dark light

mixtec

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 1,348 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: General Discussion #298437
    mixtec
    Participant

    Read and learn, my friend. Quite a few bands in that era (and since) built up a reputation and a following based on their live performances and gig reviews in the “underground” press before they ever signed a recording contract. Chicago were one of them.

    You can take back that “Total Bull” comment whenever you’re ready.

    No hurry. :p

    Grey Area, Id take those “underground” press reviews with a major grain of salt. I used to be a rather religous person, and there was a long time rumor floating around about how Hendrix said that Phil Keaggy (a christian rock guitarist) was the best rock guitarist in the world. It wasnt till Phil himself came out and denied that rumor that it was finally (or partially) put to rest. Scroll down to a little before half this webpage and check out the section that says: The Question: “Who is the best guitarist in the world?”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Keaggy

    in reply to: Fender stratocaster #1923806
    mixtec
    Participant

    Read and learn, my friend. Quite a few bands in that era (and since) built up a reputation and a following based on their live performances and gig reviews in the “underground” press before they ever signed a recording contract. Chicago were one of them.

    You can take back that “Total Bull” comment whenever you’re ready.

    No hurry. :p

    Grey Area, Id take those “underground” press reviews with a major grain of salt. I used to be a rather religous person, and there was a long time rumor floating around about how Hendrix said that Phil Keaggy (a christian rock guitarist) was the best rock guitarist in the world. It wasnt till Phil himself came out and denied that rumor that it was finally (or partially) put to rest. Scroll down to a little before half this webpage and check out the section that says: The Question: “Who is the best guitarist in the world?”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Keaggy

    in reply to: General Discussion #298539
    mixtec
    Participant

    Never rated the chap all that highly, frankly.

    The ability to generate a feedback-plagued howling racket on demand does not, in and of itself, denote “greatness”. All IMHO, of course.

    Interestingly, Mr Hendrix always quoted Terry Kath of Chicago as a major influence on his style and having seen Chicago live in the days when they could still rock (and before Mr Kath’s ill-fated handgun horseplay, of course) I can understand why.

    Total Bull. Chicago didnt release their first album till 69 a year before he died. It is intesting to note that Hendrix was a huge fan of Bob Dylan, which I find very very strange that he would admire a cheap copy of Woody Guthrie.

    FMK.6JOHN- Who is that a picture of, it looks like Walter Trout. Now he is the best guitarist ever. I used to see him play at this dive bar in Huntington Beach called Perqs in in the mid 80s. Ive NEVER heard anyone play better than Trout.

    in reply to: Fender stratocaster #1923855
    mixtec
    Participant

    Never rated the chap all that highly, frankly.

    The ability to generate a feedback-plagued howling racket on demand does not, in and of itself, denote “greatness”. All IMHO, of course.

    Interestingly, Mr Hendrix always quoted Terry Kath of Chicago as a major influence on his style and having seen Chicago live in the days when they could still rock (and before Mr Kath’s ill-fated handgun horseplay, of course) I can understand why.

    Total Bull. Chicago didnt release their first album till 69 a year before he died. It is intesting to note that Hendrix was a huge fan of Bob Dylan, which I find very very strange that he would admire a cheap copy of Woody Guthrie.

    FMK.6JOHN- Who is that a picture of, it looks like Walter Trout. Now he is the best guitarist ever. I used to see him play at this dive bar in Huntington Beach called Perqs in in the mid 80s. Ive NEVER heard anyone play better than Trout.

    in reply to: General Discussion #298720
    mixtec
    Participant

    Yes the Strat is an iconic guitar, but so are the Les Paul, the SG, the Explorer and the Flying V. After that every other guitar is either a hollow body, or a copy of the afformentioned, after more than 50 years noone has been able to come up with a new shape for an electric guitar. Leo Fender also made the Telecaster, because tweebs need a guitar to play also (tweeb = country).

    It should be noted that Les Paul was the first with the idea of a solid body electric guitar, Gibson rejected the idea, but when he told Fender about it, Fender went and made one, and Gibson went looking for that guy with a “broomstick with pickups on it”.

    in reply to: Fender stratocaster #1923928
    mixtec
    Participant

    Yes the Strat is an iconic guitar, but so are the Les Paul, the SG, the Explorer and the Flying V. After that every other guitar is either a hollow body, or a copy of the afformentioned, after more than 50 years noone has been able to come up with a new shape for an electric guitar. Leo Fender also made the Telecaster, because tweebs need a guitar to play also (tweeb = country).

    It should be noted that Les Paul was the first with the idea of a solid body electric guitar, Gibson rejected the idea, but when he told Fender about it, Fender went and made one, and Gibson went looking for that guy with a “broomstick with pickups on it”.

    in reply to: Mexican Naval Flankers? #2526470
    mixtec
    Participant

    If mexico buys a new fighter it must be the JAS-39 Gripen or the the F-18E, 10 or 20 F-18E can last for another 40-50 years and will give enough deterrance and intercetion capabilityy, if they buy the F-18E it will be an excellent purchase

    If they buy anything, it would probably be the F-16. Its cheaper than the F-18, as cheap as the Gripen and has much better capabilitys than the Gripen. But even if corruption wasnt such a factor in Mexico, fighter defense is just not a big issue with the Mexican public, they would rather see that money go to hospitols and whatnot. As far as fighter and survailence aircraft for drug interdiction goes, the US should really kick in and support that. The USA´s , multibillion dollar drug habit is not something these developing nations should have to fight on their own. The US should lend aircraft to Mexico and other central american natios and create a common surveilence network.

    in reply to: Mexican Naval Flankers? #2526860
    mixtec
    Participant

    And if you could take care of all your problems with some Mavericks and Sidewinders, I’d agree. I somehow doubt, however, that Gulfstream put battle durability on the top of thier design attribute sheet. I think if you had to get close enough to do a visual ID, I’d rather do it from a F-5 or Gripen.

    And thats where the K-8 comes in. The F-5 is no longer produced, and buying 50 K-8s is way more cost effective than 10 Gripens. Youll end up with much better coverage with much lower operating costs.

    in reply to: Mexican Naval Flankers? #2527028
    mixtec
    Participant

    OK, how is this for an idea. If you want a fast jet with long range and that is affordable, you cant beat a bizjet! The Bombardier Global Express XRS and the Gulfstream G550 are both jets that have 6500nm range and a mach .85 cruise speed. And both these jets are very cheap compared to military aircraft, I believe they cost around $20 million or so, cheaper than a freakin Hawk 200. On long patrol missions the pilot can rest back in the cabin area, it would be great for fatique reduction.

    The Global Express
    http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/6936/globalexpress1sci7.jpg

    The G550
    http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/1398/250pxgulfstreamvnasacw0.jpg

    in reply to: Mexican Naval Flankers? #2527117
    mixtec
    Participant

    The K-8! Whats wrong with the K-8? How can you beat that as an inexpensive new jet?

    in reply to: General Discussion #313992
    mixtec
    Participant

    Well, there are some of us who don’t consider the female body to be a piece of merchandise. The thought of supporting potentially criminal individuals and/or organisations involved in the industry is appalling enough.

    Yes the idea of selling sex is embarrasing, Im not saying its not. And that is the ONLY reason for anti-prostitution laws is that it is socially embarrasing to see men buy sex from women. Anti-prostitution laws have ALWAYS harmed women and created the criminal culture youve illuded to. Just take a compartive look at prostitutes in a country like the US where prostitution is illegal and look at the culture of criminal slavery and drugs which society has shut them into. Then look at a country like here in Costa Rica or other countries in Europe and youll see women who live under the respect of the law who are free to live how they want with their body. Here in Costa Rica prostitutes live normal lives, own homes (they can earn quite well here in the tourist areas) , and overall live normal lives as apposed to hookers in the US who get smacked around and ripped off by pimps and live a life of danger and uncertainty. Ive got no time for anyone who thinks they can define a common sexual standard of conduct for society to live by, it will always result in hypocricy. Its like the joke George Carlin made about how everyone drives the correct speed limit, and that everyone who drives faster than them is a maniac, and everyone who drives slower than them is an idiot. The moral right has always been a pampous beauty pagent for shut ins.

    As a personal question: have you ever watched porn movies? Porn stars get paid to have sex, so why is that ok and regular prostitution is not? Porn has become very mainstream now. It was a few years back that people said the same thing about porn as they do prostitution, that it merchantizes sex and is demeaning to women. But now its all ok for regular family people to watch porn. I hope someday that (for the sake of the prositutes) that prostitution will become equally acceptable to mainstream life.

    in reply to: United Abominations #1930815
    mixtec
    Participant

    Well, there are some of us who don’t consider the female body to be a piece of merchandise. The thought of supporting potentially criminal individuals and/or organisations involved in the industry is appalling enough.

    Yes the idea of selling sex is embarrasing, Im not saying its not. And that is the ONLY reason for anti-prostitution laws is that it is socially embarrasing to see men buy sex from women. Anti-prostitution laws have ALWAYS harmed women and created the criminal culture youve illuded to. Just take a compartive look at prostitutes in a country like the US where prostitution is illegal and look at the culture of criminal slavery and drugs which society has shut them into. Then look at a country like here in Costa Rica or other countries in Europe and youll see women who live under the respect of the law who are free to live how they want with their body. Here in Costa Rica prostitutes live normal lives, own homes (they can earn quite well here in the tourist areas) , and overall live normal lives as apposed to hookers in the US who get smacked around and ripped off by pimps and live a life of danger and uncertainty. Ive got no time for anyone who thinks they can define a common sexual standard of conduct for society to live by, it will always result in hypocricy. Its like the joke George Carlin made about how everyone drives the correct speed limit, and that everyone who drives faster than them is a maniac, and everyone who drives slower than them is an idiot. The moral right has always been a pampous beauty pagent for shut ins.

    As a personal question: have you ever watched porn movies? Porn stars get paid to have sex, so why is that ok and regular prostitution is not? Porn has become very mainstream now. It was a few years back that people said the same thing about porn as they do prostitution, that it merchantizes sex and is demeaning to women. But now its all ok for regular family people to watch porn. I hope someday that (for the sake of the prositutes) that prostitution will become equally acceptable to mainstream life.

    in reply to: General Discussion #314000
    mixtec
    Participant

    “Digging up”? They’ve been active since 1982, with the exception of a year or so off when Mustaine had radial neuropathy and needed physical therapy. Do you consider bands like Black Sabbath, GnR, Metallica, Slayer, Napalm Death, Aerosmith, the Rolling Stones, AC/DC, etc. to be fossils as well?

    Yeah, Megadeth has been “active”, which I guess is good if you like continual cheap politcal comentary over a brand of metal was pretentious even at its peak.

    Black Sabbath- These guys put the heavy in heavy metal, and no death metal band will ever out heavy these guys. Eternal greatness for this band.

    GnR- A bit on the cheap side. Theyre not bad, but not anything great

    Metallica- There were great in their time. If youre listening to any of their recent stuff, youre as old as they are and feeling your age.

    Slayer- Very overrated band. They started a genre, but do not deserve the hype.

    Napalm Death- I havent really heard enough of these guys to make a fair comment.

    Aerosmith- oooh! oooh! SOC likes Aerosmith!! You sway back and forth with a look of bliss on your face to songs like “crazy” and “amazin” dont you?

    Rolling Stones- This guys went commercial way back in the early 80s, shame, shame, shame.

    AC/DC- Their great album was Back in Black, and every album after that was a pethetic attempt at catch up to that album. But yes they are an enduring classic for all albums up to BiB.

    in reply to: United Abominations #1930829
    mixtec
    Participant

    “Digging up”? They’ve been active since 1982, with the exception of a year or so off when Mustaine had radial neuropathy and needed physical therapy. Do you consider bands like Black Sabbath, GnR, Metallica, Slayer, Napalm Death, Aerosmith, the Rolling Stones, AC/DC, etc. to be fossils as well?

    Yeah, Megadeth has been “active”, which I guess is good if you like continual cheap politcal comentary over a brand of metal was pretentious even at its peak.

    Black Sabbath- These guys put the heavy in heavy metal, and no death metal band will ever out heavy these guys. Eternal greatness for this band.

    GnR- A bit on the cheap side. Theyre not bad, but not anything great

    Metallica- There were great in their time. If youre listening to any of their recent stuff, youre as old as they are and feeling your age.

    Slayer- Very overrated band. They started a genre, but do not deserve the hype.

    Napalm Death- I havent really heard enough of these guys to make a fair comment.

    Aerosmith- oooh! oooh! SOC likes Aerosmith!! You sway back and forth with a look of bliss on your face to songs like “crazy” and “amazin” dont you?

    Rolling Stones- This guys went commercial way back in the early 80s, shame, shame, shame.

    AC/DC- Their great album was Back in Black, and every album after that was a pethetic attempt at catch up to that album. But yes they are an enduring classic for all albums up to BiB.

    in reply to: General Discussion #314110
    mixtec
    Participant

    but i was very much surprised that the Dutch goth-metal bands (stuff like Within Temptation, Epica, After Forever and the likes) are incredibly populair there.

    Thank god for that, because when the only alternative for quality metal in the US is digging up fossils like Megadeth, that doesnt leave much choice.

    Aus Raux sucks btw

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 1,348 total)