The Pagemeister Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 http://youtu.be/Yvat4PyE4Vo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazedcat Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 The deluxe release will be like my personal passing an auto wreck on the highway thing.........I don't want to look or care but I can't help myself............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gospel Zone Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 (edited) I watched the first 2 minutes of the clip.....the camera stays focused on Mick. Shee-it! Edited November 8, 2011 by Gospel Zone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pagemeister Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 http://youtu.be/bj8lRssjN48 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Rolling Stones Plan London Jam Session Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gospel Zone Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) Rolling Stones Plan London Jam Session The part of the article that goes: "The Some Girls and Exile reissues might only be the beginning: Was wants to tackle Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed or Sticky Fingers soon. "There's so much material," he says. "If they never went in the studio again, you could have a new Stones album every year for the next 50 years, and it would all be good." is a joke. Considering the Exile On Main Street Deluxe fiasco the key to the success of such projects would depend on the Stones not going into the studio to record new vocals. Edited November 9, 2011 by Gospel Zone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazedcat Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 You won't get unreleased quality bootleg (true bootleg) material until either Keith or Mick pass on. Besides, didn't you like the Exile issue when it first came out? I thought you posted here that you did? Maybe not, either way though there is a ton of Stones boots out there, a lot of it really really good. All is not lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom kid Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 You won't get unreleased quality bootleg (true bootleg) material until either Keith or Mick pass on. Besides, didn't you like the Exile issue when it first came out? I thought you posted here that you did? Maybe not, either way though there is a ton of Stones boots out there, a lot of it really really good. All is not lost. Yeah I've got tonnes of really good sounding SBD's that could be official releases. 'No Flash No Gimmicks' comes to mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gospel Zone Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 You won't get unreleased quality bootleg (true bootleg) material until either Keith or Mick pass on. Besides, didn't you like the Exile issue when it first came out? I thought you posted here that you did? Maybe not, either way though there is a ton of Stones boots out there, a lot of it really really good. All is not lost. No, I hated the Exile Deluxe from the get go. I've only been able to bring myself to listen to it about 4 times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 It's Friday night and I'm on my way to a Tokyo cinema screening of the 'Some Girls' film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 I'm back from the show. The film is a stunning reminder of the band's energy if not versatility. Jagger is at the height of his powers. Keith is elegantly wasted. Charlie keeps the beat and Bill Wyman avoids the spotlights. Ronnie gets good-natured slaps, gropes and air-kisses from Mick throughout the show. It would be interesting to hear from those who were there as it happened for as far as I can tell it was one of the better nights of that relatively short tour. Having bought loads of Fort Worth '78 bootlegs I can't wait to finally pick this up on official dvd! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetleron Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 "elegantly wasted"....thanks SAJ.........i'll keep that one in "mind" when i'm looking at the man in the mirror mick does rock.....i highly reccomend him ............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 Stones Rehearsals in London Confirmed This from Keith Richards concerning Stones studio rehearsals in London later this month: "We're just going to play a little together, because we haven't played for three or four years. You don't necessarily want to rehearse or write anything -- you just want to touch bases. That's a good start: Me, Charlie and Ronnie. Mick's welcome, and I'm sure he'll turn up, but right now we just want to get our chops down." ...this could possibly become the first step towards a 50th Anniversary concert or tour in 2012... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gospel Zone Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 (edited) Keith is elegantly wasted. He's still painted into that corner to this day! Edited November 12, 2011 by Gospel Zone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 The Rolling Stones: that 50-year itch… As the Rolling Stones' pivotal 1978 album Some Girls is reissued, Messrs Jagger, Richards, Wood and Watts talk about sex, drugs and survival – and the chance of a celebration tour Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2bitnogoodjive Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 The Rolling Stones are proud to announce the launch of www.StonesArchive.com where international fans will be able to buy their 1973 lost live album "The Brussels Affair", have access to exclusive sleevenotes, view limited edition photos, films and rare merchandise. Fans will be able to purchase exclusive merchandise, lithographs & deluxe box sets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2bitnogoodjive Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Watch Keef and Mick reminisce about their '73 tour, and get a free (and rare) live track. Get your free Rolling Stones track at http://goo.gl/gTF6y courtesy of Google Music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazedcat Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 For what it's worth I bought the Some Girls Deluxe edition today and the second disc of outtakes is very very good. I have no idea what was recently finished or was a legitimate outtake but the tunes are really good. Ron Wood plays pedal steel on many of them and there's a serious twang factor in most of them. They didn't destroy the original album with noise wars remastering either. I'm very pleased with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 (edited) Three bands that come to mind that are just a tad overated: The Stones, The Who, The Beatles. All three bands wrote good music, don't get me wrong, but I think they wrote just as many "not so great tunes" as they did well written ones. As for Zeppelin-it's hard to find a song I don't like. Which is part of the reason I like them so much. The Stones and The Who made good records, but not every song on every album was good. Some were just plain silly or not worth listening too twice. The Beatles did alot for the revolution of music. However, they were the first "boy band". They made great pop tunes in the beginning and wrote much deeper material towards the end of their career, but again-half of their cataloge isn't worth mentioning. In a case such as these three bands mentioned, the more popular songs are the best ones. As for Zeppelin, the songs you don't hear by popular demand are just as good as the ones overplayed. That's the key difference. Edited November 22, 2011 by Rock Historian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Can't say I've ever thought of the Stones, the Who or the Beatles as being "overrated". They've all been innovators in their own ways so I feel the praise has been warranted. No one artist is going to have a spotless track record, including Led Zeppelin. As for the Beatles being a "boy band", nothing could be farther from the truth. NSYNC, Backstreet Boys, Boys to Men, New Kids on the Block, etc.? Yes but the huge difference between them and the Beatles is that the Beatles wrote and performed their own music. Did the Beatles attract a largely teenybopper crowd in the early stages of their career? Yes, of course they did but that alone doesn't qualify them as a "boy band", a term that didn't even come into play into the proliferation of acts I've previously mentioned. What the Beatles had going for them were songs, songs they wrote, recorded and performed on their own. There was also no shady characters such as Lou Pearlman lurking in the shadows attempting to control every aspect of their careers. Funny that no one ever accused the Beatles of being a "boy band" until after the success of the artists (and I use that term very loosely) I've previously mentioned. If anything, it was bands like the Beatles that helped displace the popularity of the teen idol mentality that was so prevalent before they came along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) Can't say I've ever thought of the Stones, the Who or the Beatles as being "overrated". They've all been innovators in their own ways so I feel the praise has been warranted. No one artist is going to have a spotless track record, including Led Zeppelin. As for the Beatles being a "boy band", nothing could be farther from the truth. NSYNC, Backstreet Boys, Boys to Men, New Kids on the Block, etc.? Yes but the huge difference between them and the Beatles is that the Beatles wrote and performed their own music. Did the Beatles attract a largely teenybopper crowd in the early stages of their career? Yes, of course they did but that alone doesn't qualify them as a "boy band", a term that didn't even come into play into the proliferation of acts I've previously mentioned. What the Beatles had going for them were songs, songs they wrote, recorded and performed on their own. There was also no shady characters such as Lou Pearlman lurking in the shadows attempting to control every aspect of their careers. Funny that no one ever accused the Beatles of being a "boy band" until after the success of the artists (and I use that term very loosely) I've previously mentioned. If anything, it was bands like the Beatles that helped displace the popularity of the teen idol mentality that was so prevalent before they came along. I agree that The Beatles cannot be compared to the "bands" you mentioned for the clear fact that they were true musicians. I referred to them as the first "boy band" for the sheer fact that flocks of women who had no intention of caring about the depth or shallowness of their purposely written pop tunes - turned them into mass hysteria. There is a youtube clip from John Bonham talking about the Beatles. Basically he says something along the lines "People just wanted to see THEM, they didn't really care about the music. It was about seeing them because they were so big at the time. So, I wouldn't denounce that they had big role in defining what a boy pop band is today, regardless if the bands of today wrote their own songs or not-the mass appeal remains the same. Good looking guys, writting (or getting help writting) catchy , simple, commercially acceptable pop tunes. The Beatles definitly started that way. The very first few albums were songs like Love me Do, Can't buy me Love, etc.etc, etc....come one man. It's the same mindset (purposely written pop tunes to sell to a market) -just a different era. The Beatles got much deeper with the latter albums. They wrote meaningful songs. As far as The Who and The Stones, yes they left a mark on Rock and Roll for sure, but I don't believe they are as good as everyone makes them. Like I said, the best songs from these groups are the ones you hear most often on popular playlist radio. For Zeppelin-the unknown, less played tracks were equally as good. That makes for a better cataloge in my book. Hence, a band worthy of their title. Miss You, is my favorite Stones tune. Sympathy for the Devil, Angie, Waiting on a Friend. Things like that were really, really good. The Who had great ones too. Who Are You, Behind Blue Eyes, Baby O'Reily, Wont get Fooled Again, Join Together, 5:15 . Great tunes. But for me, if you are considered to be one of the greatest, quanity and quality are equal. The Stone's don't have that going for them in my book. Nor do the others. Edited November 23, 2011 by Rock Historian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 I agree that The Beatles cannot be compared to the "bands" you mentioned for the clear fact that they were true musicians. I referred to them as the first "boy band" for the sheer fact that flocks of women who had no intention of caring about the depth or shallowness of their purposely written pop tunes - turned them into mass hysteria. There is a youtube clip from John Bonham talking about the Beatles. Basically he says something along the lines "People just wanted to see THEM, they didn't really care about the music. It was about seeing them because they were so big at the time. So, I wouldn't denounce that they had big role in defining what a boy pop band is today, regardless if the bands of today wrote their own songs or not-the mass appeal remains the same. Good looking guys, writting (or getting help writting) catchy , simple, commercially acceptable pop tunes. The Beatles definitly started that way. Love me Do, Can't buy me Love, etc.etc, etc....come one man. It's the same mindset-just a different era. None of which lessens the Beatles' artistic endeavors. As far as The Who and The Stones, yes they left a mark on Rock and Roll for sure, but I don't believe they are as good as everyone makes them. Like I said, the best songs from these groups are the ones you hear most often on popular playlist radio. For Zeppelin-the unknown, less played tracks were equally as good. That makes for a better cataloge in my book. Hence, a band worthy of their title. With "in your book" being the keywords. As for what is considered their "best" songs, that's also a matter of opinion. Bottom line is, rock n' roll is an artform so trying to judge it is futile at best. Personally, I don't listen to music with an ear towards assigning a rating to it or pitting artists against each other, it's not a competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) None of which lessens the Beatles' artistic endeavors. With "in your book" being the keywords. As for what is considered their "best" songs, that's also a matter of opinion. Bottom line is, rock n' roll is an artform so trying to judge it is futile at best. Personally, I don't listen to music with an ear towards assigning a rating to it or pitting artists against each other, it's not a competition. Nor is it a competition for me. Funny you see my post that way- We like who we like for our own reasons. But, our opinion makes us EACH who we are - that's all we got. Are you gonna tell me that the vast majority of The Who, Stones and Beatles tunes are good or great? If so, that's your own opinion and good for you. I don't see their legacies that way. Edited November 23, 2011 by Rock Historian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom kid Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) For what it's worth I bought the Some Girls Deluxe edition today and the second disc of outtakes is very very good. I have no idea what was recently finished or was a legitimate outtake but the tunes are really good. Ron Wood plays pedal steel on many of them and there's a serious twang factor in most of them. They didn't destroy the original album with noise wars remastering either. I'm very pleased with this. Sounds like I'll have to pick this up. Edited November 23, 2011 by tom kid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Nor is it a competition for me. It appears it is a competition for you as you are rating the works of the Who, the Beatles, the Stones and Led Zeppelin. In so doing, you are saying the music of the Who, the Beatles and the Stones is "overrated", especially when compared to the music of Led Zeppelin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.