Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

SNL is Friggin' Horrible! Except when Timberlake is hosting.


Recommended Posts

Tony and Paulie weren't even in high school at the same time.

:mellow:
A Sopranos' expert on your level woulda called out that obvious flaw in the skit.
I'm surprised this got by the writers. They will be very embarrassed when they realize Paulie was friends with Tony's dad, and therefore likely did not attend high school with Tony.
What teacher was going to kick 32-year-old Paulie off campus?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

They knocked it out of the park with this Joker/Sesame street parody. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqpak5lFxvs

Dunkin Donuts Commercial was spectacular.

McCarthy as Spicer for any who missed it.

Tony and Paulie weren't even in high school at the same time.

:mellow:
A Sopranos' expert on your level woulda called out that obvious flaw in the skit.
I'm surprised this got by the writers. They will be very embarrassed when they realize Paulie was friends with Tony's dad, and therefore likely did not attend high school with Tony.
What teacher was going to kick 32-year-old Paulie off campus?
It's also possible that he had to repeat the 12th grade fifteen times.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone really care about the "live" aspect of the show? Why not scrap it and use all the talent to do a show in the Chapelle mold. Seems like most of the SNL skits that gain attention are one that are taped anyway. Charlie Brown and Lincoln skits this year comes to mind. Samberg's digital shorts. Do the whole show like that. Lot more freedom. Why restrict yourself so one timezone can see it live. Perhaps just have more taped skits and keep the opening/monologue, weekend update and musical acts "live."

Lorne Michaels is no longer the man to be running it, but the live aspect is what makes SNL forever the First Church of Comedy. Your sentiment is understandable, though, because there's very little about the current show that speaks to the immediacy that the show is supposed to have. It's supposed to be that herding the cats of currents events and writers/performers talented enough to bring it to us instantly in comedic form creates an entity unto itself, a perpetual-motion machine that squeezes a tincture of perfect ridiculousness out of culture. In that form, the live aspect is 3/4 of it. With an old man who's got it down at the helm, that urgency is gone and it's mostly kids scurrying out back to make a show that pleases the neighbors. But the original form is pure & should be sustained til a new sheriff comes along. Edited by wikkidpissah
Link to post
Share on other sites

Too much has already been written in this tread about how bad the show is today vs years past. Meh, I think rose-colored glasses apply for the most part. A lot of what people think they're remembering from SNL's better years (pick a decade) was actually crap. There are hits and misses in any season.That said, the last two shows have been weak, particularly in light of current events (and while I'm on the subject, generally speaking this past election cycle was nowhere near as good as 2008, but that probably has more to do with Fey as Palin being gone than anything else - that was always going to be tough to top).Liked:MLK openHader in the fireman sketchSopranosDidn't like:Everything else (including the musical guest)

Link to post
Share on other sites

they get killed bc with facebook, you tube and twitter you have instaneous reactions to events. i laugh checking twitter every day much more than i do watching snl. the way around this is better writing, and cast who can literally take over a skit. they dont have this right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst thing about this show, like forever, is the actors STARING at the cue cards which are often in the complete opposite direction of the person they're speaking to. The guest hosts are the worst offenders, but the regular cast members are guilty of this as well.

How f***ing hard is it to remember a few lines???

I've always wondered this. Do they even bother with a rehearsal?
Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst thing about this show, like forever, is the actors STARING at the cue cards which are often in the complete opposite direction of the person they're speaking to. The guest hosts are the worst offenders, but the regular cast members are guilty of this as well.

How f***ing hard is it to remember a few lines???

I've always wondered this. Do they even bother with a rehearsal?
It'd be impossible. They just don't have the time. And things are killed last minute, you'd be spending precious time memorizing lines for stuff that wouldn't make the final show. The guest host has too many other responsibilities. The regulars are pitching, writing, getting the thing on it's feet in less than a week's time. I can't even imagine what would happen in this thread if there were no cue cards and someone forgot a line.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst thing about this show, like forever, is the actors STARING at the cue cards which are often in the complete opposite direction of the person they're speaking to. The guest hosts are the worst offenders, but the regular cast members are guilty of this as well.

How f***ing hard is it to remember a few lines???

I've always wondered this. Do they even bother with a rehearsal?
It'd be impossible. They just don't have the time. And things are killed last minute, you'd be spending precious time memorizing lines for stuff that wouldn't make the final show. The guest host has too many other responsibilities. The regulars are pitching, writing, getting the thing on it's feet in less than a week's time. I can't even imagine what would happen in this thread if there were no cue cards and someone forgot a line.
the guests, from athletes to singers to DeNiro, who find it too difficult or confusing to attempt to learn lines & act with all the constant changes, are told specifically to just read, with the staff placing cue cards as close to proper sight lines as they can and shooting around that. the producers have found that locking them into cards is better than the alternatives and believe the audience to be generally tolerant of this practice.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually thought this week was pretty good. Levine did much better than I thought he would

:goodposting: I do think Levine was decent.1) To the people complaining that they don't know who Levine is, get with it. Maroon 5, and particularly him, are huge in pop culture right now. I guess they should only have Gene Hackman or Ray Liotta or other actors that were big when you were younger as the hosts.2) On the cue cards thing, I do agree that it is annoying, but also appreciate Nipsey's point.3) They didn't fully execute all of the sketches this week, but I liked most of the premises, at a minimum, which is definitely good. Only a couple I didn't really get into.4) On The Sopranos Diaries timeline, I really hope that you are joking. You are being more of a Vic Vinegar. They referenced the timeline thing in one of the critics' reviews. It was a funny idea and funny to show Paulie in high school with the wings. The sketch didn't totally hit for me, largely because of Moynihan, I guess, but I like the idea a lot.5) I also like Kenan Thompson as the French MC and What's Up With That, but he is way too prominent in the show. Not funny.6) I was super excited to see the Digital Short come up (was hoping that would happen when Samberg appeared).7) Jay Pharoah (or the writers) has to figure out something else with the Obama impression. It's technically sound, but it's not funny at all. Needs to figure out some personality quirk to make it funny, like Hammond with Clinton or Ferrell with Bush.8) Circle Work is a wonderful name.
Link to post
Share on other sites

To the people complaining that they don't know who Levine is, get with it. Maroon 5, and particularly him, are huge in pop culture right now. I guess they should only have Gene Hackman or Ray Liotta or other actors that were big when you were younger as the hosts.

No thanks.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually thought this week was pretty good. Levine did much better than I thought he would

:goodposting: I do think Levine was decent.1) To the people complaining that they don't know who Levine is, get with it. Maroon 5, and particularly him, are huge in pop culture right now. I guess they should only have Gene Hackman or Ray Liotta or other actors that were big when you were younger as the hosts.2) On the cue cards thing, I do agree that it is annoying, but also appreciate Nipsey's point.3) They didn't fully execute all of the sketches this week, but I liked most of the premises, at a minimum, which is definitely good. Only a couple I didn't really get into.4) On The Sopranos Diaries timeline, I really hope that you are joking. You are being more of a Vic Vinegar. They referenced the timeline thing in one of the critics' reviews. It was a funny idea and funny to show Paulie in high school with the wings. The sketch didn't totally hit for me, largely because of Moynihan, I guess, but I like the idea a lot.5) I also like Kenan Thompson as the French MC and What's Up With That, but he is way too prominent in the show. Not funny.6) I was super excited to see the Digital Short come up (was hoping that would happen when Samberg appeared).7) Jay Pharoah (or the writers) has to figure out something else with the Obama impression. It's technically sound, but it's not funny at all. Needs to figure out some personality quirk to make it funny, like Hammond with Clinton or Ferrell with Bush.8) Circle Work is a wonderful name.
I think they are a bit confined with Obama because too much mockery might come off as racist. Also the show has always had a clear liberal slant, so they won't completely skewer him like they do with Republicans.They insist that the actors read off cue cards because of the live aspect. A forgotten line, or even a line not spoken exactly as written, could throw off the next actor's line, and pretty soon the sketch is ruined. Levine is a ##### and most of this episode was again unfunny. I'm finding even weekend update isn't that funny anymore.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't see this week's show. Why do you say Levine is a ####? Was he bad on the show or is that a preconceived notion you have?

I've never liked him and I think his music is fruity and lame. But honestly he can't act either, he's stiff and has no comedic timing, and he stared at the cue cards to deliver a 4-word line. Also he's a ####### #####.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't see this week's show. Why do you say Levine is a ####? Was he bad on the show or is that a preconceived notion you have?

I've never liked him and I think his music is fruity and lame. But honestly he can't act either, he's stiff and has no comedic timing, and he stared at the cue cards to deliver a 4-word line. Also he's a ####### #####.
By any chance does your wife/girlfriend think he's hot?
Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't see this week's show. Why do you say Levine is a ####? Was he bad on the show or is that a preconceived notion you have?

I've never liked him and I think his music is fruity and lame. But honestly he can't act either, he's stiff and has no comedic timing, and he stared at the cue cards to deliver a 4-word line. Also he's a ####### #####.
By any chance does your wife/girlfriend think he's hot?
I don't know, probably. But that is beside the point as there are plenty of famous men she finds attractive that I also admire and respect. I think many people have certain celebrities that just grate on their nerves. Levine is one for me. Also the Kardashians, 99% of the Housewives/Honey Boo Boo crowd, Cee Lo Green, Justin Bieber, Susan Sarandon, Ray Lewis, Paula Deen, Rachael Ray, Snooki, Sarah Palin, Nicky Minaj, Lindsay Lohan, Chris Brown, Ann Coulter, Michael Irvin, Kathie Lee Gifford, and Michael Bay.
Link to post
Share on other sites

To the people complaining that they don't know who Levine is, get with it. Maroon 5, and particularly him, are huge in pop culture right now. I guess they should only have Gene Hackman or Ray Liotta or other actors that were big when you were younger as the hosts.

No thanks.
Maroon 5 stinks. Who cares if they're popular? Big Macs are popular. That doesn't mean I'd eat that ####.
Link to post
Share on other sites

To the people complaining that they don't know who Levine is, get with it. Maroon 5, and particularly him, are huge in pop culture right now. I guess they should only have Gene Hackman or Ray Liotta or other actors that were big when you were younger as the hosts.

No thanks.
Maroon 5 stinks. Who cares if they're popular? Big Macs are popular. That doesn't mean I'd eat that ####.
Ok, everyone stay bitter and locked in a time warp where only things that came out from when you 13-25 are cool and good.

I don't really care for Maroon 5, but all this "who?" schtick is dumb. No one has to like them, but don't act like they're not relevant or he shouldn't be hosting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst thing about this show, like forever, is the actors STARING at the cue cards which are often in the complete opposite direction of the person they're speaking to. The guest hosts are the worst offenders, but the regular cast members are guilty of this as well.

How f***ing hard is it to remember a few lines???

I've always wondered this. Do they even bother with a rehearsal?
Yes, but the sketches that make it into the show aren't determined until the actual show.
Link to post
Share on other sites

To the people complaining that they don't know who Levine is, get with it. Maroon 5, and particularly him, are huge in pop culture right now. I guess they should only have Gene Hackman or Ray Liotta or other actors that were big when you were younger as the hosts.

No thanks.
Maroon 5 stinks. Who cares if they're popular? Big Macs are popular. That doesn't mean I'd eat that ####.
Ok, everyone stay bitter and locked in a time warp where only things that came out from when you 13-25 are cool and good.

I don't really care for Maroon 5, but all this "who?" schtick is dumb. No one has to like them, but don't act like they're not relevant or he shouldn't be hosting.

In what conceivable way is Maroon 5 relevant again?
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really care for Maroon 5, but all this "who?" schtick is dumb. No one has to like them, but don't act like they're not relevant or he shouldn't be hosting.

If you don't listen to pop, but rather music like hard rock or country, in what way would they be relevant to someone? I can see your point that they may be relevant in the "pop scene." But you act as if that should make them relevant to everyone. I don't listen to old music much, I love new rock and attend concerts all the time. But until Maroon 5 was the musical guest on a previous SNL episode, I had no idea who they were or what they sang. Nor did I know who the lead singer was. So this whole "relevant" thing seems a bit overblown on your part.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really care for Maroon 5, but all this "who?" schtick is dumb. No one has to like them, but don't act like they're not relevant or he shouldn't be hosting.

If you don't listen to pop, but rather music like hard rock or country, in what way would they be relevant to someone? I can see your point that they may be relevant in the "pop scene." But you act as if that should make them relevant to everyone. I don't listen to old music much, I love new rock and attend concerts all the time. But until Maroon 5 was the musical guest on a previous SNL episode, I had no idea who they were or what they sang. Nor did I know who the lead singer was. So this whole "relevant" thing seems a bit overblown on your part.
Is there anyone SNL could pick to host who would be relevant to everyone? I bet in a poll of people in the SNL advertiser's prefered demographic (18-45), Adam Levine would probably a top 10% most recognizable name among possible hosts. He is the singer in a multi-platinum selling band, a judge on a top TV series, and chicks litter social media sites with his pictures.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really care for Maroon 5, but all this "who?" schtick is dumb. No one has to like them, but don't act like they're not relevant or he shouldn't be hosting.

If you don't listen to pop, but rather music like hard rock or country, in what way would they be relevant to someone? I can see your point that they may be relevant in the "pop scene." But you act as if that should make them relevant to everyone. I don't listen to old music much, I love new rock and attend concerts all the time. But until Maroon 5 was the musical guest on a previous SNL episode, I had no idea who they were or what they sang. Nor did I know who the lead singer was. So this whole "relevant" thing seems a bit overblown on your part.
Is there anyone SNL could pick to host who would be relevant to everyone? I bet in a poll of people in the SNL advertiser's prefered demographic (18-45), Adam Levine would probably a top 10% most recognizable name among possible hosts. He is the singer in a multi-platinum selling band, a judge on a top TV series, and chicks litter social media sites with his pictures.
I've never understood them having quarterbacks and musicians host the show. Surely they can find enough actors and comedians to fill out the season. A random Footballguy is about as likely to be good on the show as anyone else with no acting/comedy experience.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really care for Maroon 5, but all this "who?" schtick is dumb. No one has to like them, but don't act like they're not relevant or he shouldn't be hosting.

If you don't listen to pop, but rather music like hard rock or country, in what way would they be relevant to someone? I can see your point that they may be relevant in the "pop scene." But you act as if that should make them relevant to everyone. I don't listen to old music much, I love new rock and attend concerts all the time. But until Maroon 5 was the musical guest on a previous SNL episode, I had no idea who they were or what they sang. Nor did I know who the lead singer was. So this whole "relevant" thing seems a bit overblown on your part.
Is there anyone SNL could pick to host who would be relevant to everyone? I bet in a poll of people in the SNL advertiser's prefered demographic (18-45), Adam Levine would probably a top 10% most recognizable name among possible hosts. He is the singer in a multi-platinum selling band, a judge on a top TV series, and chicks litter social media sites with his pictures.
I've never understood them having quarterbacks and musicians host the show. Surely they can find enough actors and comedians to fill out the season. A random Footballguy is about as likely to be good on the show as anyone else with no acting/comedy experience.
I totally disagree. The regular cast members are the actors. Half the fun in watching the show is the 'fish out of water' appeal of athletes and musicians hosting.By the way, I think Justin Timberlake happens to be one of the best repeat hosts the show has had over the last decade.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really care for Maroon 5, but all this "who?" schtick is dumb. No one has to like them, but don't act like they're not relevant or he shouldn't be hosting.

If you don't listen to pop, but rather music like hard rock or country, in what way would they be relevant to someone? I can see your point that they may be relevant in the "pop scene." But you act as if that should make them relevant to everyone. I don't listen to old music much, I love new rock and attend concerts all the time. But until Maroon 5 was the musical guest on a previous SNL episode, I had no idea who they were or what they sang. Nor did I know who the lead singer was. So this whole "relevant" thing seems a bit overblown on your part.
Is there anyone SNL could pick to host who would be relevant to everyone? I bet in a poll of people in the SNL advertiser's prefered demographic (18-45), Adam Levine would probably a top 10% most recognizable name among possible hosts. He is the singer in a multi-platinum selling band, a judge on a top TV series, and chicks litter social media sites with his pictures.
I've never understood them having quarterbacks and musicians host the show. Surely they can find enough actors and comedians to fill out the season. A random Footballguy is about as likely to be good on the show as anyone else with no acting/comedy experience.
I totally disagree. The regular cast members are the actors. Half the fun in watching the show is the 'fish out of water' appeal of athletes and musicians hosting.By the way, I think Justin Timberlake happens to be one of the best repeat hosts the show has had over the last decade.
Yeah JT kills on there but he stands out as an exception really. And I think Peyton Manning is good as well but again he stands out as an exception not the norm.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really care for Maroon 5, but all this "who?" schtick is dumb. No one has to like them, but don't act like they're not relevant or he shouldn't be hosting.

If you don't listen to pop, but rather music like hard rock or country, in what way would they be relevant to someone? I can see your point that they may be relevant in the "pop scene." But you act as if that should make them relevant to everyone. I don't listen to old music much, I love new rock and attend concerts all the time. But until Maroon 5 was the musical guest on a previous SNL episode, I had no idea who they were or what they sang. Nor did I know who the lead singer was. So this whole "relevant" thing seems a bit overblown on your part.
Is there anyone SNL could pick to host who would be relevant to everyone? I bet in a poll of people in the SNL advertiser's prefered demographic (18-45), Adam Levine would probably a top 10% most recognizable name among possible hosts. He is the singer in a multi-platinum selling band, a judge on a top TV series, and chicks litter social media sites with his pictures.
Beats me, nor do I care. I didn't say such a person existed. I was just pointing out that the OP in the quote seems incredulous that everyone doesn't know who this guy is, and seems to want to imply that if you don't, you live under a rock. I'm just pointing out why he's off kilter with his assumption.
Link to post
Share on other sites

To the people complaining that they don't know who Levine is, get with it. Maroon 5, and particularly him, are huge in pop culture right now. I guess they should only have Gene Hackman or Ray Liotta or other actors that were big when you were younger as the hosts.

No thanks.
Maroon 5 stinks. Who cares if they're popular? Big Macs are popular. That doesn't mean I'd eat that ####.
Ok, everyone stay bitter and locked in a time warp where only things that came out from when you 13-25 are cool and good.

I don't really care for Maroon 5, but all this "who?" schtick is dumb. No one has to like them, but don't act like they're not relevant or he shouldn't be hosting.

In what conceivable way is Maroon 5 relevant again?
The show's target market isn't 30- and 40-somethings who yearn for the days of Eddie Murphy and Phil Hartman. We tune in regardless (put the kids to bed, have a little dinner, couple glasses of wine, watch the news, tune in to SNL - typical Saturday night unless you're Arizona Ron). The show is trying to grow the next generation fanbase, which has got to be pretty hard these days given alternatives. To do so, SNL has to bring on guys like Levine that the teen and 20-something audience recognize.

Once in a while we get thrown a bone like a Christopher Walken or Barkley. We watch because we want to see a hit like the Cowbell skit, but Walken sucked last time, as did Barkley. As did De Niro. Former A-list actors are not locks for a hit show. And musical peformers have a pretty solid record. Timberlake is excellent. Mick Jagger was great last year. (I recall Elton John hosting, but don't recall if I liked him).

I don't think the blame rests on the guests. It's the cast. A good cast can save a lousy guest, rarely can it be the other way around. This cast is not good.

Hader, who can be really funny, in that screaming sketch last weekend was way over the top. Cringe-worthy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To the people complaining that they don't know who Levine is, get with it. Maroon 5, and particularly him, are huge in pop culture right now. I guess they should only have Gene Hackman or Ray Liotta or other actors that were big when you were younger as the hosts.

No thanks.
Maroon 5 stinks. Who cares if they're popular? Big Macs are popular. That doesn't mean I'd eat that ####.
Ok, everyone stay bitter and locked in a time warp where only things that came out from when you 13-25 are cool and good.
Wrong. Sorry. I love modern music.

Maroon 5 is bad, and that transcends age.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To the people complaining that they don't know who Levine is, get with it. Maroon 5, and particularly him, are huge in pop culture right now. I guess they should only have Gene Hackman or Ray Liotta or other actors that were big when you were younger as the hosts.

No thanks.
Maroon 5 stinks. Who cares if they're popular? Big Macs are popular. That doesn't mean I'd eat that ####.
Ok, everyone stay bitter and locked in a time warp where only things that came out from when you 13-25 are cool and good.
Wrong. Sorry. I love modern music.

Maroon 5 is bad, and that transcends age.

Are you over 45 by any chance?
Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, I don't really like Maroon 5 and don't care about Adam Levine, personally.I'm just saying that any question about whether he is "worthy" of hosting is ridiculous.As to their relevance, they've won 3 grammys (among other awards, FWIW), had 3 billboard number 1 hits and have been on the charts continuously for the past 2 years.I'm not saying that these things make them "good", but certainly relevant in pop culture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, I don't really like Maroon 5 and don't care about Adam Levine, personally.

I'm just saying that any question about whether he is "worthy" of hosting is ridiculous.

Stop changing your argument.

Your original beef was with me because I said I had no idea who he is. And I didn't until I Googled him.

But I never said that made him an unworthy host. I'm sure plenty of people who enjoy terrible music know him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really care for Maroon 5, but all this "who?" schtick is dumb. No one has to like them, but don't act like they're not relevant or he shouldn't be hosting.

If you don't listen to pop, but rather music like hard rock or country, in what way would they be relevant to someone? I can see your point that they may be relevant in the "pop scene." But you act as if that should make them relevant to everyone. I don't listen to old music much, I love new rock and attend concerts all the time. But until Maroon 5 was the musical guest on a previous SNL episode, I had no idea who they were or what they sang. Nor did I know who the lead singer was. So this whole "relevant" thing seems a bit overblown on your part.
Is there anyone SNL could pick to host who would be relevant to everyone? I bet in a poll of people in the SNL advertiser's prefered demographic (18-45), Adam Levine would probably a top 10% most recognizable name among possible hosts. He is the singer in a multi-platinum selling band, a judge on a top TV series, and chicks litter social media sites with his pictures.
I've never understood them having quarterbacks and musicians host the show. Surely they can find enough actors and comedians to fill out the season. A random Footballguy is about as likely to be good on the show as anyone else with no acting/comedy experience.
Petition to have Bill Burr host one SNL episode.
Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, I don't really like Maroon 5 and don't care about Adam Levine, personally.

I'm just saying that any question about whether he is "worthy" of hosting is ridiculous.

As to their relevance, they've won 3 grammys (among other awards, FWIW), had 3 billboard number 1 hits and have been on the charts continuously for the past 2 years.

I'm not saying that these things make them "good", but certainly relevant in pop culture.

This actually matters? :mellow:
Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, I don't really like Maroon 5 and don't care about Adam Levine, personally.

I'm just saying that any question about whether he is "worthy" of hosting is ridiculous.

As to their relevance, they've won 3 grammys (among other awards, FWIW), had 3 billboard number 1 hits and have been on the charts continuously for the past 2 years.

I'm not saying that these things make them "good", but certainly relevant in pop culture.

This actually matters? :mellow:
Do Academy Awards matter to an actor or director?
Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, I don't really like Maroon 5 and don't care about Adam Levine, personally.

I'm just saying that any question about whether he is "worthy" of hosting is ridiculous.

As to their relevance, they've won 3 grammys (among other awards, FWIW), had 3 billboard number 1 hits and have been on the charts continuously for the past 2 years.

I'm not saying that these things make them "good", but certainly relevant in pop culture.

This actually matters? :mellow:
Do Academy Awards matter to an actor or director?
Why would they?
Link to post
Share on other sites

To the people complaining that they don't know who Levine is, get with it. Maroon 5, and particularly him, are huge in pop culture right now. I guess they should only have Gene Hackman or Ray Liotta or other actors that were big when you were younger as the hosts.

No thanks.
Maroon 5 stinks. Who cares if they're popular? Big Macs are popular. That doesn't mean I'd eat that ####.
Ok, everyone stay bitter and locked in a time warp where only things that came out from when you 13-25 are cool and good.
Wrong. Sorry. I love modern music.

Maroon 5 is bad, and that transcends age.

Are you over 45 by any chance?
Exactly 45. I don't see how that's relevant. Again, I love modern music.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a spry 40 and I think it's dog ####

I know there's this stereotype of guys that only listen to classic rock stations. But I love new music. I am excited to hear new bands.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, straight men are big Maroon 5 fans? I'm 41, and I could MAYBE see not hating them when I was 11 or 12 because then I was into Styx, REO Speedwagon and Hall & Oates. Once I started liking girls though, I got into classic rock and hair metal, then alternative once Pearl Jam, Nirvana and Soundgarden came around. I would have thought Levine and his band were a bunch of ######s at any time in my life that I had ball hair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a spry 40 and I think it's dog ####

I know there's this stereotype of guys that only listen to classic rock stations. But I love new music. I am excited to hear new bands.
I meant Maroon 5
I got that :thumbup:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...