Jump to content

Mowjo8185

Member
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mowjo8185

  • Rank
    A Cherry Ghost
  1. Isbell is streaming, but Springsteen is still purchase and download individual shows, not part of the subscription. Some of his recent live albums like the Live Series and Springsteen on Broadway are up there, although they are on other streaming services as well so not really a unique nugs offer.
  2. A bunch of OLD shows just showed up streaming on nugs.net. As far as I can tell, they are at this moment exclusive to nugs.net subscribers and not available on Wilco's Roadcase (although maybe they are coming). 3/27/1999 - Shepherd's Bush Empire, London, UK 12/3/2001 - The Fillmore, San Francisco, CA 6/28/2003 - Festival Pier at Penn's Landing, Philly, PA 12/31/2004 - MSG, New York, NY 11/17/2005 - Tribeca Performing Arts Center, New York, NY
  3. The nice thing about this is a virtual guarantee of some major setlist variation since the audience will be the same all 3 nights.
  4. Wilco's Roadcase series has been added to a nugs.net subscription! You can stream all of their Roadcase releases for a $12.99 monthly fee (or $129 for the year). In addition to Wilco you get access to all their streaming artists - IMO the big one is Pearl Jam, but they have some jam band types on there too like Widespread, Moe., Umphrey's, etc.
  5. Mowjo8185

    Roadcase Series

    I sure hope they release night 2 and the Tweedy set as well.
  6. I just don't agree with you. Unless you hold a monopoly on the service you offer, I see no reason someone should be forced to act against their conscience. Again, I recognize the difficulty of passing a law like this, because it does give free reign for people to just be complete bigots in the name of religion, and it would certainly be taken advantage of. And for that reason I'm against it, especially as it is currently written. But I can understand some of the thought process behind it. It seems to me, that as we evolve and become more accepting as a country (as someone mentioned above), and with the advent of social media and with the press certainly sympathizing with gay rights, that companies or individuals who refuse to serve gay people will likely be completely lambasted and see their business impacted. There's a price they will have to pay for their views, and they have to decide if that price is worth it. And if their conscience dictates that it's worth it to them, I'm not sure I think they should be forced to provide that service regardless. Especially in situations where there are undoubtedly service providers within a 5 mile radius who will gladly perform that service, and probably do a better job for you.
  7. So if we flip the roles - does a homosexual baker or photographer have to agree to make a cake or photograph an event for the Westboro Baptist Church?
  8. I guess my point is, religious people get some sort of fulfillment from being religious and following the teachings of their church. The fact that you think they are batshit crazy (and a lot of them are) is irrelevant. Provided they aren't causing someone harm or depriving them of a very basic need, they should probably be allowed to act as bigoted as they feel. The government should absolutely protect minorities against true discrimination, in terms of employment, access to healthcare, tax breaks, etc. I think they are also right to allow gay marriage and the benefits that come with it. But forcing a photographer who, for his own reasons, does not support the union of two gay people, to photograph their wedding or be subject to legal action? How about you just find someone who actually wants to be a part of your special day? And, if you are so inclined, berate the photographer who turned you down on social media, which will undoubtedly cause their business to suffer. Then they can decide on their own if their business is worth compromising their own morals, as misguided as you think they may be. I'm just wary of a situation where people are being ordered to do something against their beliefs by the government, especially when it's not really a basic need/right and can be acquired elsewhere.
  9. ^ this post kind of exemplifies my point. You are certainly being more judgmental toward me than I was in my post to any gay person. People viewing religious people as out of touch and acting like they are whackos just marginalizes them and their beliefs.
  10. So I'm fully prepared to get blasted for this post - and trust me, it's something that I struggle with internally. Let me start by saying that I am all for gay rights under the government - call it marriage, or a union, or whatever you like to, but that gay people should be afforded everything under the law that a straight couple does. However, I'm also a Catholic, and I believe in the sacrament of Holy Matrimony - that, as a religious vocation, literally CAN'T be celebrated by a gay couple due to its procreative nature. While I can separate in my mind marriage as a religious union and marriage as a civil one, I have many close Catholic friends who can't - who feel that calling that union a "marriage" does in a way lessen the unique relationship they've entered into to bring children into this world in God's image. And I can understand their point of view, and while I think they still need to treat all people with the utmost respect, I guess my point is this: if my friend were a cake maker, and refused to make a cake for a gay person's birthday party, I would judge them, but if they refused to make a cake for a gay couple's wedding, I would understand where they were coming from. Now, putting this into law gets complicated, as there are terrible people out there who would take the opportunity to just blatantly be terrible under the guise of a religious freedom. I understand that, and I disagree with the law for that reason - there's too many fringe religions out there that sanction treating people with absolutely no respect or dignity, which I can't get onboard with. And I understand that those fringe, but very vocal contingents make most religious people look bad, but I think a lot of people of faith have much more complicated, nuanced viewpoints than that. I am also concerned about the marginalization of religion in America - that it's the beginning of a slippery slope where people won't be able to live according to their moral code, just because it's a morality that isn't in-line with the "progress" we are making as a country.
  11. Thanks all! I tried to search for similar threads before posting but didnt see anything come up for my search. This is a great start!
  12. New to the forum, I've been a more casual Wilco fan for about 10 years and really just recently got bit by the bug and can't get enough of their entire discography. I've bought a number of their Roadcase shows as well that pretty much covers the Whole Love era, but I'm really curious to hear a bit from every era of this band. I discovered owlandbear.com, but it's pretty overwhelming to know where to start there. As such, I was wondering if there had been developed any consensus list of the best shows/bootlegs from Wilco's history? Kind of landmark shows from each album era that really stand out as the band's best? I'm planning on getting the Chicago residencies in 2008 and 2011, but what about earlier dates? What are those "must-have" shows? Ideally, I'd like to identify a handful of shows from each album era/year they have toured. I saw that thread documenting 20 years of Chicago shows and was going to start there, figuring hometown shows were likely among their best each years, but thought I'd start this thread first to see what else stands out as notable.
×
×
  • Create New...