MPrior

There has to be something funny I can say in response to this. But I can't think of anything. Well, not anything I can say on this board. So what is it that you think they say about Northwestern girls?

This is definitely true. But it can probably be said for any truly great band. Edit to mention that While My Guitar Gently Weeps is among the most incredible songs ever.

I know a girl who claims to have had a relationship with Mike Piazza while he was in Los Angeles. But then, she's a pathological liar who claims a lot of things, many of which involve famous people of various persuasions. Plus, she's much older than Piazza, and, not to put too fine a point on it, fat and ugly. Does that count? P.S. I only include Piazza's name because her story is exorbitantly untrue.

No prob. I'm sure everyone on this board can come up with better things to ask than just me alone.

If you're coming, let me know. That'd be great - we could have more than one person to ask these questions. I'm in! I didn't know that it's going to be at the Huntington, that's just a few minutes away from me. I'll PM you before Tuesday. Rock on. I've never been there - is it nice?

If you're coming, let me know. That'd be great - we could have more than one person to ask these questions.

Hey guys - When the Marlins come to Los Angeles next week, Joe Girardi (a Northwestern grad) is gonna have breakfast with a bunch of other Northwestern grads (myself included). The whole thing has been organized through the Northwestern Alumni Association, or something like that. Anyway, I'm going, and was wondering if any of you had any questions you'd like me to ask him. I'm sure it's a pretty casual thing, though, and he won't want to be hounded as if I were the press, so I'm sure badgering him about whether he's coming to Chicago or not is a bad idea. But if you guys have questions you want asked, I'll do my best to ask them (I don't know how many people will be there, so might not be easy to get too many questions in). Let me know. The breakfast is Tuesday, August 15, I think.

Why? Are you another who thinks of them as just their ed sullivan/ boyband days in 1964 singing "she loves you"? I don't like their sound at all. I don't like listening to them or hearing about them. While I respect the fact that you don't like the Beatles - I don't understand it, but I respect it - this statement boggles me. One of the masterful things about the Beatles is that they don't have one sound. No band, as far as I can tell, has covered more ground, and created so many songs that each have their own "sound." This is part of why I think so many people have trouble classifying the Beatles as "rock" - the Beatles aren't easily classifiable as anything. The fact that the Beatles don't comfortably fit the category of "rock" is more an indictment of the strictness of the category than it is of the Beatles. Led Zeppelin, on the other hand, can very easily be classified as "hard rock." And they arguably did hard rock better than anyone else has, ever. They mastered blues-based rock (they even aped stuff more or less straight from Muddy Waters, among others), and they exquisitely blended it with a heavy dose of folk and even a little bit of reggae. Jimmy Page is not only a masterful technical guitarist, but he brilliantly incorporates elements of lead and rhythm guitar together, creating a very complex - but nonetheless driving - sound. Basically, every time I hear pretty much any Led Zeppelin song, no matter how many times I've heard it before, I'm blown away. They are brilliant. But the Beatles are still better. Their music covers an incomparably broad range of styles and sounds - many of which were only really in existence because of them - and they did each of the styles better than almost everybody else. No other band in history can even begin to make a claim like that. The Beatles pioneered early rock and roll, but their innovation doesn't stop there. Many of the important studio and production techniques that have been in use for half a century are due to the Beatles' experimentation. The incorporation of orchestral music into mainstream rock was pretty much their doing. They were the vanguard of the British Invasion, as well as the infusion of eastern themes into popular western music. If I were to take the two Led Zeppelin songs in their entire repertoire that sound the least alike, I bet you that I could find, on any Beatles album after Rubber Soul, two songs that are at least as far apart. And I betcha they'd both be good, too. Now consider the fact that they did this all in about seven or eight years. Sorry for the ultra-long post.

Queen is great, but definitely not deserving of this spot. The Who are much, much better. Incidentally, I now have my tickets to see The Who when they come to the Hollywood Bowl in November! I am seriously pumped.

I don't necessarily read that as a dig at the Cubs - he can just be saying that he likes it where he is.

That's purty awesome. Way to go, Vance!

Second. I also think that Hill, if he does well to finish out the season, should be looked at very closely as our fifth starter. He has nothing left to prove or learn at the minor league level, whereas each and every one of our other young pitchers could definitely benefit from some more time in the minors (esp. Marmol, I think - he walks WAY too many guys). Of course, if Hill's two recent starts are an aberration rather than an indication of things to come, then we can't afford to give him a spot in the rotation. But if he does well, he might be my first choice of the new guys.

It's very true that it's far too early to definitively say whether he's "turned the corner" or not, but I sure hope so. His numbers at AAA the last couple years make it clear that he has it in him to dominate. So if he has turned a corner, so to speak, he might turn out as a solid #2 for a few years. Regardless of whether he's turned the corner or not, though, I still think he should be starting every fifth day for the rest of the season, no questions asked.

That's a pretty heavily anticipated matchup - and I'm tempted to start discussing it now. But I'll wait. I voted Led Zeppelin on this one.

Second.

I'm a huge fan of both of these bands (in fact, I'm gonna see the Who when they come to town), and I think if you compare just their hard rock stuff, the Who wins - but the Stones, I think, showed more depth and variance throughout their early career (cause their late career just doesn't count). I also think their canon of hit songs is more impressive than the Who, although pretty marginally. So I voted Stones, but I'm pretty conflicted about it.

C'mon now. There have to be more Pink Floyd fans out there. I love Queen, but they are pretty much a second-tier band (not that there's any shame in this; second-tier is pretty damn good). Pink Floyd, on the other hand, is really one of the greats.

Very good post. The Beatles are as "rock" as it gets. Are we to blame them because they expanded upon rock and roll? Because they had - and exercised - the capacity to transcend the borders of the musical genre for whose very existence they were largely responsible? If anything, we should celebrate it.

In your view you aren't, but if someone likes the Beatles then by that logic you would indeed be wrong to them. Wow. This is heavy stuff. It leads to greater philosophical thought on the nature of right and wrong. Ex - Mel Gibson might not think Hitler is bad, but it's pretty universally acceptable to think he is. Is Melvin wrong? Edit - Unless the real truth you are alluding to is that you, tree, are the definitive authority of what is deemed "right" or "wrong" in this universe. IN that case you'd be right. Whoa.

Yeah, I'm still pretty high on Murton. He has struggled this year, true, but he still does a pretty good job of getting on base and working counts - the big thing is his lack of power. Power is attainable - there are tons of guys who have done it (hopefully many without the use of steroids), and Murton's got the frame for it. If he can develop some power - and his HR recently and his four doubles today certainly don't hurt - he could be very, very good.

Wuertz threw 22 pitches earlier in the day during game 1. I don't have a problem with him only going 1 inning. Dusty's obsession with double switches is hilarious/frightening. Shows how much I know. I didn't realize he had pitched earlier today.

I hate Dusty Baker. Wuertz was pitching very well. Why take him out? I know Hudson's a lefty, but give him a chance! Plus, he took out Theriot, who I know I'd like to see more of, and put in Perez, who I think most people would like to see much less of.

I'm totally with you. I've always liked Wuertz quite a bit.

We could go get Mark Loretta - he's not hugely special, but he's pretty certain to put up a decent OBP, won't cost too much in years or money, and has a chance of regaining some of his power. And we've got a hole at 2B (Cedeno is not the answer at 2B if Izturis is at SS). Bat Loretta leadoff and Murton 2nd.

This is where it starts getting really hard. I love both of these bands. But with Queen, I feel as though I mostly only appreciate their bigger hits - album to album I'm not crazy about them. Pink Floyd, on the other hand, has created several incredible albums as well as numerous incredible songs (more, I think, than Queen). So I gotta go Pink Floyd.