Aaron Schobel: Should I Stay or Should I Go?

[Syderick]

Aaron Schobel is still undecided about retiring:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/402098-buffalo-bills-aaron-schobel-should-i-stay-or-should-i-go

[Mr. Pink]

The organization should now make the decision for him besides, he doesn't fit in the new scheme anyways.

[ServoBillieves]

Does he take Maybin's job or does he sit the bench? Does he take Kelsay's job or sit the bench? Wait... Does he upgrade either position or retire? Know what? Anyone who continues to ride the fence (Brett Favre, go **** yourself) needs to **** or get off the pot. We get it, you aren't sure if you want to play, but that's being selfish, the TEAM needs to know what you're doing, or at least leaning towards.

[BertSquirtgum]

this bull**** is starting to piss me off. i would definitely rather have schobel than kelsay but this jerk off needs to decide whether he's playing or not.

[kelly2reed4six]

The organization should now make the decision for him besides, he doesn't fit in the new scheme anyways.



That's probably what he's hoping....maybe then he could go get a couple years in with a contender.

[tampabay25690]

Trade him to a team in TEXAS possibly???
I say we move on with out him

[Night Train]

The thread title reminded me to pull out my Clash CD. :up:

He probably hopes for a trade to the Cowboys or Texans, I'm guessing. I don't see him being here for opening day, FWIW.

[OpIv37]

The thread title reminded me to pull out my Clash CD. :up:


Quite possibly the best band ever.

But to stay on topic, I'm sick of Schobel and his Favre-like nonsense. If he was going to retire, he should have told the team before March so they could have planned for it. However, as it stands we have a whole stable of 4-3 DE's trying to make the transition to 3-4 LB and they're all younger than he is, so if he wants to play games, he becomes expendable.

Get rid of him.

[casdhf]

I hope he comes back. We could use someone to rush the QB on 3rd downs. I don't care if he only plays 15 snaps a game. He's our best pass-rusher.

[ZAZusmc03]

Quite possibly the best band ever.

But to stay on topic, I'm sick of Schobel and his Favre-like nonsense. If he was going to retire, he should have told the team before March so they could have planned for it. However, as it stands we have a whole stable of 4-3 DE's trying to make the transition to 3-4 LB and they're all younger than he is, so if he wants to play games, he becomes expendable.

Get rid of him.

Couldn't agree more myself. These young guys have more athleticism and many more years left in their tanks. Schobel is expandable. Enjoy retirement Aaron.

[OpIv37]

I hope he comes back. We could use someone to rush the QB on 3rd downs. I don't care if he only plays 15 snaps a game. He's our best pass-rusher.

A big part of the value of the 3-4 is the ability to disguise where the 4th rusher comes from. Schobel is not good in coverage- if we put him out there to rush the passer, it will pretty much take away that advantage of the the 3-4 because the O will know he's the 4th rusher every time. And if he doesn't rush, they'll just target his man with a pass.

[Jan Reimers]

According to the Marv Levy theory, Schobel is already retired. I hope he stays that way. We have plenty of younger guys who actually WANT to play.

[OpIv37]

According to the Marv Levy theory, Schobel is already retired. I hope he stays that way. We have plenty of younger guys who actually WANT to play.

Remember last year with that "mic'd up" video of Kawika Mitchell when Schobel was standing next him going "I'm getting too old for this" and Mitchell told him to shut up?

At the time, many people on here thought Schobel was just joking. Well, apparently not. If he wanted to play, he would have committed by now.

[Mike in Syracuse]

When you take this long to decide if you're going to retire you've already retired IMO.

[TacklingDummy]

Try to trade, if that doesn't work, cut. Same goes for Lynch.

[ddaryl]

I think Aaron has alreayd made his decision.

Marv said it a while back... If your thinking about retiring then you already are.

[mayotm]

Quite possibly the best band ever.

But to stay on topic, I'm sick of Schobel and his Favre-like nonsense. If he was going to retire, he should have told the team before March so they could have planned for it. However, as it stands we have a whole stable of 4-3 DE's trying to make the transition to 3-4 LB and they're all younger than he is, so if he wants to play games, he becomes expendable.

Get rid of him.Have you heard of 'The Beatles'?

[OpIv37]

Have you heard of 'The Beatles'?

Yup. The Clash are better.

[mayotm]

Yup. The Clash are better.Wrong. To quote Julz Winfield, " it ain't even the same ballpark, hell it ain't even the same ****in' sport!".

[OpIv37]

Wrong. To quote Julz Winfield, " it ain't even the same ballpark, hell it ain't even the same ****in' sport!".

That's right- Beatles are the minor leagues compared to true musical revolutionaries like the Clash.

[mayotm]

That's right- Beatles are the minor leagues compared to true musical revolutionaries like the Clash.Anyway you want to measure it (critical acclaim, commerical success, societal impact, historical significane, longevity) the Beatles are the superior band. Paul McCartney is still selling out stadium concerts to this day playing music that is now over 50 years old. You may personally prefer the Clash, but to state they are better than the Beatles is absurd. I'm 41 years old, so it's not like I was around during Beatle-mania. Generation after generation discovers and enjoys the Beatles music. There aren't many, if any other bands that you can say that about.

[OpIv37]

Anyway you want to measure it (critical acclaim, commerical success, societal impact, historical significane, longevity) the Beatles are the superior band. Paul McCartney is still selling out stadium concerts to this day playing music that is now over 50 years old. You may personally prefer the Clash, but to state they are better than the Beatles is absurd. I'm 41 years old, so it's not like I was around during Beatle-mania. Generation after generation discovers and enjoys the Beatles music. There aren't many, if any other bands that you can say that about.

Paul McCartney is not the Beatles, and who's to say Joe Strummer wouldn't be doing the same if he were still alive?

And commercial success is not a very good way to measure music. If you go by that standard, then Green Day is better than Jimi Hendrix. People are idiots and like whatever the entertainment industry crams down their throats.

And I think you're trivializing the Clash's societal impact and historical significance. The punk movement- driven by the Clash, the Ramones and the Sex Pistols, saved rock and roll from the stale 70's stadium rock and created not just punk but new wave, grunge, alternative, etc..... Does it match up with the Beatles? Probably not, but it was certainly more significant than you're acknowledging. There is a reason why the only riot that's ever occurred in Times Square was related to the Clash.

And any good music spans generations. The Clash's best-known album- London Calling- came out the year I was born and the band broke up when I was about 7. They were a generation before me but I still know it. And if you go to any punk show today, I guarantee you will see teenagers wearing Clash t-shirts. Generation after generation will appreciate the Clash as well- they're just a generation or two newer than the Beatles so it isn't as obvious yet.

[ServoBillieves]

... To break away from the musical differences, if Schobel retires, will we still have to hear about undersized guys with "high motors" getting mercy sacks?

[mayotm]

Paul McCartney is not the Beatles, and who's to say Joe Strummer wouldn't be doing the same if he were still alive?

And commercial success is not a very good way to measure music. If you go by that standard, then Green Day is better than Jimi Hendrix. People are idiots and like whatever the entertainment industry crams down their throats.

And I think you're trivializing the Clash's societal impact and historical significance. The punk movement- driven by the Clash, the Ramones and the Sex Pistols, saved rock and roll from the stale 70's stadium rock and created not just punk but new wave, grunge, alternative, etc..... Does it match up with the Beatles? Probably not, but it was certainly more significant than you're acknowledging. There is a reason why the only riot that's ever occurred in Times Square was related to the Clash.

And any good music spans generations. The Clash's best-known album- London Calling- came out the year I was born and the band broke up when I was about 7. They were a generation before me but I still know it. And if you go to any punk show today, I guarantee you will see teenagers wearing Clash t-shirts. Generation after generation will appreciate the Clash as well- they're just a generation or two newer than the Beatles so it isn't as obvious yet.I'm not trivializing the Clash's impact. I'm well aware of it and I'm a fan. I'm simply stating their impact was not as great as the Beatles.

[OpIv37]

... To break away from the musical differences, if Schobel retires, will we still have to hear about undersized guys with "high motors" getting mercy sacks?

Who knows? I was hoping Gailey was moving away from the whole undersized "high motor" thing, but so far he seems more than willing to use undersized NT's.

[k-oneputt]

Schobel is done,

and comparing the Clash to the Beatles is ridiculous.

[OpIv37]

Schobel is done,

and comparing the Clash to the Beatles is ridiculous.

yeah selling millions of records to spoon-fed automatons is much more difficult then all but creating a sub-culture that's survived for 30+ years.

[mayotm]

yeah selling millions of records to spoon-fed automatons is much more difficult then all but creating a sub-culture that's survived for 30+ years.You essentially just acknowledged the Beatles impact in your previous post. Now you're just credting them with selling records. That's completely illogical. In your mind, anybody that doesn't 100% agree with you is a moron. It's an interesting way to live.

[Philagape]

Will you people stop talking about Schobel in this music thread??

[mayotm]

Will you people stop talking about Schobel in this music thread??Excellent post.

[OpIv37]

You essentially just acknowledged the Beatles impact in your previous post. Now you're just credting them with selling records. That's completely illogical. In your mind, anybody that doesn't 100% agree with you is a moron. It's an interesting way to live.

Not anyone- just people who can't justify their opinions (which is most people).

Look, the Beatles had talent and had a huge impact. But at the same time, they were helped by an entertainment industry that largely supported them. The entertainment industry has proven time and time again that they can take crap and sell it to the masses. Don't get me wrong- I don't think the Beatles are crap. I think they were talented and, for the most part, original. But they also had that industry support.

The Clash, meanwhile, never had that type of mainstream support (at least partially because they didn't want it). They had (took?) a more difficult path and still managed to create good music and have a huge impact.

Oh, and.... something about Aaron Schobel. Just had to throw that in there.

[Philagape]

The entertainment industry has proven time and time again that they can take crap and sell it to the masses.

Just like the Bills!

[psubills62]

I really have very little opinion about either the Clash or the Beatles.

However, I just have to say that I agree with Op in one respect - just simply selling albums doesn't mean anything. Just look at the state of music today to prove this point.

[mayotm]

Not anyone- just people who can't justify their opinions (which is most people).

Look, the Beatles had talent and had a huge impact. But at the same time, they were helped by an entertainment industry that largely supported them. The entertainment industry has proven time and time again that they can take crap and sell it to the masses. Don't get me wrong- I don't think the Beatles are crap. I think they were talented and, for the most part, original. But they also had that industry support.

The Clash, meanwhile, never had that type of mainstream support (at least partially because they didn't want it). They had (took?) a more difficult path and still managed to create good music and have a huge impact.

Oh, and.... something about Aaron Schobel. Just had to throw that in there.I'm not sure if you're directing the first paragraph in your above post to me, but I think I've more than justified my opinion.

The Beatles certainly had industry support coming up in the 60's into the early
70's. However, that certainly does not account for the continued success they had over the years.

One thing I haven't mentioned is how their music evolved in such a short period of time. They went from an almost 50's sound with their first few albums to the most innovative rock of the time. This all occurred in basically a 10 year period. The change in their music over that short period of time is remarkable.

Schobel was an above avergae player on bad teams during his career. The fan base kind of turned on him when he signed a big contract.

[OpIv37]

Schobel was an above avergae player on bad teams during his career. The fan base kind of turned on him when he signed a big contract.

Slight correction: the fan base turned on him when he didn't produce after signing the big contract.

[DraftBoy]

I refuse to read the article because its Bleacher Report but on the question of Schobel coming back. He should just retire.

On Clash v. Beatles, they both suck.

[ServoBillieves]

I refuse to read the article because its Bleacher Report but on the question of Schobel coming back. He should just retire.

On Clash v. Beatles, they both suck.

IN Sync all the way, am I right?

[psubills62]

IN Sync all the way, am I right?

I see DB as more of a 98 Degrees lean.

[DraftBoy]

IN Sync all the way, am I right?

No boy bands for me either. Im just not much into music that much. I listen to it while I work and workout, but Im not crazy into it and think arguments about it are stupid and pointless.

[ServoBillieves]

I see DB as more of a 98 Degrees lean.

I personally saw Backstreet and 98 as pure crap compared to Justin Timberlakes boyish good looks.

[DraftBoy]

I see DB as more of a 98 Degrees lean.

Busted!

[OpIv37]

No boy bands for me either. Im just not much into music that much. I listen to it while I work and workout, but Im not crazy into it and think arguments about it are stupid and pointless.

and right now there's someone on a punk rock message board trying to convince everyone that Rancid didn't sell out while saying "btw can you believe my roommate spends all day on football message boards? Arguments about sports are pointless and stupid."

[DraftBoy]

and right now there's someone on a punk rock message board trying to convince everyone that Rancid didn't sell out while saying "btw can you believe my roommate spends all day on football message boards? Arguments about sports are pointless and stupid."

Big difference though. Im always right.

[BertSquirtgum]

why are you still ****ing talking about music? this thread is about the old fart schobel

[OpIv37]

Big difference though. Im always right.

well that makes two of us.

[OpIv37]

why are you still ****ing talking about music? this thread is about the old fart schobel

Schobel strikes me as the kind of guy who listens to country. And not that modern poppy country like Tim McGraw- the old-school, slow, put-you-to-sleep-if-you-don't commit-suicide-first 1960's country.

[DraftBoy]

well that makes two of us.

Well more like one and a half. You are right most of the time, unless you disagree with me. Then you are automatically wrong.

[Syderick]

Not anyone- just people who can't justify their opinions (which is most people).

Look, the Beatles had talent and had a huge impact. But at the same time, they were helped by an entertainment industry that largely supported them. The entertainment industry has proven time and time again that they can take crap and sell it to the masses. Don't get me wrong- I don't think the Beatles are crap. I think they were talented and, for the most part, original. But they also had that industry support.

The Clash, meanwhile, never had that type of mainstream support (at least partially because they didn't want it). They had (took?) a more difficult path and still managed to create good music and have a huge impact.

Oh, and.... something about Aaron Schobel. Just had to throw that in there.


I like both bands but The Beatles never had the industry backing them up lol.

As for Schobel he's got to hurry up on his decision.

[psubills62]

I personally saw Backstreet and 98 as pure crap compared to Justin Timberlakes boyish good looks.

Well that does seem to be DB's area of specialty, I could just see Nick Lachey's poster sitting right above his bed.

[jamze132]

I would just release him. Kelsay and Mitchell too.

[mayotm]

I really have very little opinion about either the Clash or the Beatles.

However, I just have to say that I agree with Op in one respect - just simply selling albums doesn't mean anything. Just look at the state of music today to prove this point.At no point in my argument, did I state that the Beatles selling more records makes them better than the Clash. I did list commerical success as one of many reasons the Beatles are considered successful.

[Spiderweb]

Yup. The Clash are better.

Clearly you have no ear for Music, no perception of talent, and you should be ashamed of yourself for uttering something so ridiculous. Clash were OK, but not
great,

[k-oneputt]

They think josh reed was a good wr, so go fiqure.

[bosshogg21]

What an absoutely ridiculous argument. It's like comparing a penny to a $20 dollar bill. You talk about a sub culture? The beatles changed the face of freaking music period. I'm not trying to take anything away from the clash but your comparing them to arguably the greatest and most influential rock band of all time. Complete nonsense.

[YardRat]

Good thing this site has a Fork option, so multiple topics can't muddy the conversation.

Jesus.

I've lost track...Is Schobel a Beatles or Clash fan?

[better days]

Schobel strikes me as the kind of guy who listens to country. And not that modern poppy country like Tim McGraw- the old-school, slow, put-you-to-sleep-if-you-don't commit-suicide-first 1960's country.

I don't know what you're smoking, but if "Ring of Fire" or "Walk the Line" two great 60's songs by Johnny Cash for example could put you to sleep, pass me some & I'll smoke it before going to bed tonight.

As for the Beatles they are one of the greatest Rock bands in history & the industry did not push them. Capitol did not want to release their music in America because they didn't think Americans would buy their music. It was not until the sales & fervor in England reached a point that Capitol had no choice but to do so. They were the first band from England to sell in America leading the "British Invasion".

The Clash are nothing more than a decent garage band.

[trapezeus]

i have no opinion on this music discussion.

as for schobel, i don't really think it matter what he decides. it's not like our defense is solid with him and useless without him.

If he wants to pick up his $6MM check (or whatever it is), great. if not, not a big deal. it's not like there is anyone out there we are going to spend it on.

[OpIv37]

Clearly you have no ear for Music, no perception of talent, and you should be ashamed of yourself for uttering something so ridiculous. Clash were OK, but not
great,
If you think the Clash were only OK, then you clearly know nothing about music and your opinion on such matters is irrelevant.

[OpIv37]

'
The Clash are nothing more than a decent garage band.
pure and utter ignorance.

[OpIv37]

I don't know what you're smoking, but if "Ring of Fire" or "Walk the Line" two great 60's songs by Johnny Cash for example could put you to sleep, pass me some & I'll smoke it before going to bed tonight.

As for the Beatles they are one of the greatest Rock bands in history & the industry did not push them. Capitol did not want to release their music in America because they didn't think Americans would buy their music. It was not until the sales & fervor in England reached a point that Capitol had no choice but to do so. They were the first band from England to sell in America leading the "British Invasion".

The Clash are nothing more than a decent garage band.
Oh and if the industry didn't push them, how do you explain the girls that were paid to scream on the Sullivan show? In fact, what exactly do you think the British Invasion was? It was the industry marketing British bands in the US.

[justasportsfan]

He's already thought of retiring, he should just go ahead and do so and let the others develop.

[better days]

Oh and if the industry didn't push them, how do you explain the girls that were paid to scream on the Sullivan show? In fact, what exactly do you think the British Invasion was? It was the industry marketing British bands in the US.

You obviously were not alive at the time or were too young to know about it. The girls that screamed on the Sullivan show were not paid, that was their reaction to seeing the Beatles. My sister & her friends that were at our cottage on Sunset Bay watching the show on a black & white TV with a snowy picture had the same reaction as the girls in the audience.

After the Beatles were accepted so well in America the industry did market the other British Groups & in fact marketed a few American bands as being from England.

The Beatles were the CAUSE of the "British Invasion" it happened because of them & in spite of the fact that Capitol did not want to market the Beatles in America.

[better days]

pure and utter ignorance.

I can only name a couple songs that the Clash recorded. That is the barometer of how good a band is.

Truly GREAT Bands leave a legacy that people know.

[OpIv37]

I can only name a couple songs that the Clash recorded. That is the barometer of how good a band is.

Truly GREAT Bands leave a legacy that people know.

are you ****ing kidding me? The two or 3 Clash songs you know are probably their worst ones. Their best stuff never achieved commercial success.

Commercial success is probably the WORST barometer of a band EVER.

[OpIv37]

You obviously were not alive at the time or were too young to know about it. The girls that screamed on the Sullivan show were not paid, that was their reaction to seeing the Beatles. My sister & her friends that were at our cottage on Sunset Bay watching the show on a black & white TV with a snowy picture had the same reaction as the girls in the audience.



and I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell you for a great price. You'll make a fortune.

Also, I have a friend in Nigeria who will give you $3 million if you email him your SSN and bank account number.

[HHURRICANE]

i have no opinion on this music discussion.

as for schobel, i don't really think it matter what he decides. it's not like our defense is solid with him and useless without him.

If he wants to pick up his $6MM check (or whatever it is), great. if not, not a big deal. it's not like there is anyone out there we are going to spend it on.


This sums it up beautifully. If Schobel was one of our best players than people would actually care if he was coming back or not.

If we save 6 million by him sitting I'd be happy with that.

[Dujek]

What an absoutely ridiculous argument. It's like comparing a penny to a $20 dollar bill. You talk about a sub culture? The beatles changed the face of freaking music period. I'm not trying to take anything away from the clash but your comparing them to arguably the greatest and most influential rock band of all time. Complete nonsense.

The Beatles weren't even the greatest and most influential rock band of their generation.

Put on Beggars Banquet or Exile on Main Street and you'll hear the band that really created rock music. The Beatles were just the cleaned up nice boys that were allowed on TV in the early 60s.

And The Clash were a ****ing great band.

[better days]

This sums it up beautifully. If Schobel was one of our best players than people would actually care if he was coming back or not.

If we save 6 million by him sitting I'd be happy with that.

If he were younger I would give a damn if he came back. At his age who cares?

[Philagape]

HOF thread.

[better days]

and I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell you for a great price. You'll make a fortune.

Also, I have a friend in Nigeria who will give you $3 million if you email him your SSN and bank account number.

They did not have to pay those girls. I can tell you they did not pay my sister or her girlfriends. I still kid my sister to this day when we reminisce about the old days on holidays about that time. I'm telling you I could not hear the friggen TV with all the crying & screaming in that house.

The best proof I can offer that Capitol did not want to release their music in America is the fact that Parlophone, their English label, a subsidery of Capitol Records, sold the American rights to the album Please, Please Me to Vee Jay records because Capitol did not want to release it in America. It was released in America on Vee Jay records at about the same time Capitol decided to release Meet the Beatles in America. My sister & cousins had both albums as soon as they were released.

[better days]

are you ****ing kidding me? The two or 3 Clash songs you know are probably their worst ones. Their best stuff never achieved commercial success.

Commercial success is probably the WORST barometer of a band EVER.

You may be right that the songs I know are their worst ones. I have never bought any of their albums. The songs I do know are nowhere near as good as Elvis Costello & the Attractions.

If Commercial success is the worst barometer of a band what is the best?

The Clash.........the best band nobody ever bothered to listen to.

[better days]

The Beatles weren't even the greatest and most influential rock band of their generation.

Put on Beggars Banquet or Exile on Main Street and you'll hear the band that really created rock music. The Beatles were just the cleaned up nice boys that were allowed on TV in the early 60s.

And The Clash were a ****ing great band.

I like the Stones better than the Beatles myself. I think Cream.... Eric Clapton, Jack Bruce, Ginger Baker was better than both of them.

The fact remains that if not for the Beatles all those other English bands may have remained little known English bands.

[OpIv37]

You may be right that the songs I know are their worst ones. I have never bought any of their albums. The songs I do know are nowhere near as good as Elvis Costello & the Attractions.

If Commercial success is the worst barometer of a band what is the best?

The Clash.........the best band nobody ever bothered to listen to.
If commercial success is a good measure of a band, then Green Day and Dave Matthews are better than Elvis Costello. Ponder that one for a second.

[Spiderweb]

If you think the Clash were only OK, then you clearly know nothing about music and your opinion on such matters is irrelevant.

The problem is you compared the Clash, clearly your personal favorite, with one of the greatest bands ever. "Should I stay of should I go now?"..... please.....

Irrelevant? Yes, most certainly a comparison of the Clash and the Beatles does render the Clash as irrelevant.

[Spiderweb]

If commercial success is a good measure of a band, then Green Day and Dave Matthews are better than Elvis Costello. Ponder that one for a second.

While Elvis Costello has merit, he's an incomplete act in that he can't sing a lick. But, that never held back Dylan either. Costello should have done a Carlos Santana, write the music and play in the background, but leave the singing to hired guns.

[Spiderweb]

The Beatles weren't even the greatest and most influential rock band of their generation.

Put on Beggars Banquet or Exile on Main Street and you'll hear the band that really created rock music. The Beatles were just the cleaned up nice boys that were allowed on TV in the early 60s.

And The Clash were a ****ing great band.

The Stones, clearly win the longevity award, but place a distant second when compared with the Beatles. Artists today still speak of the Beatles influence on their music. As for creating Rock Music, you'll have to go further back than the Stones......

[better days]

The Stones, clearly win the longevity award, but place a distant second when compared with the Beatles. Artists today still speak of the Beatles influence on their music. As for creating Rock Music, you'll have to go further back than the Stones......

Your right about that. Rock was created by Little Richard, Chuck Berry & others of that era. Both the Beatles & Stones covered their songs when starting out.

[better days]

If commercial success is a good measure of a band, then Green Day and Dave Matthews are better than Elvis Costello. Ponder that one for a second.

What is the barometer if not Commercial success? I don't care for Dave Matthews myself but I do know he has a lot of fans.

[zone]

If commercial success is a good measure of a band, then Green Day and Dave Matthews are better than Elvis Costello. Ponder that one for a second.
This is a bad example, Dave Matthews is a great song writer and assembled an stellar group of musicians to play in his band, while he has "commercial" success it came from playing amazing live shows, not studio magic.

If you want to talk about absolute crap achieving commercial success you should start talking about boy bands like the backstreet boys, or sex symbols like britney spears.

[Philagape]

The Beatles > Aaron Schobel

[better days]

The Beatles > Aaron Schobel

Well, Lennon & Harrison yeah, but I think Schobel is greater than McCartney & Starr.

[OpIv37]

The problem is you compared the Clash, clearly your personal favorite, with one of the greatest bands ever. "Should I stay of should I go now?"..... please.....

Irrelevant? Yes, most certainly a comparison of the Clash and the Beatles does render the Clash as irrelevant.
The problem is that you are judging the Clash by a poppy song they did late in their careers rather than their entire body of work, so your opinion is irrevelant.

[OpIv37]

This is a bad example, Dave Matthews is a great song writer and assembled an stellar group of musicians to play in his band, while he has "commercial" success it came from playing amazing live shows, not studio magic.

If you want to talk about absolute crap achieving commercial success you should start talking about boy bands like the backstreet boys, or sex symbols like britney spears.
Actually, you just proved my point. You're judging Dave Matthews on his musical ability rather than his commercial success.

Personally, I think Dave Matthews is ****, but I have to admit tha when it comes to pure musical ability, he's more talented than most of the bands I like and most of the bands on the radio today.

[BertSquirtgum]

still wasting my time by arguing about music instead of schobel i see.

is there a mod out there that will close this waste of a thread?

[Philagape]

Puh! This is the thread of the year!

[better days]

still wasting my time by arguing about music instead of schobel i see.

is there a mod out there that will close this waste of a thread?

It's June 10. Whats the big deal? There is little/no REAL football to talk about at this time.

[wmoz11]

"At this point I don't think I'm going to play," Schobel told The Buffalo News on Thursday. "I'm not ready to say I'm retiring but it's in the Bills' hands."

http://blogs.buffalonews.com/billboard/2010/06/schobel-says-he-wont-be-back.html

[BertSquirtgum]

It's June 10. Whats the big deal? There is little/no REAL football to talk about at this time.

so make a thread about it somewhere else such as the twilight zone. i'm pretty this part of the site is for matters all bills related. not to mention you guys hijacked somoene else's thread with this garbage arguing.

[justasportsfan]

"At this point I don't think I'm going to play," Schobel told The Buffalo News on Thursday. "I'm not ready to say I'm retiring but it's in the Bills' hands."http://blogs.buffalonews.com/billboard/2010/06/schobel-says-he-wont-be-back.html


please stay on topic. this thread is about :guitar: :band:

[Dujek]

I like the Stones better than the Beatles myself. I think Cream.... Eric Clapton, Jack Bruce, Ginger Baker was better than both of them.

The fact remains that if not for the Beatles all those other English bands may have remained little known English bands.

Because the Beatles were the cleaned up nice boys that were allowed on TV. That doesn't make them better, it just means they were more marketable to the mainstream.

[better days]

Because the Beatles were the cleaned up nice boys that were allowed on TV. That doesn't make them better, it just means they were more marketable to the mainstream.

They were on Ed Sullivan like twice & that is it. The Stones were on Sullivan at least that much.

The Beatles were the FIRST English band to hit it big in England then America. They paved the way for all the other bands because of that reason alone.

[Dujek]

Imagine people resorting to racist abuse in their negs.

Then again, considering the source, should I really be shocked?

[BertSquirtgum]

you know it was me *****. suck it. don't start **** if you can't handle it. talk about growing a set. crying about it in the forum.

[Dujek]

I know exactly who it was. I was just pointing out a flagrant breach of the terms of service.

Now go untwist your panties.

[Beebe's Kid]

Because the Beatles were the cleaned up nice boys that were allowed on TV. That doesn't make them better, it just means they were more marketable to the mainstream.

Cleaned up nice boys...by today's standards. This argument is lacking a realization of the era. At the time they were "long hairs." They also never abandoned the lower-class patois that they were brought up using, which at the time was a very gutsy move in England. There was a lot of things that were edgy about the Beatles. I know that doesn't fit today's equation with all of the **** people do to be extreme, but that is another argument. Point is...Beatles wore suits to get on TV, to make money, which is how they were going to sustain a career of playing music, and not going off to work in a factory. Then when everybody was into buying records and looking to push the envelope, the Stones cashed in. Both great bands, but the misconception of polished v. rough is overdone, and inaccurate.

The Clash was possible because of the Beatles...they broke down barriers and influenced everybody that makes music for a living since. This is in every aspect. The commercial success argument is bull****. The Beatles achieved commercial success and when they had the collective ear, the turned the music world upside down. The were musicians first. Period.

The Beatles had their share of references, and never claimed to be an original idea. These references were Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, etc. on the early records, then Dylan and The Beach Boys, etc, but they were always king.

I also love the classic "punk rock" mentality...the best Clash songs are the ones only die-hards know, not the commercial poppy stuff...blah blah blah. Anarchy in the UK!! Now before the fact that somebody disagrees with this cliche throws you into a fit, please know that I own the Clash's entire catalog, as well as the Beatles. I do not have a favorite. Music is integral in all aspects of my life and I don't waste time arguing or worrying about which is better... I just enjoy it when the situation calls.

The Clash are a very influential band. They are a great band. To compare them with the Beatles is futile. Different times, different causes...and if not for the Beatles, the Clash would have had no mainstream to fight against.


Schobel can suck my ass. He doesn't have the drive, and he isn't worth ****ing up the progress and continuity of this team to wait for. Aaron...you ain't no ****ing Brett Favre.

One last thing, Rancid didn't sell out.

[Ron Burgundy]

Stones own all, and Schobel needs to **** or get off the pot.

[OpIv37]

I also love the classic "punk rock" mentality...the best Clash songs are the ones only die-hards know, not the commercial poppy stuff...blah blah blah. Anarchy in the UK!! Now before the fact that somebody disagrees with this cliche throws you into a fit, please know that I own the Clash's entire catalog, as well as the Beatles. I do not have a favorite. Music is integral in all aspects of my life and I don't waste time arguing or worrying about which is better... I just enjoy it when the situation calls.

The Clash are a very influential band. They are a great band. To compare them with the Beatles is futile. Different times, different causes...and if not for the Beatles, the Clash would have had no mainstream to fight against.


Schobel can suck my ass. He doesn't have the drive, and he isn't worth ****ing up the progress and continuity of this team to wait for. Aaron...you ain't no ****ing Brett Favre.

One last thing, Rancid didn't sell out.

It's the classic punk rock mentality, but it's classic because it's true. Don't try to tell me that Should I Stay or Should I go and Rock the Casbah are as good as This Is Radio Clash, Washington Bullets, Hitsville UK, Know Your Rights, I'm So Bored with the USA, Janie Jones, Career Opportunities or anything off the London Calling album.

And even without the Beatles, there would have been a mainstream for the Clash to fight against- it just would have been a different mainstream. You could make the argument that the Clash wouldn't have existed without the Beatles, but then you can make the argument that any punk band and half the 80's new wave bands you know of today wouldn't have existed without the Clash. All that proves is that the Beatles came first- it's not the Clash's fault they were born 25 years later.

As far as Rancid- they're one of my all-time favorite bands but I think they sold out when they went to a major label for Indestructible. I don't understand it because they spent nearly 15 years on indie labels (Epitaph and their own offshoot, Hellcat), and they made a ton of money both off their own music and by producing other bands. Then out of nowhere they decide to jump ship to a major label.

[Mr. Pink]

And without MC5 there would be no Clash.

This argument is ridiculous.