replay. It is painfully and obviously a hold.

Dude, that was an illegal formation. People were standing still and there it was. It's like, line up, set, and UH-oh! If you need more explanation, see here: http://www.teamspeed...oying-penalties Pretty unambiguous, really. Right. And it was called because of the rule, yes? Holding and pass interference are rules, too. Why weren't they enforced but this penalty was? That is my question. Dude, that was an illegal formation. People were standing still and there it was. It's like, line up, set, and UH-oh! If you need more explanation, see here: http://www.teamspeed...oying-penalties Pretty unambiguous, really. Jim, I don't like the explanation you linked to. I also don't think it is relevant to this play. The play referred to in the link is a common error in the CFL, called "No End." It happens when the curve of the offensive line on passing plays is bent too much at the snap of the ball, so that the tight end is technically in the backfield. In the play last night, I believe that SF had eight men on the line. In the CFL, the left tight end would have been an ineligible receiver because only the two players at the extreme ends of the line may be eligible receivers. I think, but I'm not sure, that the tight end caught the pass. Therefore, it was an "ineligible receiver" penalty. But I'm not NFL expert, so I may be wrong. No, you might be right. But I believe the refs called "illegal formation" and the replay showed and explained why, Phil Simms even saying, yeah, before the play even ran, I'm thinking, that's an illegal formation. (not an exact quote but pretty close). It might have been the last time I wanted to hear Simms explain anything all night. Either way, it wasn't an interpretive call of a play in motion. A formation is either legal or it isn't. No. They called it shielding. The announcers even talked about and how it is rarely, if ever, called.

Then how do you explain the "shielding" penalty on the very first down in the game? If the pass interference was a "non-call" then why wasn't this one? Both calls went against the Niners. Both calls adversely affected the play on the field. And you guys are honestly expecting me to believe that was some sort of happy coincidence? C'mon. With all due respect, Guys, you're arguing a logical fallacy. A non-call is made when the outcome would not be adversely affected. It isn't made selectively or against one team. If there was any legitimacy to that argument, then no ticky-tack foul like shielding would be called at any point in the game. There were unsportsmanlike penalties, helmet slap penalties, holding on the 109 yard run back, defensive and offensive pass interference up the wahzoo. The only reason it happened was because the officials [one in particular] turned a blind eye. This is supposed to be the biggest game of the year and they totally disrespected the fans by not playing by the same rules they play during the regular season. All fans should be appalled by this. You root for your team for 16+ games only to see it get snatched away by non-compliant officials who penalize on a whim? I'm calling bullshit on the NFL. Tell me about it when your team gets to the SB and the officials side with the opposing team.

Here's hoping it sticks and this godawful roman numeral thing goes away. And once again, you're embarrassing yourself. You're like the Tea Party of sports; it's always a conspiracy, it's always the other guys fault. Oh? Then what would be your explanation for obvious calls which are selectively ignored? You can't just call me out unless you have an alternate explanation for this sort of openly shoddy officiating. Now how about it? It was a good non-call. The refs had been letting that go all game. It would have looked bad if they decided to call it there. Plus, it looked liker the receiver pushed off with a hand to the defender's face/hemet. I think you are referring to a different play. I am referring to the safety, when the punter ran around in the end zone and took 8 seconds off the clock. The Baltimore offensive lineman was beaten by the San Francisco lineman, and the Balt guy wrapped both arms around the SF guy's waist from behind, preventing him from tackling the punter. I don't know NFL rules, so I don't know if that penalty would have made any difference. But that was the most outrageous hold I've ever seen in my life. That is called holding during the regular season. In the SB...it's anybody's guess.

It's WWF...World Wrestling Federation. And in baseball, you get three strikes and endless foul balls WITH another at bat to follow. In the NFL it's one strike and you're done. There are no second opportunities unless...the official throws the freakin' flag.

Again, I can deal with the loss. The Niners played like crap. But if I was making book, I'd give you the points for a Ravens win. Bookies made millions. The refs know better. In th regular season that will ALWAYS be a holding/pass interference penalty. Why is it suddenly different in the SB. Otherwise, why have any rules at all? Somebody got to them. I have seen this before in other SBs where the Niners were not in it. NFL=WWF