Tell Me :
Talk
Actually, I'd say that statement is pretty much 100% accurate.
Good point, ha ha! That's the reason why I (and I bet most others around here too) lept up Tony Sanchez' book in my early teens. In fact I like both worlds: feeding the myth and de-mythologising too. There are exquisite posters for both purposes around here, and I enjoy all of them (including the Taylorites), as long as they make a good point (or a good story for that matter).
And, bassplayer, in that vein I've enjoyed many of your posts too. I just can't help thinking that your sudden rant is fuelled by the fact that there's not much going on Stones-wise at the moment. Like Adrian-L pointed out lately, that may be the reason for JR's sudden departure too. There are no bones to chew on, and that's a good (or rather sad) reason for some coasting and self destruction on this board, don't you think?
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-13 12:23 by Greenblues.
Perhaps many of the fans on this board who have religiously supported the Stones over decades by buying records, CDs, DVDs and concert tickets, have an expectation that the Stones could release perhaps just one of their many many classic shows. What annoys some people here is that they, unlike numerous other vintage rockers, won't do that. It's like they refuse to acknowledge their own history and deny their past glories.
And they don't owe their fans anything? I'd like to think they had a little more respect for the people who've made them so wealthy.
that's bollocks mate - i love a bit of Taylor Swift, every now and again.
Yeah, BB King was at the North Sea Jazz Festival last week. It took a wheelchair to get him
on and off the stage. But once he was playing, everybody was mesmerized. Just check this out:
Yep, thats it. Nothing to add. What more can I say?
And thats most probably how history will look back at the Stones in a hundred years from now.
Now am I a conservative because I fully agree with you? Honestly, I dont care a shit how people call me. Its my opinion, thats how I feel about the Stones, and if some people would want to call me whatever they like for my opinion, feel free to do so. It just does not matter how people like bassplayer label people like me.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: "Stones Conservatives"
Posted by:
Happy2
()
Date: July 12, 2009 18:02
Quote
Taylor Era
''However, there is a particular subgroup who seem to think that the entire history of the band is encapsulated in one five-year period. They are known as the "Taylorites". They are zealous and most definitely conservative. Neocons in a musical sense? Yes.''
...this is absolutely facken hilarious, and completely full of shite
Actually, I'd say that statement is pretty much 100% accurate.
Re: "Stones Conservatives"
Posted by:
Taylor Era
()
Date: July 12, 2009 18:07
Actually, I'd say that statement is pretty much 100% accurate.
..ya think? Ok, explain yourself. This should be equally hilarious and full of shite.
..ya think? Ok, explain yourself. This should be equally hilarious and full of shite.
Re: "Stones Conservatives"
Posted by:
Happy2
()
Date: July 12, 2009 20:42
Ok, first, I will approach this response with a far better attitude than what you have shown me. Second, I will refrain from making some of the jokes I have made in the past.
The term "Taylorites" is very accurate. It seems there are some people here who only respond to MT related threads. That, in and of itself, is fine, for we all have the right to respond or not respond to whatever we deem fit. This is not a problem. It is when those same people attempt to make others believe that Michael Kevin Taylor was the reason for so much of the success of The Rolling Stones that I feel I must take issue. Yes, Taylor is a great guitarist. Yes, he deserves all the adulation he can get. Beyond that, then as well as now, the Stones are Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, because they wrote the songs. Now, I realize there is a major controversy concerning who wrote what, but at the end of the day, The Glimmer Twins are the ones who make it all go round and round. They are not just the engine in the machine, they are the whole machine. Several people here, I won't mention names, can't seem to get past 1974. Taylor was not a panacea for all things Stones related. I have no proof that he wrote anything, other than VB from Exile.
Which brings me to another point: If Taylor was being held back by being in this band, then when he quit he should have done far more than what he wound up doing. If, indeed, he was the creative force from 1969 to 1974,where are his great songs, his chart topping singles, his warhorses? Where are the Mick Taylor songs that average people hum? The songs that are instantly recognizable? Do any exist? I wish they did!
I'm saying these things not to be mean. I wish he had had the ultimate career post Stones. Something went wrong, and I wish I knew what it was.
When I think of the Stones, I think from beginning to present, all former members included. If this band quite next week, their place in history is secure. That is because of all members, not just one or two here and there. The body of work should not be divided, it should be enjoyed by all. That is true from the earliest TV appearances to ABB. Why limit yourself when you have such a vast array of wonderful songs?
I really hope Mick Taylor gets better and is able to come back and kick everyones ass.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-12 20:44 by Happy2.
The term "Taylorites" is very accurate. It seems there are some people here who only respond to MT related threads. That, in and of itself, is fine, for we all have the right to respond or not respond to whatever we deem fit. This is not a problem. It is when those same people attempt to make others believe that Michael Kevin Taylor was the reason for so much of the success of The Rolling Stones that I feel I must take issue. Yes, Taylor is a great guitarist. Yes, he deserves all the adulation he can get. Beyond that, then as well as now, the Stones are Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, because they wrote the songs. Now, I realize there is a major controversy concerning who wrote what, but at the end of the day, The Glimmer Twins are the ones who make it all go round and round. They are not just the engine in the machine, they are the whole machine. Several people here, I won't mention names, can't seem to get past 1974. Taylor was not a panacea for all things Stones related. I have no proof that he wrote anything, other than VB from Exile.
Which brings me to another point: If Taylor was being held back by being in this band, then when he quit he should have done far more than what he wound up doing. If, indeed, he was the creative force from 1969 to 1974,where are his great songs, his chart topping singles, his warhorses? Where are the Mick Taylor songs that average people hum? The songs that are instantly recognizable? Do any exist? I wish they did!
I'm saying these things not to be mean. I wish he had had the ultimate career post Stones. Something went wrong, and I wish I knew what it was.
When I think of the Stones, I think from beginning to present, all former members included. If this band quite next week, their place in history is secure. That is because of all members, not just one or two here and there. The body of work should not be divided, it should be enjoyed by all. That is true from the earliest TV appearances to ABB. Why limit yourself when you have such a vast array of wonderful songs?
I really hope Mick Taylor gets better and is able to come back and kick everyones ass.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-12 20:44 by Happy2.
Re: "Stones Conservatives"
Posted by:
ChrisM
()
Date: July 12, 2009 20:45
Right on with the quote from "Real Genius"!Quote
ryanpow
You know, there are plenty of brands of decaf out on the market today that taste just as good as the real thing...
Re: "Stones Conservatives"
Posted by:
Taylor Era
()
Date: July 12, 2009 21:53
It is when those same people attempt to make others believe that Michael Kevin Taylor was the reason for so much of the success of The Rolling Stones that I feel I must take issue. Yes, Taylor is a great guitarist. Yes, he deserves all the adulation he can get. Beyond that, then as well as now, the Stones are Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, because they wrote the songs.
.. hey man, Mick Taylor played not only on the Stones premier records - but also on the very records that represent the pinnacle of ALL rock and roll records, by anybody.. If you think that is mere coincidence, fine, but I sure don't. As a live unit the Stones were also at their peak in 72/73, when Taylor was with them, and as with the studio albums - when Taylor was with them their live act was not only at it's pinnacle, it represents the true apex of rock and roll live performances by anybody, ever. Again if you want to believe this was accidental or mere coincidence that this occurred when Taylor was in the band, that is your perogative. Me..I think it is no accident or coindidence whatsoever - Taylor pushed the band to new heights.
Therefore I think Taylor's input was a whole lot deeper than you are giving credit for. Although I could pick any of them, let's look at one example..
The record 'Its Only Rock and Roll' .. MT is all over the place. ''If You Can't Rock Me'' starts that record off with a soring guitar solo from Taylor. "Till the Next Goodbye" is coloured by his 12 string acoustic and although he co-wrote it with Jagger, he was never properly credited.
Taylor's guitar playing on "Time Waits for No One" is legendary, another song he co-wrote but never got credit for, and an effin' masterpiece in my opinion, and his solos on "Dance Little Sister" enliven an otherwise boring track. "If You Really Want to Be My Friend" contains two great solos from MT on an otherwise often overlooked song. "Shorts and Curlies" features some nice Taylor slide, and then the finale - ''Fingerprint File'' - it's Taylor's funky bass lines that propel the track.
This album should probably be called "Mick Taylor and The Rolling Stones" and you could probably say that about Sticky Fingers, too, just for his contributions to Sway and Moonlight Mile, two more songs he co-wrote but never got credit for, and pointed out just so ridiculous statements like "when those same people attempt to make others believe that Michael Kevin Taylor was the reason for so much of the success of The Rolling Stones," would never be uttered.
In fact, the Stones could never have made Sticky Fingers to IOR&R without Mick Taylor, his fingerprints are all over all of them. I mean, Lady Jane and Ruby Tuesday are one thing, but Moonlight Mile, Time Waits For No One, and the extended coda of Cant You Hear Me Knocking, are another thing altogether.
And and if you want to hear real funk, forget 'Dance' from ER (which is disco) and listen to the outro of '100 Years Ago' from GHS where Taylor's solo completely elevates the entire track. Taylor also co-wrote 'Hide Your Love' with Jagger, but was never properly credited. 'Winter' wouldn't be half the song it is without MT's guitar on it.
''If Taylor was being held back by being in this band, then when he quit he should have done far more than what he wound up doing''
He quit because he was bored, dude, and this was in part becasue the band sat on it's ass from fall 1973 to the end of 1974 (when Taylor left) without playing any gigs, and because waiting around for Keith to show up to finish a track and take 12 hours to do it when MT could do it in 10 minutes, was a drag. ..and because he was not getting the songsriting credits so richly deserved, as IOR&R clearly is an example of.
''If, indeed, he was the creative force from 1969 to 1974,where are his great songs, his chart topping singles, his warhorses? Where are the Mick Taylor songs that average people hum? The songs that are instantly recognizable? Do any exist? I wish they did!''
... well, let me put it this way; the Stones sure as hell have never written any songs in the calibre of what they wrote in the Taylor period, ever since, have they? There is a reaon that Sticky to Exile and even to IOR&R is redeemed as the Stones glory years, and the Emotional Rescue to 2009 period is not - and Mick Taylor is a HUGE part of why that is a fact.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-12 21:55 by Taylor Era.
.. hey man, Mick Taylor played not only on the Stones premier records - but also on the very records that represent the pinnacle of ALL rock and roll records, by anybody.. If you think that is mere coincidence, fine, but I sure don't. As a live unit the Stones were also at their peak in 72/73, when Taylor was with them, and as with the studio albums - when Taylor was with them their live act was not only at it's pinnacle, it represents the true apex of rock and roll live performances by anybody, ever. Again if you want to believe this was accidental or mere coincidence that this occurred when Taylor was in the band, that is your perogative. Me..I think it is no accident or coindidence whatsoever - Taylor pushed the band to new heights.
Therefore I think Taylor's input was a whole lot deeper than you are giving credit for. Although I could pick any of them, let's look at one example..
The record 'Its Only Rock and Roll' .. MT is all over the place. ''If You Can't Rock Me'' starts that record off with a soring guitar solo from Taylor. "Till the Next Goodbye" is coloured by his 12 string acoustic and although he co-wrote it with Jagger, he was never properly credited.
Taylor's guitar playing on "Time Waits for No One" is legendary, another song he co-wrote but never got credit for, and an effin' masterpiece in my opinion, and his solos on "Dance Little Sister" enliven an otherwise boring track. "If You Really Want to Be My Friend" contains two great solos from MT on an otherwise often overlooked song. "Shorts and Curlies" features some nice Taylor slide, and then the finale - ''Fingerprint File'' - it's Taylor's funky bass lines that propel the track.
This album should probably be called "Mick Taylor and The Rolling Stones" and you could probably say that about Sticky Fingers, too, just for his contributions to Sway and Moonlight Mile, two more songs he co-wrote but never got credit for, and pointed out just so ridiculous statements like "when those same people attempt to make others believe that Michael Kevin Taylor was the reason for so much of the success of The Rolling Stones," would never be uttered.
In fact, the Stones could never have made Sticky Fingers to IOR&R without Mick Taylor, his fingerprints are all over all of them. I mean, Lady Jane and Ruby Tuesday are one thing, but Moonlight Mile, Time Waits For No One, and the extended coda of Cant You Hear Me Knocking, are another thing altogether.
And and if you want to hear real funk, forget 'Dance' from ER (which is disco) and listen to the outro of '100 Years Ago' from GHS where Taylor's solo completely elevates the entire track. Taylor also co-wrote 'Hide Your Love' with Jagger, but was never properly credited. 'Winter' wouldn't be half the song it is without MT's guitar on it.
''If Taylor was being held back by being in this band, then when he quit he should have done far more than what he wound up doing''
He quit because he was bored, dude, and this was in part becasue the band sat on it's ass from fall 1973 to the end of 1974 (when Taylor left) without playing any gigs, and because waiting around for Keith to show up to finish a track and take 12 hours to do it when MT could do it in 10 minutes, was a drag. ..and because he was not getting the songsriting credits so richly deserved, as IOR&R clearly is an example of.
''If, indeed, he was the creative force from 1969 to 1974,where are his great songs, his chart topping singles, his warhorses? Where are the Mick Taylor songs that average people hum? The songs that are instantly recognizable? Do any exist? I wish they did!''
... well, let me put it this way; the Stones sure as hell have never written any songs in the calibre of what they wrote in the Taylor period, ever since, have they? There is a reaon that Sticky to Exile and even to IOR&R is redeemed as the Stones glory years, and the Emotional Rescue to 2009 period is not - and Mick Taylor is a HUGE part of why that is a fact.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-12 21:55 by Taylor Era.
Re: "Stones Conservatives"
Posted by:
Happy2
()
Date: July 12, 2009 22:07
I see that you failed to mention Some Girls, you skipped right over it. Does it not contain some great songs? I think it does!
''If, indeed, he was the creative force from 1969 to 1974,where are his great songs, his chart topping singles, his warhorses? Where are the Mick Taylor songs that average people hum? The songs that are instantly recognizable? Do any exist? I wish they did!''
... well, let me put it this way; the Stones sure as hell have never written any songs in the calibre of what they wrote in the Taylor period, ever since, have they? There is a reaon that Sticky to Exile and even to IOR&R is redeemed as the Stones glory years, and the Emotional Rescue to 2009 period is not - and Mick Taylor is a HUGE part of why that is a fact.
You totally failed to answer the question asked. Spin doctors working some major OT here. Please try and answer the question. I am not talking about Stones song writing here, I am talking about MT's.
Where are the songs?
''If, indeed, he was the creative force from 1969 to 1974,where are his great songs, his chart topping singles, his warhorses? Where are the Mick Taylor songs that average people hum? The songs that are instantly recognizable? Do any exist? I wish they did!''
... well, let me put it this way; the Stones sure as hell have never written any songs in the calibre of what they wrote in the Taylor period, ever since, have they? There is a reaon that Sticky to Exile and even to IOR&R is redeemed as the Stones glory years, and the Emotional Rescue to 2009 period is not - and Mick Taylor is a HUGE part of why that is a fact.
You totally failed to answer the question asked. Spin doctors working some major OT here. Please try and answer the question. I am not talking about Stones song writing here, I am talking about MT's.
Where are the songs?
Re: "Stones Conservatives"
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: July 12, 2009 23:30
Reading the subject line, I thought this thread was about a new discoverd boot from the early 70ties.....shit
__________________________
__________________________
Re: "Stones Conservatives"
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: July 13, 2009 00:14
No, it's about how Mick Taylor failed to go on to reach the status of a guitar player as well as a solo artist like Santana.
Re: "Stones Conservatives"
Posted by:
lucasd4
()
Date: July 13, 2009 01:47
Quote
Taylor Era
In fact, the Stones could never have made Sticky Fingers to IOR&R without Mick Taylor, his fingerprints are all over all of them. I mean, Lady Jane and Ruby Tuesday are one thing, but Moonlight Mile, Time Waits For No One, and the extended coda of Cant You Hear Me Knocking, are another thing altogether.
I notice you don't mention the two masterpieces they made before Sticky Fingers.....Beggar's Banquet (100% Taylor free) and Let It Bleed (80% Taylor free) Nothing Taylor ever played on tops the best from those two albums.
Re: "Stones Conservatives"
Posted by:
sweet neo con
()
Date: July 13, 2009 04:14
I tried to read most of this thread....but the initial post didn't seem focused.
Some people want the "vaults" opened...and some are content with the tons of unofficial releases
that are out there. (personally..I'm open to anything new...whether it's official or unofficial....it's all a BONUS to me!)
Not sure where the terms "conservative" & "neo-con" fit in.
And yes it seems as though the term "conservative" was intended to be pejorative....
But clarity is needed.... Are "stones conservatives" the ones that think the vaults should be opened or not?
obviously i don't consider "conservative" to be a bad or pejorative word but
obviously many liberals do.....and some liberals even consider the term "liberal" to be pejorative too...which
is why they needed to re-name themselve "progressives".
anyway.....bassplayer617....what does "going concern" mean?
IORR............but I like it!
Some people want the "vaults" opened...and some are content with the tons of unofficial releases
that are out there. (personally..I'm open to anything new...whether it's official or unofficial....it's all a BONUS to me!)
Not sure where the terms "conservative" & "neo-con" fit in.
And yes it seems as though the term "conservative" was intended to be pejorative....
But clarity is needed.... Are "stones conservatives" the ones that think the vaults should be opened or not?
obviously i don't consider "conservative" to be a bad or pejorative word but
obviously many liberals do.....and some liberals even consider the term "liberal" to be pejorative too...which
is why they needed to re-name themselve "progressives".
anyway.....bassplayer617....what does "going concern" mean?
IORR............but I like it!
Re: "Stones Conservatives"
Posted by:
Greenblues
()
Date: July 13, 2009 11:43
Quote
Sir Craven of Cottage
It's the mythology that makes the Stones the band they are. Great as the music is (a nd it is amazing) if you take away the stories and legends they are less interesting. Let's face it the Stones are on of the greatest soaps on the planet (and I mean that positively). We don't need to de-mythologise anything.
Good point, ha ha! That's the reason why I (and I bet most others around here too) lept up Tony Sanchez' book in my early teens. In fact I like both worlds: feeding the myth and de-mythologising too. There are exquisite posters for both purposes around here, and I enjoy all of them (including the Taylorites), as long as they make a good point (or a good story for that matter).
And, bassplayer, in that vein I've enjoyed many of your posts too. I just can't help thinking that your sudden rant is fuelled by the fact that there's not much going on Stones-wise at the moment. Like Adrian-L pointed out lately, that may be the reason for JR's sudden departure too. There are no bones to chew on, and that's a good (or rather sad) reason for some coasting and self destruction on this board, don't you think?
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-13 12:23 by Greenblues.
Re: "Stones Conservatives"
Posted by:
ablett
()
Date: July 13, 2009 11:46
"hey man, Mick Taylor played not only on the Stones premier records - but also on the very records that represent the pinnacle of ALL rock and roll records, by anybody"
"when Taylor was with them their live act was not only at it's pinnacle, it represents the true apex of rock and roll live performances by anybody, ever"
Now thats not entirely true is it dear boy.
The above statements outline the whole problem with 'Taylorites'
"when Taylor was with them their live act was not only at it's pinnacle, it represents the true apex of rock and roll live performances by anybody, ever"
Now thats not entirely true is it dear boy.
The above statements outline the whole problem with 'Taylorites'
Re: "Stones Conservatives"
Posted by:
Father Ted
()
Date: July 13, 2009 12:27
Quote
bassplayer617
There's a slew of them here, and you know who you are. IF Mick (or his agents) peruse forums like this, then I'm not surprised that he doesn't bother to release the contents of the so-called "vaults". Why? Simply because so many of you no longer consider the band to be a "going concern". The three-year Bigger Bang tour, the largest-grossing tour of all time, is already forgotten.
The simple fact of the matter is, he (and the band) don't owe you anything. Nothing. Nada. Some of you seem to regard the outtakes and such as some sort of birthright. That is complete bullsh*t, and you know it. YET, you still lap up these bootlegs of unreleased half-finished demos, but somehow say that they should've quit twenty years ago.
Does this profile fit any of the ambulance chasers here? Yeah, I think it does.
Perhaps many of the fans on this board who have religiously supported the Stones over decades by buying records, CDs, DVDs and concert tickets, have an expectation that the Stones could release perhaps just one of their many many classic shows. What annoys some people here is that they, unlike numerous other vintage rockers, won't do that. It's like they refuse to acknowledge their own history and deny their past glories.
And they don't owe their fans anything? I'd like to think they had a little more respect for the people who've made them so wealthy.
Re: "Stones Conservatives"
Posted by:
Rip This
()
Date: July 13, 2009 15:14
.....I kind of like the cooky "My Sweet Neocon"....does that count?
Re: "Stones Conservatives"
Posted by:
rootsman
()
Date: July 13, 2009 16:34
"Conservative" or not:
The Rolling Stones of 1963-1974 were the greatest band ever!!!
The Rolling Stones of 1975-1983 were great!!
The Rolling Stones of the last 25 years were/are good!
The Rolling Stones of 1963-1974 were the greatest band ever!!!
The Rolling Stones of 1975-1983 were great!!
The Rolling Stones of the last 25 years were/are good!
Re: "Stones Conservatives"
Posted by:
Adrian-L
()
Date: July 13, 2009 16:56
Quote
bassplayer617
They are known as the "Taylorites". They are zealous and most definitely conservative. Neocons in a musical sense? Yes.
that's bollocks mate - i love a bit of Taylor Swift, every now and again.
Re: "Stones Conservatives"
Posted by:
marcovandereijk
()
Date: July 13, 2009 17:08
Quote
AngieBlue
And let's face it, the blues guys they admired as kids that got them into music in the first place mostly played right up to the end of their lives. Elvis did, even had the number 1 single that week, Muddy did, Howlin' Wolf did, Bo Diddley did, etc. I honestly don't see that the Stones will be any different in that respect.
Yeah, BB King was at the North Sea Jazz Festival last week. It took a wheelchair to get him
on and off the stage. But once he was playing, everybody was mesmerized. Just check this out:
Re: "Stones Conservatives"
Posted by:
Happy2
()
Date: July 13, 2009 17:41
The basic thought process for the "Taylorites" is that all that was before, and all that came after Mick Taylor was/is useless. They totally disregard anything not including MT.
I kind of feel sorry for their narrow minded views.....they are missing out on some good stuff.
I kind of feel sorry for their narrow minded views.....they are missing out on some good stuff.
Re: "Stones Conservatives"
Posted by:
Happy2
()
Date: July 13, 2009 17:45
Taylor Era:
... well, let me put it this way; the Stones sure as hell have never written any songs in the calibre of what they wrote in the Taylor period, ever since, have they? There is a reaon that Sticky to Exile and even to IOR&R is redeemed as the Stones glory years, and the Emotional Rescue to 2009 period is not - and Mick Taylor is a HUGE part of why that is a fact.
You still haven't answered the question. Where are the songs?
... well, let me put it this way; the Stones sure as hell have never written any songs in the calibre of what they wrote in the Taylor period, ever since, have they? There is a reaon that Sticky to Exile and even to IOR&R is redeemed as the Stones glory years, and the Emotional Rescue to 2009 period is not - and Mick Taylor is a HUGE part of why that is a fact.
You still haven't answered the question. Where are the songs?
Re: "Stones Conservatives"
Posted by:
AngieBlue
()
Date: July 13, 2009 19:44
Fantasic footage of BB. Thanks for posting it marcovandereijk!
Re: "Stones Conservatives"
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: July 13, 2009 21:17
Hey mannnnn, where are the songs, mannnn?
Re: "Stones Conservatives"
Posted by:
alimente
()
Date: July 13, 2009 23:32
Quote
rootsman
"Conservative" or not:
The Rolling Stones of 1963-1974 were the greatest band ever!!!
The Rolling Stones of 1975-1983 were great!!
The Rolling Stones of the last 25 years were/are good!
Yep, thats it. Nothing to add. What more can I say?
And thats most probably how history will look back at the Stones in a hundred years from now.
Now am I a conservative because I fully agree with you? Honestly, I dont care a shit how people call me. Its my opinion, thats how I feel about the Stones, and if some people would want to call me whatever they like for my opinion, feel free to do so. It just does not matter how people like bassplayer label people like me.
Re: "Stones Conservatives"
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: July 14, 2009 00:15
As a "conservative" I go one step further ............
The Rolling Stones of 1968-1973 were amazing
__________________________
The Rolling Stones of 1968-1973 were amazing
__________________________
Re: "Stones Conservatives"
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: July 14, 2009 05:27
EXCELLENT-
Aftermath
Beggars Banquet
Let It Bleed
Sticky Fingers
Exile On Main Street
Goats Head Soup
Sticky Fingers
Tattoo You
GREAT -
Out Of Our Heads
Black And Blue
Undercover
Voodoo Lounge
Bridges To Babylon
A Bigger Bang
GOOD -
The Rolling Stones
It's Only Rock'N'Roll
Emotional Rescue
Of course, it changes often. But that's usually how it sits with me. I guess I'm across the board.
Aftermath
Beggars Banquet
Let It Bleed
Sticky Fingers
Exile On Main Street
Goats Head Soup
Sticky Fingers
Tattoo You
GREAT -
Out Of Our Heads
Black And Blue
Undercover
Voodoo Lounge
Bridges To Babylon
A Bigger Bang
GOOD -
The Rolling Stones
It's Only Rock'N'Roll
Emotional Rescue
Of course, it changes often. But that's usually how it sits with me. I guess I'm across the board.
Re: "Stones Conservatives"
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: July 14, 2009 12:23
Hi Skipstone, is there a reason for neglecting SOME GIRLS?
- Doxa
- Doxa
Re: "Stones Conservatives"
Posted by:
ablett
()
Date: July 14, 2009 12:37
"GOOD -
The Rolling Stones"
Get outta here!!
The Rolling Stones"
Get outta here!!
Re: "Stones Conservatives"
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: July 14, 2009 13:00
Why do the early albums not get considered?
Now!
Decembers' Children
Between the Buttons
12x5 or N. 2
Satanic
Now!
Decembers' Children
Between the Buttons
12x5 or N. 2
Satanic
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1863
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10