Tell Me :
Talk
i can see chinatown from my window, if that helps....
well, then elmer said it best
don't they pronounce it lubbish?
Thanks for the technical info, skipstone. What I'm getting at was that a lot of the recordings for ABB were done at sessions where, for various reasons, the entire band were unable to be present in the same room at the same time. That wasnt the case in previous sessions.
Like a Monkees reunion tour??
IORR............but I like it!
It appears 'band' has some mystic meaning beyond a group of musicians who perform music together for some around here!
Virtual Corporation according to Keith in the Four Flicks documentary.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Are the Stones really a "band" anymore?
Posted by:
mryapp
()
Date: May 22, 2009 19:06
Elmer Fudd pronounces it "wubbish".
Re: Are the Stones really a "band" anymore?
Posted by:
T&A
()
Date: May 22, 2009 19:43
Quote
open-g
lady jayne said it best when she asked a question?
well I did add "+ the whole post" , didn't I?
what is rubbish anyway?
I don't believe this needs to explained. if you were from, lets say China, I'd give it a go.
the definition of what is a band or not, would rather keep the talk on topic.
i can see chinatown from my window, if that helps....
Re: Are the Stones really a "band" anymore?
Posted by:
T&A
()
Date: May 22, 2009 19:44
Quote
mryapp
Elmer Fudd pronounces it "wubbish".
well, then elmer said it best
Re: Are the Stones really a "band" anymore?
Posted by:
open-g
()
Date: May 22, 2009 20:02
Quote
T&AQuote
open-g
lady jayne said it best when she asked a question?
well I did add "+ the whole post" , didn't I?
what is rubbish anyway?
I don't believe this needs to explained. if you were from, lets say China, I'd give it a go.
the definition of what is a band or not, would rather keep the talk on topic.
i can see chinatown from my window, if that helps....
don't they pronounce it lubbish?
Re: Are the Stones really a "band" anymore?
Posted by:
phd
()
Date: May 22, 2009 20:19
Is that an academic question ? Don't beleive it being so, I obviously think they are. A Tour Band. And that is enough for me.
Re: Are the Stones really a "band" anymore?
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: May 22, 2009 21:15
Gazza - A Bigger Bang is the first album The Rolling Stones recorded on Pro Tools exclusively. Pro Tools has been around since the early 1990s so it's possible they edited/overdubbed on Pro Tools after uploading the 2" multi-track masters, if not overdubbing most likely and probably editing, for Voodoo, Stripped and Bridges and what turned out to be the Licks sessions.
And who knows how the live albums were recorded.
And who knows how the live albums were recorded.
Re: Are the Stones really a "band" anymore?
Posted by:
ghostryder13
()
Date: May 23, 2009 00:07
are they a band in the sense of needing to put out a hit album and single on a regular basis in fear of being forgotten the answer is no. they became legends long ago and are basically a touring band who put out an occasional album to satisfy their loyal fan base
Re: Are the Stones really a "band" anymore?
Posted by:
Ringo
()
Date: May 23, 2009 00:51
I think The Stones should do what's natural for them. And that's what I think they do.
Re: Are the Stones really a "band" anymore?
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: May 23, 2009 01:50
Quote
skipstone
Gazza - A Bigger Bang is the first album The Rolling Stones recorded on Pro Tools exclusively. Pro Tools has been around since the early 1990s so it's possible they edited/overdubbed on Pro Tools after uploading the 2" multi-track masters, if not overdubbing most likely and probably editing, for Voodoo, Stripped and Bridges and what turned out to be the Licks sessions.
And who knows how the live albums were recorded.
Thanks for the technical info, skipstone. What I'm getting at was that a lot of the recordings for ABB were done at sessions where, for various reasons, the entire band were unable to be present in the same room at the same time. That wasnt the case in previous sessions.
Re: Are the Stones really a "band" anymore?
Posted by:
open-g
()
Date: May 23, 2009 04:47
And to add - it was a makeshift studio in the living room. home-recording so to say.
btw, where was it at?
btw, where was it at?
Re: Are the Stones really a "band" anymore?
Posted by:
boogie69
()
Date: May 23, 2009 08:04
They are more business than band now, and have been since Steel Wheels.
Re: Are the Stones really a "band" anymore?
Posted by:
sweet neo con
()
Date: May 23, 2009 15:24
Quote
ghostryder13
are they a band in the sense of needing to put out a hit album and single on a regular basis in fear of being forgotten the answer is no. they became legends long ago and are basically a touring band who put out an occasional album to satisfy their loyal fan base
Like a Monkees reunion tour??
IORR............but I like it!
Re: Are the Stones really a "band" anymore?
Posted by:
mryapp
()
Date: May 23, 2009 15:40
Well, if they are no longer a band, then just what the Hell are they?
Re: Are the Stones really a "band" anymore?
Posted by:
Lady Jayne
()
Date: May 23, 2009 16:29
Quote
mryapp
Well, if they are no longer a band, then just what the Hell are they?
It appears 'band' has some mystic meaning beyond a group of musicians who perform music together for some around here!
Re: Are the Stones really a "band" anymore?
Posted by:
mryapp
()
Date: May 23, 2009 16:32
Right.Maybe someday we will have understanding.
Re: Are the Stones really a "band" anymore?
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: May 23, 2009 17:07
howzabout we agree they certainly aren't what most reasonable would consider a "working band." that "work" for everyone?
Re: Are the Stones really a "band" anymore?
Posted by:
severaltimesregistered
()
Date: May 23, 2009 22:13
UrbanSteel wrote
A Bigger Bang is not a "Rolling Stones" band album .
It is a Jagger and Richards album , the have recorded the whole album , and they told Ronnie how and what to play and for Charlie was a basic drum line done by Mick .You can say that Ronnie and Charlie on this album are session musicians , they are not from the begin on the album , only for the work they are told to do.
I can not understand...How is it possible that Mick teaches/shows/commands to Charlie Boy Watts what to play as a drummer??. How can Charlie admit it?. It does not seem logical nor respectful precisely. Where is the respect of Mick? Where is the proud of Charlie?. By the way...is there something about drumming that may be tought by Mick to Charlie??
A Bigger Bang is not a "Rolling Stones" band album .
It is a Jagger and Richards album , the have recorded the whole album , and they told Ronnie how and what to play and for Charlie was a basic drum line done by Mick .You can say that Ronnie and Charlie on this album are session musicians , they are not from the begin on the album , only for the work they are told to do.
I can not understand...How is it possible that Mick teaches/shows/commands to Charlie Boy Watts what to play as a drummer??. How can Charlie admit it?. It does not seem logical nor respectful precisely. Where is the respect of Mick? Where is the proud of Charlie?. By the way...is there something about drumming that may be tought by Mick to Charlie??
Re: Are the Stones really a "band" anymore?
Posted by:
ghostryder13
()
Date: May 24, 2009 06:48
lol oh god no btw why did the monkees ever need davy jones?Quote
sweet neo conQuote
ghostryder13
are they a band in the sense of needing to put out a hit album and single on a regular basis in fear of being forgotten the answer is no. they became legends long ago and are basically a touring band who put out an occasional album to satisfy their loyal fan base
Like a Monkees reunion tour??
Re: Are the Stones really a "band" anymore?
Posted by:
Slick
()
Date: May 24, 2009 08:08
mick, keith, charlie, ronnie, and bobby keys belongs to rolling stones, everyone else = vegas stones lolQuote
Doxa
But is the real Rolling Stones only the business heart of the band or an inner circle gentleman club: Mick, Keith, Charlie & Ron? If we are talking about the band as a musical entity, there are so many musicians when the Stones hit the road. For example, does Darryl Jones belong to the band? What about Chuck Leavell? Blondie? Lisa? etc. I think the question what actually IS The Rolling Stones today is a good question. If we are talking about the effect to the band I think musically Chuck Leavell is more important than Ronnie Wood, and decisionwise Cohl is at least equal to what Andrew Loog Oldman once was.
I think the 'actual' Rolling Stones can be 'determined' solely in businesswise to be described in corporation terms. Something to the effect that Mick and Keith lead the business, with Charlie's eternal support, and Ronnie is a silent share-holder - get some profits but has no actual power to decision-making. All the rest are business partners and employers, etc.
And of course, one way to see them as a band is to see them as a "boy band" (with its own nostalgic flavor) - The "Stones" is a a four-member PR unity appearing in premieres, interviews, pictures, etc. In this sense The Rolling Stones do not have a bass player which is quite incredible fact within the scheme of a rock and roll band.
- Doxa
Re: Are the Stones really a "band" anymore?
Posted by:
Dan
()
Date: May 24, 2009 23:18
Quote
mryapp
Well, if they are no longer a band, then just what the Hell are they?
Virtual Corporation according to Keith in the Four Flicks documentary.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
alexander paul , Broesel2404 , DandelionPowderman , django , EJM , Eleanor Rigby , Handova , jsz1002 , PaintMonkeyManBlack , poti , rebelhipi , roryg , silkcut1978_ , sonnystitt , steffialicia , stone3009 , thespaceman , UGK56 , z
Guests:
2016
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10