Tell Me :
Talk
Hey, I've seen a few Stones shows since '73 (don't know the numbers) but I've never missed one U2 show.
yeah, it's true - never seen them live and never missed it.
now lets spread the gospel what's the best stage ever!
The coolest, hippest, never been done before Stage is a...............insert drum roll....
Theatre Stage!*........................................................................................................................... *Arena stages may also count!
I think I know what you mean but, The Grateful Dead could be 'a way of life' too.
There are very few absolutes in music Gazza. Yes I'm sure U2 has some rockers and yes The Stones have their share of pop but overall bands like The Beatles, U2, The Eagles etc. are more pop and bands like Zeppelin, The Stones, and The Who are more rock.
This may be splitting hairs but I think Streets Of Love is more of a rock ballad than pop, kind of like one of Aerosmith's ballads. To me pop would be something like Ruby Tuesday or Let's Spend The Night Together but again maybe I am just splitting hairs.
You're right on the money about 'absolutes', which somewhat proves the point I'm trying to make.
As I've mentioned before, its pointless. There's only two types of music that are worth discussing - ie, whether its good or whether its bad.
In fact, describing the Stones as a 'rock' band actually sells them short. They're MUCH more diverse than that and always have been.
well I meant 'opinion isnt definitive', but anyway...
You judge the quality of anything (food, music, tv programmes, footballers - whatever) - by your own personal taste or opinion. There's no other way of defining it. Its ENTIRELY subjective.
No. Thats factual. Not opinion. Whether you PREFER it is subjective.
I agree 100% but, also in this case, there's no sense to compare the two bands.
If I have to do a comparison, I can waste my time to compare Aftermath with Between the buttons, Exile with Sticky fingers.
I mean that the Stones can olnly be compared with themselves or with other artists who made the history in their specific sector: James Dean, Marlon Brando, Mozart, Michelangelo, Hyeronimus Bosh.
The Stones were innovative, they broke the rules and took their risk importing the blues in Europe and spreading it to the mass but, most important, they invented the rock music with Jumpin' Jack Flash, the rock anthem.
Who pretends to compare the Stones with a group like the U2 is an ignorant, in the sense that he ignores what the Stones have represented in rock history.
Before doing useless comparisons, I would suggest to everybody to prepare the video of JJF, the one with the warriors make-up, press play, watch the video.
This represent the yell of a whole generation; JJF is the rebel-yell, the revolution in three notes.
Writing JJF the Stones have demonstrated that you don't need to be a political fanatic like some US bands from the West Coast (remember the MC5?) and, nowadays, Bono, the Clash before him; what you have to say you can say it with three notes, no need to lecture the audience with your maoist pocket book.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-02 04:18 by straycat58.
ok, West from Manhattan. I meant the West Coast bands like Jefferson and CSNY plus the MC5 that supported the Black Panthers.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-02 02:30 by straycat58.
Ouch,not in their top 20? Subjective indeed. I'd put it in my Top 5 Zep songs.
"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"
Rank "One" together with Wish you were here, Shine on you crazy, Stairway to heaven - Ughhhh
What a lack of quality knowledge - I would sell you a book called "Music for dummies".
I only need to look in this thread if I want to find out anything about dummies.
I was probably listening to Pink Floyd and Led Zep when you were in short trousers and own every album ever made by both of them, so spare me the quality music lecture. Fine bands in their day, but "Shine On" is about eight minutes too long. A great song extended into over indulgent wankery.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-02 17:07 by Gazza.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Stones vs U2
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: August 1, 2009 00:16
A Stones fan complaining about another band's corporate ass-kissing?
As for politics. There's a lot more partisan politics on the last Stones record than there is on U2's.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-01 00:18 by Gazza.
As for politics. There's a lot more partisan politics on the last Stones record than there is on U2's.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-01 00:18 by Gazza.
Re: Stones vs U2
Posted by:
melillo
()
Date: August 1, 2009 00:51
and lets not forget U2 is doing all this with all original members
Re: Stones vs U2
Posted by:
open-g
()
Date: August 1, 2009 01:20
Quote
tat2you
lol.....i have seen 47 stones show 7 u2 shows ...only one u2 show was good.......all 47 stonres shows where great some better...but all great
Hey, I've seen a few Stones shows since '73 (don't know the numbers) but I've never missed one U2 show.
yeah, it's true - never seen them live and never missed it.
now lets spread the gospel what's the best stage ever!
The coolest, hippest, never been done before Stage is a...............insert drum roll....
Theatre Stage!*........................................................................................................................... *Arena stages may also count!
Re: Stones vs U2
Posted by:
CBII
()
Date: August 1, 2009 01:52
Hey man, what's the big deal. A person has the right to enjoy whatever they like. Someone thinks U2 put on a better show. It's not the end of the world.
CBII
CBII
Re: Stones vs U2
Posted by:
maumau
()
Date: August 1, 2009 15:16
i stopped following u2 after seeing the zooropa show in Verona with Pearl Jam as opening act (stealing the show)
Since then their music does not thrill me anymore. I could say the same for many stones songs of the last 20 years.
But, you know, the Stones i am in love with. U2 I like to spin old records from time to time and remember the joshua tour, but that's all.
Since then their music does not thrill me anymore. I could say the same for many stones songs of the last 20 years.
But, you know, the Stones i am in love with. U2 I like to spin old records from time to time and remember the joshua tour, but that's all.
Re: Stones vs U2
Posted by:
straycat58
()
Date: August 1, 2009 16:27
I think this comparison has no sense; seesm to be back in 1964 at Fort Wayne when Mick was asked "How you compare with the Beatles?". "We don't compare at all" was his wise reply.
Unless we all need excuses to divide in groups fighting for what?
As Oldham wrote on the first LP, the Rolling Stones are more than just a group, they're a WAY OF LIFE. The same coudn't be written from any other group, U2, Dylan, Springsteen, Jackson or Coldplay.
I understand that for the youngers the Stones are no longer a way of life, but they have been it for most of the fans here in their fifties and sixties.
I even chose my first girlfriends because of their resemblance to Anita or Marianne; I don't even know if Bono has a girlfriend or a boyfriend.
Unless we all need excuses to divide in groups fighting for what?
As Oldham wrote on the first LP, the Rolling Stones are more than just a group, they're a WAY OF LIFE. The same coudn't be written from any other group, U2, Dylan, Springsteen, Jackson or Coldplay.
I understand that for the youngers the Stones are no longer a way of life, but they have been it for most of the fans here in their fifties and sixties.
I even chose my first girlfriends because of their resemblance to Anita or Marianne; I don't even know if Bono has a girlfriend or a boyfriend.
Re: Stones vs U2
Posted by:
maumau
()
Date: August 1, 2009 18:12
The comparison between stones and u2 is good on the megalithic turn they took as live set and mammoth tour makers
Musically I think that Unforgettable, Joshua and Rattle (think of Hallulujah here she comes - bside of desire for instance) have some resemblance in the approach to american music tradition that fuelled the stones at their top (68, 69 etc).
The collision on Silver & Gold being a great moment
But neither Unforgettable nor Joshua nor (of course) Rattle imho can compete with let it bleed or exile in terms of relevance or impact in the history of music.
Joshua comes close
Stones, imho, survived better and longer by being less intellectual in their approach to rock and roll
Musically I think that Unforgettable, Joshua and Rattle (think of Hallulujah here she comes - bside of desire for instance) have some resemblance in the approach to american music tradition that fuelled the stones at their top (68, 69 etc).
The collision on Silver & Gold being a great moment
But neither Unforgettable nor Joshua nor (of course) Rattle imho can compete with let it bleed or exile in terms of relevance or impact in the history of music.
Joshua comes close
Stones, imho, survived better and longer by being less intellectual in their approach to rock and roll
Re: Stones vs U2
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: August 1, 2009 19:45
The relevance of U2 in the world today is because of Bono's political activity - not because of their music.
Their music is on average basis - not bad, neither anything special. Most of it is easy going music - nothing groundbreaking, neither in the beginning.
Stones brought the blues to Europe and made people aware of that music - shall not claim they were the very first, but they were the first to bring out of the small clubs to the big audience.
This I would call a groundbreaking thing in european music history, because it changed european music from the Beatles and others skiffle music to the blues music played afterwards by fx. Cream and others and the rest of the history we know very well.
Their music is on average basis - not bad, neither anything special. Most of it is easy going music - nothing groundbreaking, neither in the beginning.
Stones brought the blues to Europe and made people aware of that music - shall not claim they were the very first, but they were the first to bring out of the small clubs to the big audience.
This I would call a groundbreaking thing in european music history, because it changed european music from the Beatles and others skiffle music to the blues music played afterwards by fx. Cream and others and the rest of the history we know very well.
Re: Stones vs U2
Posted by:
deadegad
()
Date: August 1, 2009 20:02
Quote
straycat58
I think this comparison has no sense; seesm to be back in 1964 at Fort Wayne when Mick was asked "How you compare with the Beatles?". "We don't compare at all" was his wise reply.
Unless we all need excuses to divide in groups fighting for what?
As Oldham wrote on the first LP, the Rolling Stones are more than just a group, they're a WAY OF LIFE. The same coudn't be written from any other group, U2, Dylan, Springsteen, Jackson or Coldplay.
I understand that for the youngers the Stones are no longer a way of life, but they have been it for most of the fans here in their fifties and sixties.
I even chose my first girlfriends because of their resemblance to Anita or Marianne; I don't even know if Bono has a girlfriend or a boyfriend.
I think I know what you mean but, The Grateful Dead could be 'a way of life' too.
Re: Stones vs U2
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: August 1, 2009 20:13
The Stones socialize a whole lot more. The individual personalities are known all across the music community, because through the years they have participated in zillions of projects, sat in on albums, jammed, hopped up on stage. They are all funny in interviews, on TV. I mention this because it underscores the difference between U2 and Stones; one a huge, but rather secluded, fenced off conglomerate, versus the Stones, as social force.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-02 14:32 by Palace Revolution 2000.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-02 14:32 by Palace Revolution 2000.
Re: Stones vs U2
Posted by:
MKjan
()
Date: August 1, 2009 21:37
I think I know what you mean but, The Grateful Dead could be 'a way of life' too.
Jerry's kids....
Jerry's kids....
Re: Stones vs U2
Posted by:
RSbestbandever
()
Date: August 1, 2009 21:41
Quote
maumau
The comparison between stones and u2 is good on the megalithic turn they took as live set and mammoth tour makers
Musically I think that Unforgettable, Joshua and Rattle (think of Hallulujah here she comes - bside of desire for instance) have some resemblance in the approach to american music tradition that fuelled the stones at their top (68, 69 etc).
The collision on Silver & Gold being a great moment
But neither Unforgettable nor Joshua nor (of course) Rattle imho can compete with let it bleed or exile in terms of relevance or impact in the history of music.
Joshua comes close
Stones, imho, survived better and longer by being less intellectual in their approach to rock and roll[/quote
Excellent post and well said.
Mike
Re: Stones vs U2
Posted by:
FrankM
()
Date: August 1, 2009 23:20
Quote
GazzaQuote
carlostones10
Who is better? Abba or Stones? Come on. U2? You can talk U2 or B´52, Duran Duran, Talking Heads, Men at Work but NEVER U2 or Stones.
The Stones are the greatest rock and roll band in the world. U2 is only a good pop band.
Jesus wept. The old infantile pop v rock nonsense. U2 are a "pop" band? What the f**k is "Streets of Love", then?
There are very few absolutes in music Gazza. Yes I'm sure U2 has some rockers and yes The Stones have their share of pop but overall bands like The Beatles, U2, The Eagles etc. are more pop and bands like Zeppelin, The Stones, and The Who are more rock.
This may be splitting hairs but I think Streets Of Love is more of a rock ballad than pop, kind of like one of Aerosmith's ballads. To me pop would be something like Ruby Tuesday or Let's Spend The Night Together but again maybe I am just splitting hairs.
Re: Stones vs U2
Posted by:
FrankM
()
Date: August 1, 2009 23:25
To me it would be a better debate if we were comparing U2 to Springsteen as they are around the same level talent wise although I would say Springsteen is better. To me The Stones are in the upper echelon along with The Beatles, Dylan etc..
It's pointless comparing them from a live performance standpoint these days since it is not a level playing field. U2 is much younger and in better health. It's as unfair as compairing the Steel Wheel Stones to what U2 will look like fifteen years from now.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-01 23:30 by FrankM.
It's pointless comparing them from a live performance standpoint these days since it is not a level playing field. U2 is much younger and in better health. It's as unfair as compairing the Steel Wheel Stones to what U2 will look like fifteen years from now.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-01 23:30 by FrankM.
Re: Stones vs U2
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: August 1, 2009 23:31
Quote
FrankMQuote
GazzaQuote
carlostones10
Who is better? Abba or Stones? Come on. U2? You can talk U2 or B´52, Duran Duran, Talking Heads, Men at Work but NEVER U2 or Stones.
The Stones are the greatest rock and roll band in the world. U2 is only a good pop band.
Jesus wept. The old infantile pop v rock nonsense. U2 are a "pop" band? What the f**k is "Streets of Love", then?
There are very few absolutes in music Gazza. Yes I'm sure U2 has some rockers and yes The Stones have their share of pop but overall bands like The Beatles, U2, The Eagles etc. are more pop and bands like Zeppelin, The Stones, and The Who are more rock.
This may be splitting hairs but I think Streets Of Love is more of a rock ballad than pop, kind of like one of Aerosmith's ballads. To me pop would be something like Ruby Tuesday or Let's Spend The Night Together but again maybe I am just splitting hairs.
You're right on the money about 'absolutes', which somewhat proves the point I'm trying to make.
As I've mentioned before, its pointless. There's only two types of music that are worth discussing - ie, whether its good or whether its bad.
In fact, describing the Stones as a 'rock' band actually sells them short. They're MUCH more diverse than that and always have been.
Re: Stones vs U2
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: August 1, 2009 23:49
Whenever has U2 done songs in quality like Led Zeps: Rock'n Roll, Stairway or Since I've Been Loving You.
U2 is not in that class at all - admit it. So, don't compare or mention U2 in the top class of the music. They don't belong in the top league.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-01 23:52 by mtaylor.
U2 is not in that class at all - admit it. So, don't compare or mention U2 in the top class of the music. They don't belong in the top league.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-01 23:52 by mtaylor.
Re: Stones vs U2
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: August 2, 2009 00:48
Whenever has U2 done songs in quality like Pink Floyd: Wish you were here, Shine on you crazy diamond, Comfortably Numb etc.?
Re: Stones vs U2
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: August 2, 2009 01:08
Music's pretty subjective, mate. For everyone who will agree with your opinion on those songs, there are others who have an equally valid opinion which finds them uninspiring. You're expressing a personal opinion based on your own taste - its not definitive.
I'd personally put U2's "One" on a par with any of what youve just listed. I wouldnt rank 'Since I've Been Loving You" in Zeppelin's top 20.
I'd personally put U2's "One" on a par with any of what youve just listed. I wouldnt rank 'Since I've Been Loving You" in Zeppelin's top 20.
Re: Stones vs U2
Posted by:
JumpingKentFlash
()
Date: August 2, 2009 01:25
Aaaaaah Gaz, but you say that taste is not definitive. You are right, but how can we then know what music is good, and what is bad? Surely it's not entirely subjective, so how does one know, in that particular branch of seeking out good music (One branch being the subjective distinction between good and bad, and the other branch being the objective distinction between good and bad), what to go after? I will dare say that there IS a distinction between good and bad. There simply MUST be. Otherwise one could just as easily say that school tape is as strong as duckt tape.
JumpingKentFlash
JumpingKentFlash
Re: Stones vs U2
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: August 2, 2009 01:54
Quote
JumpingKentFlash
Aaaaaah Gaz, but you say that taste is not definitive.
well I meant 'opinion isnt definitive', but anyway...
Quote
JumpingKentFlash
You are right, but how can we then know what music is good, and what is bad? Surely it's not entirely subjective, so how does one know, in that particular branch of seeking out good music (One branch being the subjective distinction between good and bad, and the other branch being the objective distinction between good and bad), what to go after? I will dare say that there IS a distinction between good and bad. There simply MUST be.
You judge the quality of anything (food, music, tv programmes, footballers - whatever) - by your own personal taste or opinion. There's no other way of defining it. Its ENTIRELY subjective.
Quote
JumpingKentFlash
Otherwise one could just as easily say that school tape is as strong as duckt tape.
No. Thats factual. Not opinion. Whether you PREFER it is subjective.
Re: Stones vs U2
Posted by:
straycat58
()
Date: August 2, 2009 02:06
Quote
deadegadQuote
straycat58
I think this comparison has no sense; seesm to be back in 1964 at Fort Wayne when Mick was asked "How you compare with the Beatles?". "We don't compare at all" was his wise reply.
Unless we all need excuses to divide in groups fighting for what?
As Oldham wrote on the first LP, the Rolling Stones are more than just a group, they're a WAY OF LIFE. The same coudn't be written from any other group, U2, Dylan, Springsteen, Jackson or Coldplay.
I understand that for the youngers the Stones are no longer a way of life, but they have been it for most of the fans here in their fifties and sixties.
I even chose my first girlfriends because of their resemblance to Anita or Marianne; I don't even know if Bono has a girlfriend or a boyfriend.
I think I know what you mean but, The Grateful Dead could be 'a way of life' too.
I agree 100% but, also in this case, there's no sense to compare the two bands.
If I have to do a comparison, I can waste my time to compare Aftermath with Between the buttons, Exile with Sticky fingers.
I mean that the Stones can olnly be compared with themselves or with other artists who made the history in their specific sector: James Dean, Marlon Brando, Mozart, Michelangelo, Hyeronimus Bosh.
The Stones were innovative, they broke the rules and took their risk importing the blues in Europe and spreading it to the mass but, most important, they invented the rock music with Jumpin' Jack Flash, the rock anthem.
Who pretends to compare the Stones with a group like the U2 is an ignorant, in the sense that he ignores what the Stones have represented in rock history.
Before doing useless comparisons, I would suggest to everybody to prepare the video of JJF, the one with the warriors make-up, press play, watch the video.
This represent the yell of a whole generation; JJF is the rebel-yell, the revolution in three notes.
Writing JJF the Stones have demonstrated that you don't need to be a political fanatic like some US bands from the West Coast (remember the MC5?) and, nowadays, Bono, the Clash before him; what you have to say you can say it with three notes, no need to lecture the audience with your maoist pocket book.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-02 04:18 by straycat58.
Re: Stones vs U2
Posted by:
glencar
()
Date: August 2, 2009 02:15
LOL Otehrs could learn. I like U2 & would like to see them in concert but their impact on music is miniscule compared with the Stones. The same goes for other poseurs like the 'boss' & the Eagles & those Bon Jovi twits. Hacks, all of 'em!
Re: Stones vs U2
Posted by:
Glam Descendant
()
Date: August 2, 2009 02:17
>you don't need to be a political fanatic like some US bands from the West Coast (remember the MC5?)
Yeah, they were from Michigan lol.
Yeah, they were from Michigan lol.
Re: Stones vs U2
Posted by:
straycat58
()
Date: August 2, 2009 02:22
Quote
Glam Descendant
>you don't need to be a political fanatic like some US bands from the West Coast (remember the MC5?)
Yeah, they were from Michigan lol.
ok, West from Manhattan. I meant the West Coast bands like Jefferson and CSNY plus the MC5 that supported the Black Panthers.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-02 02:30 by straycat58.
Re: Stones vs U2
Posted by:
Barn Owl
()
Date: August 2, 2009 03:34
U2's "Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own" has to be up there with some of the best rock songs ever written. It's an absolute classic.
Why do people here knock them so much?
...apart from jealousy?
Why do people here knock them so much?
...apart from jealousy?
Re: Stones vs U2
Posted by:
MKjan
()
Date: August 2, 2009 03:51
The Rolling Stones are the greatest band Rock'n'Roll has ever seen and heard.
U2 are an unfortunate occurrence, limited to pushing a tawdry catalog thru a
big production machine with Bono's ego acting as the back up.
U2 are an unfortunate occurrence, limited to pushing a tawdry catalog thru a
big production machine with Bono's ego acting as the back up.
Re: Stones vs U2
Posted by:
sweetcharmedlife
()
Date: August 2, 2009 06:14
Quote
Gazza
Music's pretty subjective, mate. For everyone who will agree with your opinion on those songs, there are others who have an equally valid opinion which finds them uninspiring. You're expressing a personal opinion based on your own taste - its not definitive.
I'd personally put U2's "One" on a par with any of what youve just listed. I wouldnt rank 'Since I've Been Loving You" in Zeppelin's top 20.
Ouch,not in their top 20? Subjective indeed. I'd put it in my Top 5 Zep songs.
"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"
Re: Stones vs U2
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: August 2, 2009 14:48
I am at the point nowadays where I can't stand U2. Bono grates on me, and the Edge annoys me almost as much. The last two albums are something I honestly did not think U2 had in them: they are downright boring; elevator music.
But I don't think you can say that U2 has not been a major player in rock culture. At the very least they showed others possibilities, at best the realized them.
Musically I think they have contributed to the evolution. Something most groups do not do; are not able to do. Like him or not, the Edge pioneered a distinct new electric guitar style. People scoff, and say "It's all f/x" but that is just the point. He has used technology very well. And one can not deny his sense of melody. I think they are always best when the Irish ancestry shines through.
And they have taken chances. The live shows with all that phone crap are a gamble. Could be a total bust. "Pop" was a gamble; now it is one of my favorite U2 albums.
The U2-ness of U2 kind of goes against the grain of a hardcore Stoner.
But I don't think you can say that U2 has not been a major player in rock culture. At the very least they showed others possibilities, at best the realized them.
Musically I think they have contributed to the evolution. Something most groups do not do; are not able to do. Like him or not, the Edge pioneered a distinct new electric guitar style. People scoff, and say "It's all f/x" but that is just the point. He has used technology very well. And one can not deny his sense of melody. I think they are always best when the Irish ancestry shines through.
And they have taken chances. The live shows with all that phone crap are a gamble. Could be a total bust. "Pop" was a gamble; now it is one of my favorite U2 albums.
The U2-ness of U2 kind of goes against the grain of a hardcore Stoner.
Re: Stones vs U2
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: August 2, 2009 16:56
Quote
sweetcharmedlifeQuote
Gazza
Music's pretty subjective, mate. For everyone who will agree with your opinion on those songs, there are others who have an equally valid opinion which finds them uninspiring. You're expressing a personal opinion based on your own taste - its not definitive.
I'd personally put U2's "One" on a par with any of what youve just listed. I wouldnt rank 'Since I've Been Loving You" in Zeppelin's top 20.
Ouch,not in their top 20? Subjective indeed. I'd put it in my Top 5 Zep songs.
Rank "One" together with Wish you were here, Shine on you crazy, Stairway to heaven - Ughhhh
What a lack of quality knowledge - I would sell you a book called "Music for dummies".
Re: Stones vs U2
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: August 2, 2009 17:01
Quote
mtaylorQuote
sweetcharmedlifeQuote
Gazza
Music's pretty subjective, mate. For everyone who will agree with your opinion on those songs, there are others who have an equally valid opinion which finds them uninspiring. You're expressing a personal opinion based on your own taste - its not definitive.
I'd personally put U2's "One" on a par with any of what youve just listed. I wouldnt rank 'Since I've Been Loving You" in Zeppelin's top 20.
Ouch,not in their top 20? Subjective indeed. I'd put it in my Top 5 Zep songs.
Rank "One" together with Wish you were here, Shine on you crazy, Stairway to heaven - Ughhhh
What a lack of quality knowledge - I would sell you a book called "Music for dummies".
I only need to look in this thread if I want to find out anything about dummies.
I was probably listening to Pink Floyd and Led Zep when you were in short trousers and own every album ever made by both of them, so spare me the quality music lecture. Fine bands in their day, but "Shine On" is about eight minutes too long. A great song extended into over indulgent wankery.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-02 17:07 by Gazza.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
5strings , Bastion , BowieStone , Captain Teague , CaptainAcid , ChrisL , crawdaddy , DandelionPowderman , dkwalika , falo01 , fedecarp , FeelslikeaGhost , gavin95 , Irix , JN99 , jumpingjackflash5 , keefriffhards , mab1888 , MadMetaphoricalMax , nbutton , no satisfaction , paulspendel , philrock90 , Potato , resotele , sonnystitt , spidey39 , stillife , StonedRambler , straycatuk , The Sicilian , thetiger , TooTight , Topi , TW2019 , waterrats
Guests:
1272
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10