Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

you talk always about the stones-Time 78-2005.I Iike their 63-69 Records
Posted by: Havo ()
Date: September 13, 2011 23:49

no-older-Stones fans here.? Their first Album was great. out of our heads and aftermath Awesome!!.First time--by first listening--I was Dissapointing By goats head Soup.

Re: you talk always about the stones-Time 78-2005.I Iike their 63-69 Records
Posted by: keefbajaga ()
Date: September 13, 2011 23:51

I am with you. Just love the 1963-1969(1971) period!

Re: you talk always about the stones-Time 78-2005.I Iike their 63-69 Records
Posted by: NICOS ()
Date: September 13, 2011 23:55

Your right Havo, the first record I was disappointed was GHS but I get over with it >grinning smiley<

But I still prefer their '67-'73 above their pre releases

__________________________

Re: you talk always about the stones-Time 78-2005.I Iike their 63-69 Records
Posted by: jeanmarie ()
Date: September 14, 2011 00:04

Quote
Havo
no-older-Stones fans here.? Their first Album was great. out of our heads and aftermath Awesome!!.First time--by first listening--I was Dissapointing By goats head Soup.

... and me discovered the Stones with GHS !! year after years Stones'fans join the thing

Re: you talk always about the stones-Time 78-2005.I Iike their 63-69 Records
Posted by: 24FPS ()
Date: September 14, 2011 00:40

For me all of their eras have validity. The earliest Stones are great. The Mick Taylor years are great. Even the early Ron Wood years are good. They petered out for me in the studio when Wyman retired, but they are still a great live group.

Re: you talk always about the stones-Time 78-2005.I Iike their 63-69 Records
Date: September 14, 2011 01:05

I have tried posting about this too. It seems like Stones albums pre-68 don';t count that much. I've always loved the 63-67 stuff, but find myself listening to only 63-65 lately.

Re: you talk always about the stones-Time 78-2005.I Iike their 63-69 Records
Posted by: slew ()
Date: September 14, 2011 04:55

I like every era of the Stones career. But mostly 1962-1986 we can break that down but I feel like that is when they were a working band. I include 1986 because Dirty Work is the last album in the pipe line. But 63-73 is incredible, I have been listening a lot to The Rolling Stones Now! and 12 X 5. Aftermath is for me one of the best albums they ever did (UK version is tops ove American release). The band is partly responsible for this seldom playing songs from pre 1968 on any regular basis. That early era with Brian is extremely good. Not bad for a bunch of skinny white dudes from England playing pretty authentic sounds from the American Delta!

Re: you talk always about the stones-Time 78-2005.I Iike their 63-69 Records
Posted by: Blue ()
Date: September 14, 2011 05:50

Yes, you are not alone eye popping smiley ...there are a few of us lurking about around here! Still rediscovering some of their old tunes lately...my latest passion is " 2000 Man" from TSMR, and "She Smiled Sweetly" from Between the Buttons.. what great tunes that I dismissed so very long ago. ....and never even heard them do "Crackin' Up" until I discovered it on YouTube...incredible job they did with it IMHO.

Re: you talk always about the stones-Time 78-2005.I Iike their 63-69 Records
Posted by: matsumoto33 ()
Date: September 14, 2011 07:54

63-68 is definitely their most neglected period on this board. probably my favourite too....

Re: you talk always about the stones-Time 78-2005.I Iike their 63-69 Records
Posted by: Come On ()
Date: September 14, 2011 08:12

Yep, 1963 - 69 is the thing...The original Rolling Stones...but the first album that dissapointed me was 'Exile on Main Street'...Bowie were the musical salvation back in 1972...

2 1 2 0

Re: you talk always about the stones-Time 78-2005.I Iike their 63-69 Records
Date: September 14, 2011 16:21

I think 1963 through 1968 was the Stones true golden era. I like 1969 through 1971 too but for me Exile was a huge let down as well.

Re: you talk always about the stones-Time 78-2005.I Iike their 63-69 Records
Date: September 14, 2011 16:36

There is a huge difference between 1963 and 1969, the latter is not so different from the later years.

But I love the early years, too.

Re: you talk always about the stones-Time 78-2005.I Iike their 63-69 Records
Posted by: Elmo Lewis ()
Date: September 14, 2011 16:58

Love all the eras. The early stuff is too cool. The pop years. The Big 4 (5). The Little 3. Some Girls. Tattoo (1st tour). Some great gems in the later years.

Hope to see 'em again (if they're playing well).

Re: you talk always about the stones-Time 78-2005.I Iike their 63-69 Records
Posted by: stones78 ()
Date: September 14, 2011 18:37

78-2005? What? The most talked about period here is 1969 - 1978

Re: you talk always about the stones-Time 78-2005.I Iike their 63-69 Records
Posted by: Sleepy City ()
Date: September 14, 2011 19:49

Late 1965 to 1967 is their golden era for me. The only time they were more than just a guitar band.

Re: you talk always about the stones-Time 78-2005.I Iike their 63-69 Records
Posted by: MadMax ()
Date: September 14, 2011 23:06

Well I gotta tell you that for me the period 68-present is the most interesting, before that they were great but not as great as they would become. Stones became the greatest R N R Band in 68-69, before that (with certain exceptions such as PIB, Satisfaction, LSTNT etc) they were just copying songs.

Re: you talk always about the stones-Time 78-2005.I Iike their 63-69 Records
Posted by: slew ()
Date: September 15, 2011 01:04

How can you guys not like Exile? It is awesome!

Re: you talk always about the stones-Time 78-2005.I Iike their 63-69 Records
Posted by: jamesfdouglas ()
Date: September 15, 2011 04:10

For me, there's always a feeling that they were always No. 2 to The Bealtes during the Brian Jones era. "Oh no, they were the Anti-Beatles during that time", you may say.

Well you need a Beatles to have an anti-Beatles.
I don't buy the notion that The Beatles were 'lily-white pop' while The Stones wer 'authentic & blues'. Neither is the case to me. I feel that their similarities outweighed the difference, and when you compare them, the favour is in the Beatles' camp with one exception - live show entertainment value.

The Stones, for me, seemed to earn their legendary status when Jagger and Jimmy Miller got them to stop peeping into The Beatles' kitchen window.

[thepowergoats.com]



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 2976
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 9627 on January 2, 2024 23:10

Previous page Next page First page IORR home