[www.nj.com]

Thanks. Fair review I guess.

"Highlights included: a version of "Brown Sugar" that felt like a firm, sweaty handshake from an old friend, a stately-yet-depraved "You Can't Always Get What You Want," sung with the Trinity Wall Street choir, and the reliably apocalyptic "Gimme Shelter," a duet with Mary J. Blige. Blige channeled Merry Clayton so completely that I was half-worried she'd pass out at the conclusion of the song. Bluesman Gary Clark, Jr. added his six-string and his voice to "Going Down," and pushed Richards and Ron Wood to play harder and louder."

another

[www.nydailynews.com]

Thanks for posting these reviews, HB. Great to see such a positive response!

here's another - they're good - but i still feel as if the reviewers are kind of young and don't quite get the gravity of the band - they all seem to rely on the same old cliches

[www.google.com]

Quote
hbwriter
here's another - they're good - but i still feel as if the reviewers are kind of young and don't quite get the gravity of the band - they all seem to rely on the same old cliches

[www.google.com]

I know what you mean. The reviewers seem "new to the party." And while we can't expect non-ardent viewers to crave the songs we love, I still can't help but wish they played Sway, Monkeyman, Bitch, and at least four more songs from Exile. AH but to quote a favorite movie..let's not ask for the moon when we have the stars....

Moonstruck!

Ha - a little play on words there perhaps? I'm a bit bashful to admit it but actually the quote is from Now Voyager with Bette Davis...But that's not to say you can't have the sun, the moon, and well, who else? The Rolling Stones...

[www.nytimes.com]

[www.usatoday.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-09 12:42 by mtaylor.

Quote
memphiscats
Ha - a little play on words there perhaps? I'm a bit bashful to admit it but actually the quote is from Now Voyager with Bette Davis...But that's not to say you can't have the sun, the moon, and well, who else? The Rolling Stones...

Bashful? That is a fantastic movie. Nothing wrong with knowing the work of Bette Davis, she is a screen goddess.

Quote
memphiscats

Quote
hbwriter
here's another - they're good - but i still feel as if the reviewers are kind of young and don't quite get the gravity of the band - they all seem to rely on the same old cliches

[www.google.com]

I know what you mean. The reviewers seem "new to the party." And while we can't expect non-ardent viewers to crave the songs we love, I still can't help but wish they played Sway, Monkeyman, Bitch, and at least four more songs from Exile. AH but to quote a favorite movie..let's not ask for the moon when we have the stars....

Ben Ratliff, who wrote the review for the New York Times, knows his stuff. He did the long article on the Exile rerelease two years ago that praised the unreleased Loving Cup and questioned the greatness of Exile.

I wish these guys would get it right. I Wanna Be Your Man was written for the Stones and they put it out before the Beatles its not really a cover. The Beatles put it out a few months later.

it's clear now why the high prices: journalists need their money, too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-09 17:37 by StonesTod.

Quote
slew
I wish these guys would get it right. I Wanna Be Your Man was written for the Stones and they put it out before the Beatles its not really a cover. The Beatles put it out a few months later.

That's splitting hairs. It's a Beatles song. Someone else does it, it's a cover, regardless of when the writer released their version. Not a Stones original is another way of saying it. Same thing.

Nobody cares that Going Down is a cover....yeeeeesh

Quote
slew
I wish these guys would get it right. I Wanna Be Your Man was written for the Stones and they put it out before the Beatles its not really a cover. The Beatles put it out a few months later.

I agree...it seems to be a trend among "journalists" nowadays (mostly younger ones), especially when it comes to older acts. Saw the same kind of inaccuracies with reviews of the recent Monkees tour...it's like they get their background info straight off of Wikipedia. They need to review in the context of the history of the band, not in a vacuum - and, of course, get the facts right, too!

Quote
Jah Paul

Quote
slew
I wish these guys would get it right. I Wanna Be Your Man was written for the Stones and they put it out before the Beatles its not really a cover. The Beatles put it out a few months later.

I agree...it seems to be a trend among "journalists" nowadays (mostly younger ones), especially when it comes to older acts. Saw the same kind of inaccuracies with reviews of the recent Monkees tour...it's like they get their background info straight off of Wikipedia. They need to review in the context of the history of the band, not in a vacuum - and, of course, get the facts right, too!

as a former jounalist myself, rule #1: never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Fast and inaccurate is still fast - DP

that times review is really good - lots of context and reality - no fawning - a fair, on point review - nice job

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
slew
I wish these guys would get it right. I Wanna Be Your Man was written for the Stones and they put it out before the Beatles its not really a cover. The Beatles put it out a few months later.

That's splitting hairs. It's a Beatles song. Someone else does it, it's a cover, regardless of when the writer released their version. Not a Stones original is another way of saying it. Same thing.

That's actually not correct. A cover version is a new recording of a recording that has already been published. Under US law, anyone can record a cover version of a previously released record, as long as you pay a predetermined royalty. The copyright owners cannot stop you from doing so (with exceptions, of course - you can't rearrange the song, etc.)

In the Stones case, since the Beatles version had not been released, they would have no such right. They needed permission from the song's writers to release the song to the public. As such, it is not a cover version, but the first released version of the song. If anything, the Beatles' version is a "cover".

Just thought you'd like to know.

Quote
drbryant

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
slew
I wish these guys would get it right. I Wanna Be Your Man was written for the Stones and they put it out before the Beatles its not really a cover. The Beatles put it out a few months later.

That's splitting hairs. It's a Beatles song. Someone else does it, it's a cover, regardless of when the writer released their version. Not a Stones original is another way of saying it. Same thing.

That's actually not correct. A cover version is a new recording of a recording that has already been published. Under US law, anyone can record a cover version of a previously released record, as long as you pay a predetermined royalty. The copyright owners cannot stop you from doing so (with exceptions, of course - you can't rearrange the song, etc.)

In the Stones case, since the Beatles version had not been released, they would have no such right. They needed permission from the song's writers to release the song to the public. As such, it is not a cover version, but the first released version of the song. If anything, the Beatles' version is a "cover".

Just thought you'd like to know.

technicalities are ruining rocknroll....

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
drbryant

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
slew
I wish these guys would get it right. I Wanna Be Your Man was written for the Stones and they put it out before the Beatles its not really a cover. The Beatles put it out a few months later.

That's splitting hairs. It's a Beatles song. Someone else does it, it's a cover, regardless of when the writer released their version. Not a Stones original is another way of saying it. Same thing.

That's actually not correct. A cover version is a new recording of a recording that has already been published. Under US law, anyone can record a cover version of a previously released record, as long as you pay a predetermined royalty. The copyright owners cannot stop you from doing so (with exceptions, of course - you can't rearrange the song, etc.)

In the Stones case, since the Beatles version had not been released, they would have no such right. They needed permission from the song's writers to release the song to the public. As such, it is not a cover version, but the first released version of the song. If anything, the Beatles' version is a "cover".

Just thought you'd like to know.

technicalities are ruining rocknroll....

Well Chuck can't ruin it all by himself can he?

I like this review by Entertainment Weekly more than NY Times'

The Rolling Stones live in Brooklyn: On the scene
by Leah Greenblatt
[music-mix.ew.com]


Rolling Stones Give Brooklyn What It Wants
by Jem Aswad
[www.billboard.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-09 19:51 by proudmary.