For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
keefriff99Maybe it's nothing out of the ordinary, but I'd still be curious.Quote
Spud
I don't think it's any mystery.
Just healthy diet, not smoking, sensible fitness work and the good fortune to posess naturally athletic genes.
He may dabble in other trendy "fountain of youth" products and ideas but they won't make much or any difference .
Mick's not unique these days in being a very fit 70 odd year old ... and he hasn't worked down the pit for 40 years .
You can't say he's not unique. A 73-year old with zero body fat, washboard abs, and can still perform with energy and precision IS unique.
There are "wellness" centers in America for people with money, where men can get HGH and testosterone replacement. There are probably a lot of legal loopholes, where if you can prove you're "deficient" (and what man in his 50s or 60s doesn't have lower test than he did in his 20s/30s), then you can be treated.Quote
DandelionPowderman
I thought growth hormones were illegal, except for treatment of sick people.
It's an interesting thought. When you look at Ronnie, he's fit as a fiddle...very little belly fat, tight arms with no loose skin. He really looks fabulous for a guy who's put his body through hell.Quote
stone4everQuote
keefriff99Maybe it's nothing out of the ordinary, but I'd still be curious.Quote
Spud
I don't think it's any mystery.
Just healthy diet, not smoking, sensible fitness work and the good fortune to posess naturally athletic genes.
He may dabble in other trendy "fountain of youth" products and ideas but they won't make much or any difference .
Mick's not unique these days in being a very fit 70 odd year old ... and he hasn't worked down the pit for 40 years .
You can't say he's not unique. A 73-year old with zero body fat, washboard abs, and can still perform with energy and precision IS unique.
What's unique is that he doesn't get out of breath, that tells me that fitness alone couldn't get those results, Show me another 70 plus year old that can do what Mick's doing on stage right now. I see recently Ronnie has taken to jogging HGH??
Come on guys people know about the benefits, it's just common sense for these guys to grab a few extra years of performance with HGH. It's a healthy choice, nothing wrong with it.
Quote
keefriff99It's an interesting thought. When you look at Ronnie, he's fit as a fiddle...very little belly fat, tight arms with no loose skin. He really looks fabulous for a guy who's put his body through hell.Quote
stone4everQuote
keefriff99Maybe it's nothing out of the ordinary, but I'd still be curious.Quote
Spud
I don't think it's any mystery.
Just healthy diet, not smoking, sensible fitness work and the good fortune to posess naturally athletic genes.
He may dabble in other trendy "fountain of youth" products and ideas but they won't make much or any difference .
Mick's not unique these days in being a very fit 70 odd year old ... and he hasn't worked down the pit for 40 years .
You can't say he's not unique. A 73-year old with zero body fat, washboard abs, and can still perform with energy and precision IS unique.
What's unique is that he doesn't get out of breath, that tells me that fitness alone couldn't get those results, Show me another 70 plus year old that can do what Mick's doing on stage right now. I see recently Ronnie has taken to jogging HGH??
Come on guys people know about the benefits, it's just common sense for these guys to grab a few extra years of performance with HGH. It's a healthy choice, nothing wrong with it.
Quote
hopkinsQuote
hopkinsQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
hopkins
ok thank you. i guess i don't have the terminology right?
i mean there was a bum note live....and it was periscoped and there for all to see and hear....
,...and then the exact same performance for the movie and the lead was really good. in key and everything...
i figured they had to do that post production in a sound studio to replace the unusable part with a really good lead in tune with the rest of the band and everything....that is an 'edit' and not an 'overdub' ?
[www.dictionary.com]
so i DO appreciate the correction. Apparently an 'overdub' is where they add something to something already existing according to this definition?
and an 'edit' would be if they just cut the 'bad' part out and recorded a new lead part and replaced it, or 'edited' it into the movie soundtrack?
this is not a personal critique btw, i'm far from pro but had a band with an important showcase decades ago at a really cool place; and was the rhythm guy, all dramatically kicking off this song the lead guy wrote, and i had the capo a fret off of the right position...
....and the band came in STRONG as rehearsed....
....and holy moly i wish i had a second chance to clean that up...lol...
flop sweat. i'm all glaring at the bass player for screwing up an important showcase and it was me!!!
and it was a trainwreck...i didn't even know what the hell was wrong!!!
i was so rehearsed, jacked up and ready to roll haha. what an @#$%&...
the bass player was GREAT and started to transpose on the spot like a madman all blushing himself. what a catastrophe...whew...
i think we kind of redeemed ourselves with the rest of the set but i was destroyed...took the heart right out of me. these things happen i guess...
it's like twenty somethinhg years later and i'm still ashamed when i think about it
An overdub would require that Keith went to the studio to record a new part. To my knowledge, he hasn't done that since 1990 for Flashpoint for a live album. Perhaps he did it for No Security, but that's not confirmed.
An edit is just the engineer removing a part or adding parts from other places in the song.
right; so back to my first about this before you questioned it.
Keith (and others) mostly Keith have historically OVERDUBBED...like, all over the place.
you might search a few threads about this on this or other sites when you've a moment.
overdubbing....recording NEW material over a 'mistake' or subpar, part.
or 'fixing' it....or whatever ....is a historical part of their live releases since like forever till like forever, including like really really recent 'new' live material...
when there is a part deemed unreleasable by Mick
or whoever decides these days....
it is re-done, overedubbed, re-cut, fixed, recorded over, recorded on another track and mixed in while the bad track is muted....whatever the heck you are particualrly comfortable calling it...
like since forever on live product.
you ARE under the impression that he was only doing this twenty or so years of live releases
but to your particular 'knowledge' ? ...
he stopped doint it after 1990,
except he MIGHT have done it for No Security in '98..
"perhaps" according to you...
but it has not been confirmed by someone
to someone
you might have heard about.
so maybe just thirty years of OVERDUBBING on live releases...
and not the last twenty?
except that i'm reporting it just happened in very recent tours they made live product out; like ole ole or havana...like recent...
i mean it was so obvious; it was a trainwreck and got cleaned up and sounded rich fine and dead on in the finished film clip...because it was OVERDUBBED...
because i saw and heard it before and after...the OVERDUB...
that was no doubt then EDITED in...
sheesh.
so you say thirty years of overdubs and i say fifty; thanks for chiming in.
rest in peace Merle.
pretty sure Merle didn't do no overdubs