....great to see new fans here....the Gorilla will bring in even more...welcome!

a gorilla in rolling stones lips? are you @#$%& kidding me? wtf is that?

and why re re re re re re-release the same songs, again for the millionth time when there's so many unheard before rarities, live stuff and outtakes etc?

what IS the track list??

is the gorilla cartoon supposed to draw in the *ahem* younger (ie children) market to the stones??

thats the parents friggen job!!!! And even then i'd tell them to get hot rocks, not this

Quote
Rip This
....great to see new fans here....the Gorilla will bring in even more...welcome!

Can't wait for the T-Shirts! I am going to give them as gifts to all my nieces and nephews.

In all deference to the passion and positivity of MSSR50, and those like him: This is a site to discuss the Rolling Stones and their music. In my opinion, that doesn't mean suspending our critical faculties. One could love the Stones and still have intelligent criticisms of some of their music, cover art, performances, career moves, etc. If the site is all bout cheerleading and blind adulation (as well as repeatedly saying what a "genius" Mick Jagger is) it's a pretty boring place, imo. Those who have such thin skins about the Stones that they consider the group beyond criticism (or even occasional ridicule) should relax a little bit. It's only rock 'n' roll, after all.

Quote
71Tele
In all deference to the passion and positivity of MSSR50, and those like him: This is a site to discuss the Rolling Stones and their music. In my opinion, that doesn't mean suspending our critical faculties. One could love the Stones and still have intelligent criticisms of some of their music, cover art, performances, career moves, etc. If the site is all bout cheerleading and blind adulation (as well as repeatedly saying what a "genius" Mick Jagger is) it's a pretty boring place, imo. Those who have such thin skins about the Stones that they consider the group beyond criticism (or even occasional ridicule) should relax a little bit. It's only rock 'n' roll, after all.

I do agree with "intelligent criticisms" i want too on IORR. But I can't see only some very few "intelligent critisisms" here, but much more very stupid bashing against all and nearly everything The Rolling Stones have done during the past thirty years ...

Quote
HighwireC

Quote
71Tele
In all deference to the passion and positivity of MSSR50, and those like him: This is a site to discuss the Rolling Stones and their music. In my opinion, that doesn't mean suspending our critical faculties. One could love the Stones and still have intelligent criticisms of some of their music, cover art, performances, career moves, etc. If the site is all bout cheerleading and blind adulation (as well as repeatedly saying what a "genius" Mick Jagger is) it's a pretty boring place, imo. Those who have such thin skins about the Stones that they consider the group beyond criticism (or even occasional ridicule) should relax a little bit. It's only rock 'n' roll, after all.

I do agree with "intelligent criticisms" i want too on IORR. But I can't see only some very few "intelligent critisisms" here, but much more very stupid bashing against all and nearly everything The Rolling Stones have done during the past thirty years ...

Well, I don't know who you are talking about, but there's a large contingent of people (admittedly including myself) who believe there is a huge qualitative difference between the last 30 years and what went before, particularly in the quality of songwriting and the rhythm section (which, let's face it, lost something integral when Wyman left). If you want to call that "bashing", so be it. I call it critical judgment.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
HighwireC

Quote
71Tele
In all deference to the passion and positivity of MSSR50, and those like him: This is a site to discuss the Rolling Stones and their music. In my opinion, that doesn't mean suspending our critical faculties. One could love the Stones and still have intelligent criticisms of some of their music, cover art, performances, career moves, etc. If the site is all bout cheerleading and blind adulation (as well as repeatedly saying what a "genius" Mick Jagger is) it's a pretty boring place, imo. Those who have such thin skins about the Stones that they consider the group beyond criticism (or even occasional ridicule) should relax a little bit. It's only rock 'n' roll, after all.

I do agree with "intelligent criticisms" i want too on IORR. But I can't see only some very few "intelligent critisisms" here, but much more very stupid bashing against all and nearly everything The Rolling Stones have done during the past thirty years ...

Well, I don't know who you are talking about, but there's a large contingent of people (admittedly including myself) who believe there is a huge qualitative difference between the last 30 years and what went before, particularly in the quality of songwriting and the rhythm section (which, let's face it, lost something integral when Wyman left). If you want to call that "bashing", so be it. I call it critical judgment.

So you don't like The Rolling Stones without Wyman anymore? He will never come back, so why are you still here, whining?

Quote
HighwireC

Quote
71Tele

Quote
HighwireC

Quote
71Tele
In all deference to the passion and positivity of MSSR50, and those like him: This is a site to discuss the Rolling Stones and their music. In my opinion, that doesn't mean suspending our critical faculties. One could love the Stones and still have intelligent criticisms of some of their music, cover art, performances, career moves, etc. If the site is all bout cheerleading and blind adulation (as well as repeatedly saying what a "genius" Mick Jagger is) it's a pretty boring place, imo. Those who have such thin skins about the Stones that they consider the group beyond criticism (or even occasional ridicule) should relax a little bit. It's only rock 'n' roll, after all.

I do agree with "intelligent criticisms" i want too on IORR. But I can't see only some very few "intelligent critisisms" here, but much more very stupid bashing against all and nearly everything The Rolling Stones have done during the past thirty years ...

Well, I don't know who you are talking about, but there's a large contingent of people (admittedly including myself) who believe there is a huge qualitative difference between the last 30 years and what went before, particularly in the quality of songwriting and the rhythm section (which, let's face it, lost something integral when Wyman left). If you want to call that "bashing", so be it. I call it critical judgment.

So you don't like The Rolling Stones without Wyman anymore? He will never come back, so why are you still here, whining?

Thank you for encapsuling exactly what I was talking about. I stated plainly and unemotionally what I thought, and you accused me of "whining" and came back with the tired "he's never coming back". I was not discussing whether Wyman is coming back (or even should come back), but simply stating that I believe the rhythm section lost something when he left. It is a legitimiate, musical criticism (being as the Bill/Charlie rhythm is a big reason the band was great), and of course you had to resort to childish personal insults. But of course, if one doesn't agree that the Stones are 100% as fantastic in the last 30 years as before, one must be "whining".

To answer your other question: I still like them, but I don't like them as much.

And I will be here as long as I want, whether you like it or not. So why don't you accept other people's opinions and stop "whining" about them?

Speaking of critical judgement, let's face it, the Stones rocked harder in '94, '95, '97, '98, '99, '02, '03, '05 and '06 than they did in '89/'90. Waayyyyyyyy harder.

Obviously, there was a tectonic shift in the band's live sound between '82 and '89, but the Steel Jungle tour was inexcusably slick and awful and Wyman contributed mightily to the nonsense.

I think DJ helped fatten the sound which freed up Ronnie and Keith to bring some of the slop back. And, I love me some Keith and Ronnie slop!

Quote
vermontoffender
Speaking of critical judgement, let's face it, the Stones rocked harder in '94, '95, '97, '98, '99, '02, '03, '05 and '06 than they did in '89/'90. Waayyyyyyyy harder.

Obviously, there was a tectonic shift in the band's live sound between '82 and '89, but the Steel Jungle tour was inexcusably slick and awful and Wyman contributed mightily to the nonsense.

I think DJ helped fatten the sound which freed up Ronnie and Keith to bring some of the slop back. And, I love me some Keith and Ronnie slop!

Well, at least that's a critical judgment. One I disagree with completey ("rock harder" is meaningless to me). I think the guitarist's inability or unwillingness to play properly at times contributed to much more "nonsense" than Wyman ever did. I also think Darryl is a very talented musician, but utterly wrong for the Stones. But we can agree to disagree on our preferences.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
HighwireC

Quote
71Tele

Quote
HighwireC

Quote
71Tele
In all deference to the passion and positivity of MSSR50, and those like him: This is a site to discuss the Rolling Stones and their music. In my opinion, that doesn't mean suspending our critical faculties. One could love the Stones and still have intelligent criticisms of some of their music, cover art, performances, career moves, etc. If the site is all bout cheerleading and blind adulation (as well as repeatedly saying what a "genius" Mick Jagger is) it's a pretty boring place, imo. Those who have such thin skins about the Stones that they consider the group beyond criticism (or even occasional ridicule) should relax a little bit. It's only rock 'n' roll, after all.

I do agree with "intelligent criticisms" i want too on IORR. But I can't see only some very few "intelligent critisisms" here, but much more very stupid bashing against all and nearly everything The Rolling Stones have done during the past thirty years ...

Well, I don't know who you are talking about, but there's a large contingent of people (admittedly including myself) who believe there is a huge qualitative difference between the last 30 years and what went before, particularly in the quality of songwriting and the rhythm section (which, let's face it, lost something integral when Wyman left). If you want to call that "bashing", so be it. I call it critical judgment.

So you don't like The Rolling Stones without Wyman anymore? He will never come back, so why are you still here, whining?

Thank you for encapsuling exactly what I was talking about. I stated plainly and unemotionally what I thought, and you accused me of "whining" and came back with the tired "he's never coming back". I was not discussing whether Wyman is coming back (or even should come back), but simply stating that I believe the rhythm section lost something when he left. It is a legitimiate, musical criticism (being as the Bill/Charlie rhythm is a big reason the band was great), and of course you had to resort to childish personal insults. But of course, if one doesn't agree that the Stones are 100% as fantastic in the last 30 years as before, one must be "whining".

To answer your other question: I still like them, but I don't like them as much.

And I will be here as long as I want, whether you like it or not. So why don't you accept other people's opinions and stop "whining" about them?

The Rolling Stones are not the same as with Brian Jones, they have lost him.
Some are still whining.
And The Rolling Stones got Mick Taylor. After five years he left. The Stones are not the same anymore.
Some are still whining.
And The Rolling Stones got Ronnie Wood.
The battle started: Taylor fans against Woody fans and vice versa. And whining again.

Over twenty years ago Bill Wyman quit.
Some fans still do not respekt him, but do want him back. Whining.

Where is the "intelligent critisisms" in those whining?

Take the Stones as they are now, without Brian, Mick T. and Bill, even without Stu and Nicky and some others in the backyard, who have left the band in their fifty years of kreativity and touring.

Times they are a changing, who wants yesterda papers and musik, tell me ...

RE: So you don't like The Rolling Stones without Wyman anymore? He will never come back, so why are you still here, whining? (HighwireC)

-------

i think 71Tele was trying to get a point across that the stones rhythm section sound was fundamentally changed when wyman left; he 's not 'whining.' and i happen to agree with 71Tele on that point, and it's not 'whining,' either. the stones fundamental drum / bass sound changed. and that is a BIG thing with any band, especially one like the stones who pretty much wrote the book on swing when it comes to rock and roll rhythm sections.

perhaps you need to update your acumen on critical analysis..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-08 22:16 by pinkfloydthebarber.

Quote
HighwireC

Quote
71Tele

Quote
HighwireC

Quote
71Tele

Quote
HighwireC

Quote
71Tele
In all deference to the passion and positivity of MSSR50, and those like him: This is a site to discuss the Rolling Stones and their music. In my opinion, that doesn't mean suspending our critical faculties. One could love the Stones and still have intelligent criticisms of some of their music, cover art, performances, career moves, etc. If the site is all bout cheerleading and blind adulation (as well as repeatedly saying what a "genius" Mick Jagger is) it's a pretty boring place, imo. Those who have such thin skins about the Stones that they consider the group beyond criticism (or even occasional ridicule) should relax a little bit. It's only rock 'n' roll, after all.

I do agree with "intelligent criticisms" i want too on IORR. But I can't see only some very few "intelligent critisisms" here, but much more very stupid bashing against all and nearly everything The Rolling Stones have done during the past thirty years ...

Well, I don't know who you are talking about, but there's a large contingent of people (admittedly including myself) who believe there is a huge qualitative difference between the last 30 years and what went before, particularly in the quality of songwriting and the rhythm section (which, let's face it, lost something integral when Wyman left). If you want to call that "bashing", so be it. I call it critical judgment.

So you don't like The Rolling Stones without Wyman anymore? He will never come back, so why are you still here, whining?

Thank you for encapsuling exactly what I was talking about. I stated plainly and unemotionally what I thought, and you accused me of "whining" and came back with the tired "he's never coming back". I was not discussing whether Wyman is coming back (or even should come back), but simply stating that I believe the rhythm section lost something when he left. It is a legitimiate, musical criticism (being as the Bill/Charlie rhythm is a big reason the band was great), and of course you had to resort to childish personal insults. But of course, if one doesn't agree that the Stones are 100% as fantastic in the last 30 years as before, one must be "whining".

To answer your other question: I still like them, but I don't like them as much.

And I will be here as long as I want, whether you like it or not. So why don't you accept other people's opinions and stop "whining" about them?

The Rolling Stones are not the same as with Brian Jones, they have lost him.
Some are still whining.
And The Rolling Stones got Mick Taylor. After five years he left. The Stones are not the same anymore.
Some are still whining.
And The Rolling Stones got Ronnie Wood.
The battle started: Taylor fans against Woody fans and vice versa. And whining again.

Over twenty years ago Bill Wyman quit.
Some fans still do not respekt him, but do want him back. Whining.

Where is the "intelligent critisisms" in those whining?

Take the Stones as they are now, without Brian, Mick T. and Bill, even without Stu and Nicky and some others in the backyard, who have left the band in their fifty years of kreativity and touring.

Times they are a changing, who wants yesterda papers and musik, tell me ...

Yes, the band has evolved and changed. Members, producers, sidemen. That's one of the things that make them fascinating. And there are things I love about each period (some more, some less). But we can have opinions on the qualitative aspects of these different periods and people without resorting to being an apologist for everything the band has ever done. That's a rather immature definition of fandom, imo. We can talk about why some of us prefer Stu or Nicky over Chuck or Bill over Darryl, but it would be lost on you, because you cannot tolerate any criticism (judging from your posts). As long as you persist in accusing others of "whining" when they are merely making judgments and stating preferences, you will convince nobody. You will only be seen as a thin-skinned individual who doesn't have the maturity to discuss music without getting his feelings hurt.

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
RE: So you don't like The Rolling Stones without Wyman anymore? He will never come back, so why are you still here, whining? (HighwireC)

-------

i think 71Tele was trying to get a point across that the stones rhythm section sound was fundamentally changed when wymamn left; not 'whining.' and i happen to agree with 71Tele on that fundamental point, and it's not 'whining,' either. the stones fundamental drum / bass sound changed. and that is a BIG thing with any band, especially one like the stones who pretty much wrote the book on swing when it comes to rock and roll rhythm sections.

perhaps you need to update your acumen on critical analysis

And when does this happen? Twenty years ago. And there is a twenty years of whining about this. It's a very long time.

Why can't fans accept Mick, Keef and Charlie, who have chosen a new bass player? Why allways bashing Chuck and Darryl? They are Mick's, Keef's and Charlies choice.

And I can only see bashing and whining, a very few intelligent argumjents, sometimes, too. That'S ok. But not those ongoing whining and bashing.

Stopp it. Please.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
HighwireC

Quote
71Tele

Quote
HighwireC

Quote
71Tele

Quote
HighwireC

Quote
71Tele
In all deference to the passion and positivity of MSSR50, and those like him: This is a site to discuss the Rolling Stones and their music. In my opinion, that doesn't mean suspending our critical faculties. One could love the Stones and still have intelligent criticisms of some of their music, cover art, performances, career moves, etc. If the site is all bout cheerleading and blind adulation (as well as repeatedly saying what a "genius" Mick Jagger is) it's a pretty boring place, imo. Those who have such thin skins about the Stones that they consider the group beyond criticism (or even occasional ridicule) should relax a little bit. It's only rock 'n' roll, after all.

I do agree with "intelligent criticisms" i want too on IORR. But I can't see only some very few "intelligent critisisms" here, but much more very stupid bashing against all and nearly everything The Rolling Stones have done during the past thirty years ...

Well, I don't know who you are talking about, but there's a large contingent of people (admittedly including myself) who believe there is a huge qualitative difference between the last 30 years and what went before, particularly in the quality of songwriting and the rhythm section (which, let's face it, lost something integral when Wyman left). If you want to call that "bashing", so be it. I call it critical judgment.

So you don't like The Rolling Stones without Wyman anymore? He will never come back, so why are you still here, whining?

Thank you for encapsuling exactly what I was talking about. I stated plainly and unemotionally what I thought, and you accused me of "whining" and came back with the tired "he's never coming back". I was not discussing whether Wyman is coming back (or even should come back), but simply stating that I believe the rhythm section lost something when he left. It is a legitimiate, musical criticism (being as the Bill/Charlie rhythm is a big reason the band was great), and of course you had to resort to childish personal insults. But of course, if one doesn't agree that the Stones are 100% as fantastic in the last 30 years as before, one must be "whining".

To answer your other question: I still like them, but I don't like them as much.

And I will be here as long as I want, whether you like it or not. So why don't you accept other people's opinions and stop "whining" about them?

The Rolling Stones are not the same as with Brian Jones, they have lost him.
Some are still whining.
And The Rolling Stones got Mick Taylor. After five years he left. The Stones are not the same anymore.
Some are still whining.
And The Rolling Stones got Ronnie Wood.
The battle started: Taylor fans against Woody fans and vice versa. And whining again.

Over twenty years ago Bill Wyman quit.
Some fans still do not respekt him, but do want him back. Whining.

Where is the "intelligent critisisms" in those whining?

Take the Stones as they are now, without Brian, Mick T. and Bill, even without Stu and Nicky and some others in the backyard, who have left the band in their fifty years of kreativity and touring.

Times they are a changing, who wants yesterda papers and musik, tell me ...

Yes, the band has evolved and changed. Members, producers, sidemen. That's one of the things that make them fascinating. And there are things I love about each period (some more, some less). But we can have opinions on the qualitative aspects of these different periods and people without resorting to being an apologist for everything the band has ever done. That's a rather immature definition of fandom, imo. We can talk about why some of us prefer Stu or Nicky over Chuck or Bill over Darryl, but it would be lost on you, because you cannot tolerate any criticism (judging from your posts). As long as you persist in accusing others of "whining" when they are merely making judgments and stating preferences, you will convince nobody. You will only be seen as a thin-skinned individual who doesn't have the maturity to discuss music without getting his feelings hurt.

I love "intelligent criticisms". But here on this board there are too much posts with whining and bashing, very stupid, not very intelligent.

Quote
HighwireC

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
RE: So you don't like The Rolling Stones without Wyman anymore? He will never come back, so why are you still here, whining? (HighwireC)

-------

i think 71Tele was trying to get a point across that the stones rhythm section sound was fundamentally changed when wymamn left; not 'whining.' and i happen to agree with 71Tele on that fundamental point, and it's not 'whining,' either. the stones fundamental drum / bass sound changed. and that is a BIG thing with any band, especially one like the stones who pretty much wrote the book on swing when it comes to rock and roll rhythm sections.

perhaps you need to update your acumen on critical analysis

And when does this happen? Twenty years ago. And there is a twenty years of whining about this. It's a very long time.

Why can't fans accept Mick, Keef and Charlie, who have chosen a new bass player? Why allways bashing Chuck and Darryl? They are Mick's, Keef's and Charlies choice.

And I can only see bashing and whining, a very few intelligent argumjents, sometimes, too. That'S ok. But not those ongoing whining and bashing.

Stopp it. Please.

As I will say for the final time: The problem is not others "bashing" and "whining". The problem is you. Your inability to distinguish thoughtful criticism and musical preferences from said "bashing" and "whining". When you accuse people of this (which you continue to do) you make yourself look weak, insecure and intolerant. Instead, try explaing why to think the rhythym section is every bit as good without Wyman as with (if that's what you believe). That would be engaging people on the point, rather than attacking their integrity for having a contrary opinion as you.

By the way, it doesn't matter if it's two years or 20 or 50 since Wyman left. The Stones' music is a body of work, and it's quite legitimate to compare different periods, styles and aspects. The length of time involved between these periods is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Face it: You want everyone to believe (like you apparently) that the current version of the Rolling Stones is equal to all the others, creatively, musically, etc. even when most people do not feel that is the case. The problem is your expectation, not anyone else's opinion.

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
RE: So you don't like The Rolling Stones without Wyman anymore? He will never come back, so why are you still here, whining? (HighwireC)

-------

i think 71Tele was trying to get a point across that the stones rhythm section sound was fundamentally changed when wyman left; he 's not 'whining.' and i happen to agree with 71Tele on that point, and it's not 'whining,' either. the stones fundamental drum / bass sound changed. and that is a BIG thing with any band, especially one like the stones who pretty much wrote the book on swing when it comes to rock and roll rhythm sections.

perhaps you need to update your acumen on critical analysis..

Thank you, pink.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
HighwireC

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
RE: So you don't like The Rolling Stones without Wyman anymore? He will never come back, so why are you still here, whining? (HighwireC)

-------

i think 71Tele was trying to get a point across that the stones rhythm section sound was fundamentally changed when wymamn left; not 'whining.' and i happen to agree with 71Tele on that fundamental point, and it's not 'whining,' either. the stones fundamental drum / bass sound changed. and that is a BIG thing with any band, especially one like the stones who pretty much wrote the book on swing when it comes to rock and roll rhythm sections.

perhaps you need to update your acumen on critical analysis

And when does this happen? Twenty years ago. And there is a twenty years of whining about this. It's a very long time.

Why can't fans accept Mick, Keef and Charlie, who have chosen a new bass player? Why allways bashing Chuck and Darryl? They are Mick's, Keef's and Charlies choice.

And I can only see bashing and whining, a very few intelligent argumjents, sometimes, too. That'S ok. But not those ongoing whining and bashing.

Stopp it. Please.

As I will say for the final time: The problem is not others "bashing" and "whining". The problem is you. Your inability to distinguish thoughtful criticism and musical preferences from said "bashing" and "whining". When you accuse people of this (which you continue to do) you make yourself look weak, insecure and intolerant. Instead, try explaing why to think the rhythym section is every bit as good without Wyman as with (if that's what you believe). That would be engaging people on the point, rather than attacking their integrity for having a contrary opinion as you.

By the way, it doesn't matter if it's two years or 20 or 50 since Wyman left. The Stones' music is a body of work, and it's quite legitimate to compare different periods, styles and aspects. The length of time involved between these periods is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Face it: You want everyone to believe (like you apparently) that the current version of the Rolling Stones is equal to all the others, creatively, musically, etc. even when most people do not feel that is the case. The problem is your expectation, not anyone else's opinion.

Pure nonsens!

But I see The Rolling Stones in their steps and their evolution.
Times they are a changing, The Rolling Stones amost have been the best Rolling Stones in every step.

But you can't turn the wheel back. And many fans here do want to turn the whels back, still comparing The Band now with the old times with Brian, Mick T. etc. etc., mostly whining and crying over the good old times.

The Rolling Stones know this, they don't want the old times back, they are starting to win a new, upcoming generation.

I dont know why, but its grrrrrowing on me after a few days.

Quote
HighwireC

Quote
pinkfloydthebarber
RE: So you don't like The Rolling Stones without Wyman anymore? He will never come back, so why are you still here, whining? (HighwireC)

-------

i think 71Tele was trying to get a point across that the stones rhythm section sound was fundamentally changed when wymamn left; not 'whining.' and i happen to agree with 71Tele on that fundamental point, and it's not 'whining,' either. the stones fundamental drum / bass sound changed. and that is a BIG thing with any band, especially one like the stones who pretty much wrote the book on swing when it comes to rock and roll rhythm sections.

perhaps you need to update your acumen on critical analysis

And when does this happen? Twenty years ago. And there is a twenty years of whining about this. It's a very long time.

Why can't fans accept Mick, Keef and Charlie, who have chosen a new bass player? Why allways bashing Chuck and Darryl? They are Mick's, Keef's and Charlies choice.

And I can only see bashing and whining, a very few intelligent argumjents, sometimes, too. That'S ok. But not those ongoing whining and bashing.

Stopp it. Please.

20 years of discussing this isn't necessarily 'whining'

wyman was an original member and a core building block to not only to the rhythm section sound and swing but to the group's entire overall sound and power

yeah he left 20 years ago, but careful listeners are not supposed to discuss the radical shift in sound that resulted in fear of being accused of 'whining?' wtf?

its undeniable that wyman / watts is one of the greatest rhythm sections in rock and roll history; darryl jones and watts? not so much, ok? and that's not whining or legend, its fact; listen to wyman's bass on 'goin home' or the bass on 'shattered' with all the james jamerson type stuff he does

and i dont know of ANYBODY who can play 50s style rock and roll bass better.

the bassline on the "2120 South Michigan Avenue" instrumental is simple for example but deceiving as it has a tricky meter, and the bass on "I'm Moving On" on December's Children is a piledriver bass sound that is completely matchless in the context of 1964

'Miss You' - 'nuff said.

all that and much much more went out the window when he left, which is a fact, not a whine or a complaint.

and by NOT discussing this we can tend to overlook his immense contribution to the stone's music, and that is NOT whining either!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-08 22:47 by pinkfloydthebarber.

Quote
HighwireC

The Rolling Stones know this, they don't want the old times back, they are starting to win a new, upcoming generation.

If they do win a new generation, it will be because of the body of work that most people agree was their best: 1965-1981 (roughly), not from stuff like "Gunface" and "Might As Well Get Juiced". If the Stones "know" anything, it's this, because their setlists are always weighted very heavily toward the period I mentioned. If they were as confident in their later material as you seem to be they would play it.

Unbelievable, 34 pages on a simple greatest hits album. Well, this would be my 5 cents on the Grrr!

No1. The current label Universal has no hits compilation available for the moment. They cannot reissue 40Licks as that was a Virgin record. So they have to do a hits collection of their own. What is the best time to do it? Well, the band is turning 50, so that may be a good time to do it.....

No2. There is not one single hits CD in the record shop at this point of time. Well, a few places may have some Jump Backs. So if a young person goes into a record shop today and asks for a hits collection by a band called The Rolling Stones, the guy behind the counter has to say, sorry not available....

Yeah, I know that young guys do DL, but still there may be a few ones that likes to hold the music in their hands.

No 3. This GRRRR is not for anyone reading IORR. We have Miss You and Shattered (one of the worst Stones songs ever, can't understand why this is on hits records) already 14 times on vinyl, C-cassette, CD, DVD, Blue Ray, Lacerdisc, Mini-disc and what not. This compilation is for the causal buyer who likes to have a compilation of old and good Rolling Stones songs. Them being a Lady GaGa fan but grandpa said "get some real music for once, the music I listen to"

No4, you actually do not need to buy it if you don't want to, unless you are a collector that needs to get everything.

No5. We will have a new Greatest Hits by The Rolling Stones at least every 10 years from now. Nothing wrong with that, record companies just trying the keep the interest up for really old quality music. So be ready for a new Hits album in 2022, 2032 and maybe one in 2042 as well Hope they will still make vinyls in the 2040's

So, whats so bad with that? I'm a vinyl collector so I'm gonna buy the vinyl box.

Jan Richards

[www.stonesondecca.com]

Quote
Posted by: Jan Richards ()
Date: September 8, 2012 23:58

Unbelievable, 34 pages on a simple greatest hits album. Well, this would be my 5 cents on the Grrr!

No1. The current label Universal has no hits compilation available for the moment. They cannot reissue 40Licks as that was a Virgin record. So they have to do a hits collection of their own. What is the best time to do it? Well, the band is turning 50, so that may be a good time to do it.....

No2. There is not one single hits CD in the record shop at this point of time. Well, a few places may have some Jump Backs. So if a young person goes into a record shop today and asks for a hits collection by a band called The Rolling Stones, the guy behind the counter has to say, sorry not available....

Yeah, I know that young guys do DL, but still there may be a few ones that likes to hold the music in their hands.

No 3. This GRRRR is not for anyone reading IORR. We have Miss You and Shattered (one of the worst Stones songs ever, can't understand why this is on hits records) already 14 times on vinyl, C-cassette, CD, DVD, Blue Ray, Lacerdisc, Mini-disc and what not. This compilation is for the causal buyer who likes to have a compilation of old and good Rolling Stones songs. Them being a Lady GaGa fan but grandpa said "get some real music for once, the music I listen to"

No4, you actually do not need to buy it if you don't want to, unless you are a collector that needs to get everything.

No5. We will have a new Greatest Hits by The Rolling Stones at least every 10 years from now. Nothing wrong with that, record companies just trying the keep the interest up for really old quality music. So be ready for a new Hits album in 2022, 2032 and maybe one in 2042 as well Hope they will still make vinyls in the 2040's

So, whats so bad with that? I'm a vinyl collector so I'm gonna buy the vinyl box.

Jan Richards

But why the ugly monkey?

Thank you Jan.

And as Bjornulf himself said...

"Grrr is Grrr."

Quote
ChefGuevara

Quote
Posted by: Jan Richards ()
Date: September 8, 2012 23:58

Unbelievable, 34 pages on a simple greatest hits album. Well, this would be my 5 cents on the Grrr!

No1. The current label Universal has no hits compilation available for the moment. They cannot reissue 40Licks as that was a Virgin record. So they have to do a hits collection of their own. What is the best time to do it? Well, the band is turning 50, so that may be a good time to do it.....

No2. There is not one single hits CD in the record shop at this point of time. Well, a few places may have some Jump Backs. So if a young person goes into a record shop today and asks for a hits collection by a band called The Rolling Stones, the guy behind the counter has to say, sorry not available....

Yeah, I know that young guys do DL, but still there may be a few ones that likes to hold the music in their hands.

No 3. This GRRRR is not for anyone reading IORR. We have Miss You and Shattered (one of the worst Stones songs ever, can't understand why this is on hits records) already 14 times on vinyl, C-cassette, CD, DVD, Blue Ray, Lacerdisc, Mini-disc and what not. This compilation is for the causal buyer who likes to have a compilation of old and good Rolling Stones songs. Them being a Lady GaGa fan but grandpa said "get some real music for once, the music I listen to"

No4, you actually do not need to buy it if you don't want to, unless you are a collector that needs to get everything.

No5. We will have a new Greatest Hits by The Rolling Stones at least every 10 years from now. Nothing wrong with that, record companies just trying the keep the interest up for really old quality music. So be ready for a new Hits album in 2022, 2032 and maybe one in 2042 as well Hope they will still make vinyls in the 2040's

So, whats so bad with that? I'm a vinyl collector so I'm gonna buy the vinyl box.

Jan Richards

Yeah, I would actually have preferred a cod over the monkey (the one swimming in the seas you know) or something.

But why the ugly monkey?

Jan Richards

[www.stonesondecca.com]

Thanks much Jan Richards for putting the whole thing in perspective. The gorilla is just a cover, what matters is what will be inside. I plan to buy it; I don't have many of their compilations and besides, what else would I ask for this December? Actually, since my family knows my Stones obsession, whether I want it or not, I am sure I will be getting A Grrr! t-shirt. Can't wait to see the thread with all the IORRers in their gorilla shirts!

Well, I have to say that I was a bit taken aback by the new album cover and title. I was thinking "what on earth are they doing? Is this a joke?"

But, with time, I think we'll all accept this. I was too young to be a fan when "Sucking in the Seventies" came out. I mean, really, what a horrible title and cover. There are a few "rarities" on the album, but I imagine people must have been thinking wtf at that time as well.

Anyway, I think with time this will come to be accepted, just like "Sucking in the Seventies".

Actually. to be honest, I would like to have a cat on the cover. I have a black one named Svetlana: hate dogs, a dog over my dead body in my house. And We do not keep gorillas as pets in Finland you know...
If there would have been a cat on the cover, then I might have bought the CD version as well Now I only gonna get the vinyl box

Jan Richards

[www.stonesondecca.com]

Quote
Jan Richards
Unbelievable, 34 pages on a simple greatest hits album. Well, this would be my 5 cents on the Grrr!

No1. The current label Universal has no hits compilation available for the moment. They cannot reissue 40Licks as that was a Virgin record. So they have to do a hits collection of their own. What is the best time to do it? Well, the band is turning 50, so that may be a good time to do it.....

No2. There is not one single hits CD in the record shop at this point of time. Well, a few places may have some Jump Backs. So if a young person goes into a record shop today and asks for a hits collection by a band called The Rolling Stones, the guy behind the counter has to say, sorry not available....

Yeah, I know that young guys do DL, but still there may be a few ones that likes to hold the music in their hands.

No 3. This GRRRR is not for anyone reading IORR. We have Miss You and Shattered (one of the worst Stones songs ever, can't understand why this is on hits records) already 14 times on vinyl, C-cassette, CD, DVD, Blue Ray, Lacerdisc, Mini-disc and what not. This compilation is for the causal buyer who likes to have a compilation of old and good Rolling Stones songs. Them being a Lady GaGa fan but grandpa said "get some real music for once, the music I listen to"

No4, you actually do not need to buy it if you don't want to, unless you are a collector that needs to get everything.

No5. We will have a new Greatest Hits by The Rolling Stones at least every 10 years from now. Nothing wrong with that, record companies just trying the keep the interest up for really old quality music. So be ready for a new Hits album in 2022, 2032 and maybe one in 2042 as well Hope they will still make vinyls in the 2040's

So, whats so bad with that? I'm a vinyl collector so I'm gonna buy the vinyl box.

I have some old vinyl carpet in my kitchen Jan....are you interested???

Great post.....thanks.....as I mentioned before this is not a release for us ....we already had some great things

__________________________

Quote
NICOS

Quote
Jan Richards
Unbelievable, 34 pages on a simple greatest hits album. Well, this would be my 5 cents on the Grrr!

No1. The current label Universal has no hits compilation available for the moment. They cannot reissue 40Licks as that was a Virgin record. So they have to do a hits collection of their own. What is the best time to do it? Well, the band is turning 50, so that may be a good time to do it.....

No2. There is not one single hits CD in the record shop at this point of time. Well, a few places may have some Jump Backs. So if a young person goes into a record shop today and asks for a hits collection by a band called The Rolling Stones, the guy behind the counter has to say, sorry not available....

Yeah, I know that young guys do DL, but still there may be a few ones that likes to hold the music in their hands.

No 3. This GRRRR is not for anyone reading IORR. We have Miss You and Shattered (one of the worst Stones songs ever, can't understand why this is on hits records) already 14 times on vinyl, C-cassette, CD, DVD, Blue Ray, Lacerdisc, Mini-disc and what not. This compilation is for the causal buyer who likes to have a compilation of old and good Rolling Stones songs. Them being a Lady GaGa fan but grandpa said "get some real music for once, the music I listen to"

No4, you actually do not need to buy it if you don't want to, unless you are a collector that needs to get everything.

No5. We will have a new Greatest Hits by The Rolling Stones at least every 10 years from now. Nothing wrong with that, record companies just trying the keep the interest up for really old quality music. So be ready for a new Hits album in 2022, 2032 and maybe one in 2042 as well Hope they will still make vinyls in the 2040's

So, whats so bad with that? I'm a vinyl collector so I'm gonna buy the vinyl box.

I have some old vinyl carpet in my kitchen Jan....are you interested???

Great post.....thanks.....as I mentioned before this is not a release for us ....we already had some great things

YEAAA. I have a lot of vinyl on the wall, why not have it on the floor as well. Send me some picturs Is your floor vinyl the kind of 70's green or brown with some nice design in it, like flowers or something?

Jan Richards

[www.stonesondecca.com]