Albums by Vampire Weekend and MGMT are both very good.

Well if the government supplies it at the same price, if not less, which you would assume they would be able to do given the fact that drug suppliers make a huge profit and the government would have some advantages, then you would have to ask why the criminals would keep it at?

Erm... I am quite sure I outlined 2 reasons in my post.

The other plus is that if the Government used its weight to take over the supply of heroin then the criminal suppliers would go out of businesss and there would be a monopoly supplier (the government) which would only supply to existing and not new customers.

And their stands the flaw in your argument.

Do you really think the criminal suppliers will just pack it in and up sticks, move on to something new?

You are making the big assumption that all addicts will react kindly and positively to the goverment taking measures to reduce their dependency, also what about those not 'on the books' where will they get their fix? Or will everyone just stop taking hard drugs once this generation passes?

How the the strokes and the every song sounds the same monkeys can be said to have changed music I really don't know.

Change doesn't neccesarily mean change for the good.

look at the kind of albums being released in 2000 and compare that withh 2002. Heaps of bands just simply wouldn't have been signed up and given the platform to release albums if it wasn't for the success of 'is this it'

Then again, there's plenty of real bands around playing the same type of music, and has done for years.

The Strokes might've changed how the men in suits approached new bands, but if you're making a list of albums changing music in general, they don't deserve a thought in my opinion. But I'm biased in this, so won't bother to debate further.

The Rolling Stones are still kings of rock'n'roll.

I agree on the Stones.

Not to sure who you are refering to as 'real bands' around 2001 though, my memory of music around then is of a fairly grim time of either English Bed-wetters (travis, Coldplay etc) or American garbage (Papa Roach, Korn etc), whether you think 'is this it' was the second coming, or whether the strokes were just trendies pushed by suits is irrelevant, after the Strokes the focus was shifted in a whole new direction, see the pandemonium that The White Stripes were greeted with by all sections of the British media (remember theywere on their third album then but only broke after the Strokes), following Is This It there was a massive influx of new bands, some good some garbage, from all parts of the globe, therefore changed music.

You musn't associate change with good, in my opinion Nirvana changed music though there success spawned some pretty dismal bands, that doesn't meen they didn't change Music.

Hardly anything to put on your CV though, is it? The Strokes isn't all that bad, and I quite enjoy the "Is this it"-album, for a month or two anyway. But they didn't change the music enough to earn a place on that list in my opinion, just because some executive pr1ck decided to gather a bunch of goodlooking, halfdecent musicians and hype them like the next Beatles.

It depends what you define as changing music, The Strokes, without question, opened the door for a huge number of bands at the start of the decade, therefore influenced what type of music was pushed forward by labels. Whether said bands were any good or what the strokes did next does not matter one jot, that's what happened of the back of them.

It was a ludicrous statement Flopsy.

I suggest you remove the spade from your hands.

CSS really are superb , their self titled debut was probably my favourite record of 2006, I really would recomend them to anyone unfamiliar.

January really was crammed full with good releases, from the good the bad and the Queen, Jamie T, Klaxons, The Hold Steady and the view who are a great band now but I really can't see a future for them past say their second album.

Also after meaning to buy it for months, I recently- finally- purchased Return to cookie mountain by TV on the radio, it is a superb album I think anyone who is a fan of the Arcade Fire would like this especially.

I've always thought Pearl Jam come across a tad humourless, it seems a common trait amongst most American Rock Bands.

I just wish they'd lighten up abit, it all just looked rather sensible to me.

England's Dreaming by Jon Savage is an excellent book

Good question. You probably need to be at least 50 years old to appreciate Syd, and have a decent knowledge of 1960s rock music.

Anyway, have a look

here

I own his two solo albums and of course piper at the gates of dawn which is an excellent album, but is that really enough to be labelled a genius.

What fascinates me is how Syd regulary gets the title genius, yet you never here Roger Waters or David Gilmour spoken of in such a manner.

Syd was mad, and that's just it he was genuinely mad, that is, a man with serious mental health issues.Yet Syd is heralded as a loveable madcap, good old Syd the man who poured mandrax on his hair and played a show.

Why exactly was Syd Barret a genius.

Exactly what I was thinking.  It's about interpretation.  Styles is trying to be a modern day Elleray.  He actually motioned to Bellamy to stand up straight but there was clearly no need to book him.  Sadly Styles is a pr1ck who referees not on respect but more in the style of a traffic warden.

403357[/snapback]

Agree about styles, how he managed to book 7 players in a game without any tackles of any note and devoid of controversy and incident is beyond me.

Mr Styles is gaining a reputation for liking his notebook abit too much just ask Sylvain Distin.

I consider it an achievement that ranks alongside every other team that's won the Premiership. It's all well and good to claim that Chelsea "bought the league" but every team buys players that they hope will win success. I don't see Chelsea as any different.

401453[/snapback]

But surely you can differentiate between What Chelsea have done with their astronomical outlay compared to say what Arsene Wenger has achieved on a relative shoestring.

Well Chelsea spending spree over the last few years dwarfs anything Jack Walker ever spent.

I see Chelsea as a club without a heart and their quest for domestic dominance rather pointless given the ridiculous advantage they hold over everyone else.

All this crapola about the new law being wrong and difficult to interpret is a complete red herring imo.

The fact is the officials got the decision wrong, plain and simple, end of.

Cisse pulled away from/ missed the ball by the merest of fractions. Of course he was "active" if that's what you want to call it. Was he moving away from the ball or clearly trying to get back onside? Was he hellers like.

Would the goal have stood had it been us on the attack and Chelski ManUre Arsenal or Liverpool on the receiving end? We all know the answer to that one I think. 

399937[/snapback]

Well exactly, tottally agree.

For me it was certainly offside.

For those people (on other sites) who are quoting laws and supporting the official on a technicality are slightly missing the point.

How often do you see the flag go up in situations where players are certainly less active than Cisse was, I saw one such incident in the Bolton game last night, you really do wonder what would have happened had the situation developed at the other end.

The simple truth is, a referee/linesman who makes a mistake against a top club comes under much more scrutiny and criticism than a mistake against a lesser team, due to the bigger column inches the bigger clubs command and generally speaking the lost points could cost that club.

It's just the reality we must live with.

6 points would almost certainly be enough.

Even if Newcastle won all the games, including one against Chelsea it would still go down to goal difference, rovers are currently 4 ahead. Bolton would also have to win 4 of their last 5, so lets hope albion can do us a favour tonight, Wigan would have to win all their games, including trips to Highbury and craven cottage. After that no-one else could reach us.

Of course the goal was offside, utter incompetence from the official, Cisse just had to be active. Our defence pushed up to play him offside and as soon as he motioned towards the ball the flag had to go up, whether he pulled out or not is completely irrelevent.

Considering they are 3rd in the league have invested millions of pounds on their team and are current 'champions of europe', I was considerably unimpressed with Liverpool today.

I thought they were particually negative in their approach and cynical in execution, to see the likes of Reina wasting every possible second he could was extremely disappointing from a team you would expect to go for the kill and finish us of with the style and conviction that a team of their supposed calibre and standing should be capable of.

It really has been a great year for great goals from rovers, I really can't think of another year like it.

Look froward to seeing the montage at Ewood, especially after last seasons debacle when some distinctly average goals made the list.

I'd go for Tugay for all it matters

My memories from Gazza'a brief sojourn at the lat World Cup:

'Terri Sheridham'-Teddy Sheringham?

'Terencegay'-Trezeguet?

'Ah thin e bottled it me'-I think he lost his nerve?

Soon after he was off-out and about the UK, paddling in the fountain outside Buckingham Palace and so on.

394562[/snapback]

You missed out the time he tried to include Nicolass Alexandersonn in one of his 'sentences'.

What on earth is that table ITV have given Townsend and Mcoist pitchside? Whats that all about?

Alan Smith is a complete tosser, as are:

Rodney Marsh

Adrian Durham

John Motson

excellent.

Today's results should have scured us a top 7 finish atleast we now have it all to play for.

Anyone thinking we woulkd get anything over £12 million for MGP is living in La La Land.

Unfortunatly for us, it really dosen't matter whether selling are best players fits in with our current mentality under Hughes, the simple fact is if the big clubs come knocking the chances are if the player fancies it he'll be off, they have all the power.

I doubt United will come in for him anyway.

Comparing Steven Reid to Steven Gerrard, and commenting that the only difference is that Gerrard makes fewer mistakes is utterly insane and a quite baffling comment, unbelievable.

Now before anyone starts I rate Reid, but to play at the bigger clubs you really do need more than a good engine. Reid has a very limited technique and imo this would be cruelly exposed at a higher level such as the Champions League.

Reid is a good player but I'd be very suprised if United ever attempt to sign him