(On some browsers you'll need to refresh this page in order to see the comment you just left.)

2fs - 2006-07-11 20:10:19
Who the hell is "Suri"? Also - I dunno; I don't think solo albums necessarily need to be radically different from band work - in fact I think it's interesting when the singer's album isn't overwhelmingly, well, singerish (he does play geetar and pianner, of course). Very few drummers' solo albums are worth anything. (We both know one exception!)
-------------------------------
jon - 2006-07-12 07:58:11
The exception is Peter Criss, right? Thanks for the mention, Paula!
-------------------------------
Tom Ronca - 2006-07-12 10:38:18
There are a whole slew of early cinema leading men who wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being one today, and Ray Milland and William Powell have to head this list. They're too sardonic, too unhandsome, and too seemingly intelligent to play leading men in this day and age. Milland went on to exclusively play heavies in the latter part of his career (including this "classic" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069372/), and Powell bowed out of acting all together with his supporting role in "Mr. Roberts". Oh well; at least they paved the way for Ed Norton.
-------------------------------
Paula - 2006-07-12 10:56:27
too unhandsome

Was RM not considered handsome in his day? (Fwiw, I think he's dreamy.)
-------------------------------
2fs - 2006-07-12 13:01:39
The real "problem" with old-school film stars is physique: by today's (obnoxious) standards, they were almost uniformly flabby if not fat. Check out Sean Connery's shirtless bod in...oh hell, now I can't remember - the one where he gets a backrub. Studio'd be all, uh, Sean? hit the gym...and get a depilatory while you're at it. Hrmph.
-------------------------------

add your comment:

back to the entry - Diaryland