Michael Bland

RYou might want the name to reflect his character or nationality, so keep that in mind. Is he Irish, and tough? Micky O'Sullivan. Is he a bland American? Mike Anderson. A sexy latino? Mikey Martinez.

RJust because you can play fast doesn't mean you're good, and anyone who thinks you are just because you can is an idiot.Look at Tiago Della Vega! He's the world's fastest guitarist, but his music is bland, flat, and boring. There's no dynamic, tension or release... nothing, it's just technically perfect music, which is amazing to watch, but about as engaging as a crappy MIDI.MAB (who's a really great guy, if you ever get a chance to meet him or go to his clinics, do it!) described it best I think. He said "speed is just a tool, like a color for a painter. Developing your technique is just making sure that you have all the tools necessary to express yourself musically. If you have something to say with music, you don't want to reach for a tool and not have it, then you either look like a fool or have to say something else that isn't exactly what you wanted"Technique is important, but it's just technique, what really matters is what you do with it. If you just focus on playing fast for the sake of playing fast, all you're going to say to people is "Look at me, I can play fast" and they'll lose interest in about 30 seconds (assuming they're not 14 years old)

RThat depends on:-Video Resolution-Video Bitrate & Compression-Audio Bitrate & Compression-Actual MPEG4 Codec Version/Implementation-Specific Program used to create the video-Content of the Video (lots of moving images/detail, vs slow & bland images) 12 hours of video is a long time. For some videos it might take 15 minutes to take up 1 gigabyte or 1 hour and 15 minutes to fill one gigabyte. Once again it all depends on what I wrote above.Hope I helped.

R5. a clockwork orange-the singing in the rain scene, a horrific scene set to a joy full tune. its good meets evil at its basic point.4. the shawshank redemption, andy dufrense freedom, proof that freedom cannot be caged.3. wizard of oz-the welcome to munchkin land. the rich and vibrant colors after the bland palette of the opening scenes. 2. star wars the empire strikes back, learning that Darth Vader was Luke's father. as a child i couldn't believe it.1. jaws-the Indianapolis speech. in my opinion the greatest monologue on film. robert shaw makes you believe that he was there and the is such feeling in his voice that you forget he's an actor.

RYou should go to Michaels or Joanne fabrics and make stuff that you like and that really shows your personality. Plus stuff there is cheap so you have lots of spending money left. :)

RIf beyonce made bland music her artistry would not be accepted the way it is worldwide. Just because it's not your cup of tea does not make it mediocre. Get it together! Beyonce is the female Michael Jackson. Gaga can't do what she does. And she has longevity. People will always hate. Her latest album just sold 300k+ in the US alone. 245k+ in Brazil making it double platinum and 89k in the UK making it her 2nd album to go #1 there since 2003 dangerously in love. Its certified gold in Poland. And is selling like hotcakes around the world. That's a big accomplishments.

RLeast favsDamon Ross: that name sound really cheesy from some reasonKerian Robert: sounds too made up but not ghettoParker Alexander: two last namesPatrick Levi: I like Levi but not PatrickRory Lewis: also sound make up too, never heard of RoryFavsAaron Christopher: sounds sophisicatedIan Jacob: really like this nameJulian Ryan: really cute; not plain and simple but not too muchToo common and blandChase MichaelCory JohnathonNathan Tyler

RFrom a reader's perspective, I like names that are at most 4 syllables long and in which one of the names (either first or last) is one syllable. I find alliterative names confusing. So in your list, I would like Riley Greene, Daniel Smith, Tyler Haas, with Alex Harmon being a close miss.

RRight now, I'm really enjoying the Danielson/Cole feud.The whole point of their program is to make Danielson seem different from other incoming new wrestlers. I see a lot of users on here asking why Danielson was even on NXT to begin with, considering how extensive his wrestling background is. The reason is that when the WWE introduces new wrestlers, the vast majority of them, regardless of their prior accomplishments, are repackaged into "WWE Superstars". They are presented to continue the image that the WWE is the only promotion out there. Look at how vague and bland some of the new guys backgrounds have been. Sheamus was "found in Ireland", Drew McIntrye was "found on a golf course". With Danielson though, things are noticeably different. For weeks, Michael Cole and Josh Matthews talked non-stop about Danielson's previous experience and about all the different places he's wrestled. They didn't present him as just another typical "WWE Superstar", they presented him, basically, as what he is, a wrestler. They are booking and presenting Danielson as a virtual representation of most of us, the IWC. How many times have we complained on this site (and many others) that the WWE is only interested in big wrestlers, and they don't value talent? We talk about it constantly. Well, Danielson said all of those things on NXT. Cole is being presented as the stereotypical "blind WWE mark" who drinks whatever koolaid is put in front of him and who thinks that the WWE is the be-all-and-end-all of wrestling existence. THAT is why Danielson is working with him. Their program (which I think has been executed to near perfection) is designed as a way to get Danielson more attention, to make him stand out. I'm sure that in the coming weeks it will segway into a feud with The Miz, but right now Cole is doing an outstanding job of getting Danielson over with the audience. So don't worry, it won't be long until we see him on RAW or Smackdown.

RIt really depends on who you ask, but personally, the storyline(s) and angles are more appealing in Pro Wrestling/Sports Entertainment. Yes, pure wrestling is always great to watch. I would NEVER complain when I'm watching a great wrestling match with actual wrestling. However, it is the storyline and angles that sells the matches, feuds, and etc. Without these two things, we would just be watching wrestlers fighting each other, but there would be no meaning behind it. This is similar to just throwing two random wrestlers in a match and it could be a good to great match, but it would also leave you thinking: "What purpose did this match even serve? Will this match launch them into a feud with each other or a more prominent feud with another wrestler?". This is exactly what WWE Superstars is. It isn't common, but they will have those good TV quality matches. The issue is, most of the time they'll throw random wrestlers together as opponents and although it would be a good or great match, there would be something missing to the match (which is the substance; the meaning of the match).The opposite of that is when Superstars actually had Jeff Hardy, Edge, John Morrison, CM Punk, Chris Jericho and someone else (can't remember who was the 6th person) who would wrestle each other, but there was actually meaning behind it because they were actually feuding with those people or about to feud with those opponents. What else did it have in common? The fact that these were the guys (besides Morrison) who were in the hunt for the WWE Heavyweight Championship, so it made sense and it had that missing substance that those random (but good to great) matches are missing.Another example I could use is Wrestlemania. Most matches can be used as examples, but I'll use Undertaker and Shawn Michaels. We ALL know they can wrestle and put on a great match as they have done in the past, but WHY are we watching it? Then they created the story and the rest is history. We had Shawn Michaels have to earn a re-match with Undertaker because he was "obsessed" with trying to end the streak. Then they added the career stipulation, which added more to the match. Now when people look at "Wrestlemania 26 - Undertaker vs. Shawn Michaels -- Streak vs. Career", the fact that it is now Streak vs. Career is appealing because they know how important both are and how much is at stake. The fact that they had a story that developed into an angle made it much more appealing. I know the streak is always up for grabs, but let's say there was no added stipulation to their match at Wrestlemania 26, the match might of been considered as "bland" or a repeat of Wrestlemania 25. It needed a secondary stipulation to make the match appealing, whether it was a World Title, Career on the line, or anything else. I know in most independent promotions their first priority is wrestling, but keep in mind that the storyline(s) and angles will mostly always be attached. In ROH, you have Kevin Steen and El Generico going at it in one of the hottest feuds of the year. Imagine watching these two wrestle for no apparent reason. Yeah, wouldn't make sense and would be ridiculous. The appeal is driven by the storyline/angle. The wrestling will always be there, but the storyline(s) and angle is the appeal, at least in my opinion.