Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Owl City - Fireflies


dimbee

Recommended Posts

Thought it was The Postal Service for a second when I first heard it.

Indeed. Their sounds are very similar, and Adam Young (the guy in the video) has even stated that their sounds are similar...

[The Postal Service] released a record in 2003, and that was it. There was really nothing to compare it to until some one else came along and wrote the next chapter. Maybe that's this record. Maybe that's this band.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

one of the worst songs ever played on the radio

would rather hear nickleback

:lol:

I'll grant that the type of music that this is doesn't really have a radio station (in this area) where it fits the format well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe this song hits close to home for some of y'all? The song has been described, by its writer, as "a little song about bugs and not being able to fall asleep at night," though the fireflies in the song's title also serve as an allegory for the lost imagination and wonder in adulthood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Fireflies" - Winner of the most overplayed radio song in 2009.

I thought it was catchy also when I first heard it but then when it got to the point where you couldn't turn on the radio without hearing it or go on the interent without some teenager playing their rendition of it and at that point I felt that it needed to be destroyed. Even my 5 year old duaghter would ask for it to be turned off because she said it was a song for babies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:

I'll grant that the type of music that this is doesn't really have a radio station (in this area) where it fits the format well...

Dude, I've heard that song on Disney radio. Fits perfectly. :coolgleamA:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...