For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
ccQuote
LOGIE
Pete Townshend did pecisely this as early as 1977, by aiming the Who Are You album directly at the american market, and though never openly admitting to it, Jagger might well have had this in mind with Some Girls.
how exactly would they have done this (aim an album specifically at the US market)?
"Sister Disco"?
Quote
Gazza
If I remember right, Jagger said the expression "thats a load of old bollocks" about ten times in that NME interview.
Quote
Gazza
I also think the choice of 'Land of hope and Glory' at the end of that show (as seen on the pro shot video of the 2nd night) was wonderful. For the non-UK shows that summer, it was the '1812 Overture', I think.
Quote
shortfatfanny
Great LOGIE,seems as if you´re sitting on a complete archive.
I dont think so i saw magic back than! yes the set was the same every night...but not played the same! anything could happen! A wild JJF free for all party it was raw!!Quote
bvQuote
Gazza
I also think the choice of 'Land of hope and Glory' at the end of that show (as seen on the pro shot video of the 2nd night) was wonderful. For the non-UK shows that summer, it was the '1812 Overture', I think.
The two Wembley 1982 shows were my shows number 4 and 5. I had seen them in 1973 Gothenburg (what a show in Scandinavium) and then I had waited for nine years to have them back in Scandinavia for the two Gothenburg Nya Ullevi shows. Needless to say I wanted more so I booked a flight to London, stayed with a friend, went to both shows, freezing cold by the way, and after that I am proud to say that I have seen each and every Wembley and London show.
Land Of Hope And Glory makes me sort of sad every time I hear it. That was what they played as I walked out of the Wembley gates. It would take another seven years until I saw the Stones again at Shea Stadium. And after that I have had problems going home between shows.
To be honest, I don't think the 1982 shows were that fantastic. We were young, the Stones were younger, but they were not as sharp as they have been on later tours. The set lists were the same, and it wasn't until 1989 they made my mind loose control so that I was going to shows rather than doing what other people are doing in life. Mind you I had 3 kids age 9, 11, 13 in 1989, may be that is why I could finally go on tours and stay on tours, but to be honest, I think the Stones just grew better and better tour by tour - for me...
Quote
Doxa
Philip Norman seems to make the same claim in that Scottish review as he does in his Stones book: that the Stones are different to the Beatles in the sense that they somehow respect more their early material, and thereby, they play them close to the original versions. I find that claim a strange one. For many reasons, of which I think out loud two:
(a) The Beatles stopped touring in 1966 - what the hell can be said anything about their 'attitude' since then?
(b) Through the seventies, The Stones actually had an 'attitude' problem to their prior "Jumping Jack Flash" material. In 1981/82 they seemed a bit soften their attitude, and took some surprise choices to their repertuare, such as "Under My Thumb", "Let's Spend The Night Together", "Time Is On my side" but the way they played them was not particularly trying to stay faithful to the originals - in fact - they started to do that in 1989. And for example, the version they did of "Satisfaction" in 1981/82 sounded almost like a joke. That's attitude problem...
(Norman's book was the first I read of The Stones, and even though it is written nicely (one of teh best Stones books in stylistic wise), what most bothers me most in the book - forget the factual errors - is that the guy is not a fan of their music, and seemingly, this seems to have a consequence that he doesn't really understand something crucial in the Stones: their music. I think the claim he does above is a symptom of that.)
- Doxa
Quote
straycatuk
great Slane picture.never seen it before............. rock n roll !
sc uk