[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: weirdness/unsubscribing



I suppose talking about Sloan's sound as compared to the tired old 
beatles is nice and all, but it's the same old story.  besides, people 
are trying to play "let's match up our favorite sloan member with our 
favorite beatle."  like I said, retarded and pointless.  I think 
comparing any member of sloan to ringo starr is the biggest insult to the 
sloan member ever, and the person ought to punished with hours of 
listening to the odds, or matthew sweet, or whoever.  btw, i never said 
matthew sweet was bad, nor did I say the odds were bad.  the singers 
sound similar sometimes, i don't mind either artist.  the point is, it 
just seems childish to make paper dress up dolls out of members of sloan, 
especially with the beatles.  i think they have something more to offer 
than the beatles and aren't in sync with all the same hype and stuff that 
surrounded them.  i mean, they are popular, and they do have a sort of 
glamorous persona aboutthem, but it's just different, believe me.  i 
dunno, and the current thing means not referring to the 1960's.  heaven 
forbid an artist create a style or sound that has some elements of that 
era but is delving into something completely original.  come on, give 
sloan more credit than just being a bunch of ripoffs.

sheesh.