This Fuckin' Kid

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Terry
    replied
    Originally posted by Nickdfresh
    Which, I mean, admittedly I'm out of the loop in terms of current celebrity scandals, but were masses of people even aware Bertinelli was doing a show on the Food Network (much less had left said network)?

    Leave a comment:


  • Nickdfresh
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • Kristy
    replied
    Originally posted by Igosplut
    Well, aren't you just the sour fuck.
    Hey dude.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nickdfresh
    replied
    Originally posted by Rikk
    This woman is fucking crazy. She's seriously out of her mind if she thinks she's a victim.

    And she's attacking Food Network for doing all this "competition-based" programming...when her whole career on the network was based on a show in which she kicked children out for not making "good enough" desserts.

    Crazy cunt.
    That seems odd as it seems like Valerie never met a desert she didn't like....

    Leave a comment:


  • Nickdfresh
    replied

    Saw this, couldn't stop thinking about Wolfie...

    Leave a comment:


  • VHscraps
    replied
    yeah, as with many bands over the years, there was a package with Van Halen, and it went beyond the music itself. Not just the interaction between the people in the band, their public personae, but the fact that they looked a certain way.

    I know a fairly eminent woman who is now almost 60 who told me she bought WACF for the cover, and specifically because she thought EVH was cute and she wanted that thing to look at him.

    I have never heard WVH's music - I just imagine it to be some Dave Grohl derivative, and once you are hitting 60 there is not enough time left to be interested in tangential figures within the history of what was once your favourite band.

    Leave a comment:


  • Seshmeister
    replied
    Originally posted by Terry

    It's just beyond bizarre that people actually say Wolfgang is a chip off the old block or some sort of prodigy without a trace of irony/with a straight face.
    I always just read it as meaning his mother.

    Leave a comment:


  • Silexxx
    replied
    Well that was fast. After two albums? And what's the point of "behind the music" since what's actually behind the music is probably him alone at 5150 with a bucket of cheeseballs. There's no legendary studio stories or anything like that. If there is it's about how he used his dad's guitar on some song. They could have easily wait for him to be little more established as a solo artist. Most likely he'll mainly talk about Eddie, VH, ADKOT and how difficult Dave was/is. Ending is probably him playing at Taylor Hawkins tribute show.
    Last edited by Silexxx; 04-21-2024, 09:03 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Igosplut
    replied
    Originally posted by Von Halen
    Yoko sucks and has always sucked.
    John Lennon sucked.
    The Beatles sucked.
    Paul McCartney sucked, and still sucks.
    Ringo seems kinda cool. Too bad he was in that shitty band.
    I can't remember the other fuckers name, but he sucked too.
    Well, aren't you just the sour fuck.

    Leave a comment:


  • Terry
    replied
    I've probably said this before (so why the fuck NOT say it again) BUT...

    ...even putting aside all the nepo-baby stuff, or Wolfgang's comments in the media/online and just strictly based on the merits of his own music, to my ears there's nothing exceptional regarding the Mammoth stuff. In fact, it's a poor choice of phrase for me to say even putting aside the nepo-baby stuff because the only reason the Mammoth music got the attention it did was because of who Wolfgang's father was. The same reason Wolfgang was playing in Van Halen in the first place.

    It's just beyond bizarre that people actually say Wolfgang is a chip off the old block or some sort of prodigy without a trace of irony/with a straight face. Eddie was saying shit like "the kid's got it" or "the kid is the real deal" and after hearing Wolfgang play I had to put those comments down to a father being understandably yet overly proud of his kid. Obviously, Wolfgang has a degree of musical talent - it's clearly hyperbole to say he is literally without talent - but it's not a notable degree of talent. Not to me, anyway.
    Last edited by Terry; 04-20-2024, 07:08 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • silverfish
    replied
    Fer chrissakes, he gets a Behind the Music already?!...

    Official description for the Van Halen episode: "Wolfgang Van Halen reveals his story that’s wrought
    with trauma, perseverance and immense talent. Born to guitar god Eddie Van Halen and actress
    Valerie Bertinelli, Wolfgang instantly became bound to music. As he developed his own sound,
    Wolfgang turned to his solo project, MAMMOTH WVH, before tragedy struck. Eddie's death rocked
    his son's world, but Wolfgang solidified his music career with a sound all of his own while continuing
    to honor his father's legacy."

    See Trailer For 'Behind The Music' Episode Focusing On WOLFGANG VAN HALEN
    A new trailer for the "Behind The Music" episode featuring Wolfgang Van Halen can be seen below. New episodes of the groundbreaking docuseries "Behind The Music" will premiere exclusively on Paramount+ in the U.S. and Canada on Wednesday, May 1 and in the U.K., Australia, Latin America, Brazil, Ital...


    Leave a comment:


  • Von Halen
    replied
    Originally posted by Terry

    In 1980, I was far more upset that Peter Criss quit KISS than I was when John Lennon got killed. In 1980, I was 10 years old and John Lennon hadn't done anything publicly since...what, 1974? 1975? All I knew about John Lennon was he was a Beatle, and The Beatles by 1980 already seemed like a bunch of relics to me.
    I was born in 1963. My Mom was one of the teenagers (obviously the end of her teenage years) that got caught up in Beatlemania. Essentially I was born listening to that garbage. I too was much more upset in 1980 about Criss, than Lennon. In fact, I celebrated when Lennon was killed. I know, probably slightly extreme looking back. But I don't regret it. By that time in my life I was into Van Halen, Kiss, Nugent, UFO, Thin Lizzy, Blue Oyster Cult and bunch of other bands. Of all the different bands and artists my Mom used to put on the record player in the mid to late 60's, the Beatles were always my least favorite. Motown? Better. Chuck Berry? Better. Elvis? Better. The Stones? Better. Hendrix? Better. Janis Joplin? Better. Zeppelin? Better. The Who? Better. CCR? Better. The Dave Clark Five? Better. The Band? Better. You get my point. Hell, even The Monkees were better! Case fucking closed!

    Leave a comment:


  • Terry
    replied
    Originally posted by VHscraps
    I feel the same about the Beatles, Terry - I would never deny their importance in the history of music, nor their grundbreaking innovations, and if you listen to some of the 1962 Hamburg LP, they kicked ass live as well.

    But they were the wrong generation for me. There are people who became teenagers in the 60s for whom the Beatles will always be this transcendent entity that changed their lives. I think popular music generations are almost like 5 years or so in length. Every five years things - up until the late 80s or early 80s, perhaps - changed. As someone who became a teenager in the 70s, that decade has had more of a lasting impact on me in terms of what I think is the best music of my life.
    Like, I can understand someone...say, an American teenager who is 13 in 1963. The Beatles come to America and it is that explosion of Beatlemania. By the time The Beatles break up in 1970, that American teenager was then 20 years old...I can understand where The Beatles were literally the soundtrack of their youth.

    For someone like me born the year they broke up, while I had the Beatles albums handed down to me from my mother/uncles, aunts and older cousins when I was barely in kindergarten, I never knew of The Beatles while they were an actual functioning band. My earliest memories were when I was 5 years old, so that was...1975? Ringo wasn't getting much airplay in 1975 as a solo act. Neither was George. Lennon had basically retired. The only one still releasing solo stuff from 1975 to 1980 was McCartney. By the mid-1970's to the dawn of the 1980's, to me The Beatles were ancient history even though they had only broken up not too many years earlier. I wasn't reading Rolling Stone magazine back when I was 5 years old, so I didn't have exposure to that pseudo-lefty music media magazine telling me that The Beatles were the end-all, be-all of music.

    In 1980, I was far more upset that Peter Criss quit KISS than I was when John Lennon got killed. In 1980, I was 10 years old and John Lennon hadn't done anything publicly since...what, 1974? 1975? All I knew about John Lennon was he was a Beatle, and The Beatles by 1980 already seemed like a bunch of relics to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • VHscraps
    replied
    I feel the same about the Beatles, Terry - I would never deny their importance in the history of music, nor their grundbreaking innovations, and if you listen to some of the 1962 Hamburg LP, they kicked ass live as well.

    But they were the wrong generation for me. There are people who became teenagers in the 60s for whom the Beatles will always be this transcendent entity that changed their lives. I think popular music generations are almost like 5 years or so in length. Every five years things - up until the late 80s or early 80s, perhaps - changed. As someone who became a teenager in the 70s, that decade has had more of a lasting impact on me in terms of what I think is the best music of my life.

    Leave a comment:


  • Seshmeister
    replied
    Still not back on Spotify or Apple Music.

    Leave a comment:

Working...