Tell Me :
Talk
Agree, though they could name the album Leftovers from Bottom of the Barrel in an attempt to thwart criticism.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Tool just did that : they released an album including some riffs that go back to the mid-90's. The result? The album is average at best. The "funny part"? This is their 1t album in 13 years so one might think they had the time to cook up new music instead of re-heating old music that sounds stale.
C'mon Mick by hook or by crook finish this album!
the difference with tool is, at least the lead singer, has released like 8 albums the last 13 years with other projects
You forgot about the publishing of all the 9 original songs on STICKY FINGERS, of which 7 have been played on various tours over the years, and the 4 on EXILE, of which all 4 get played on various tours.
which just tells us what we already know: The qualtiy of the Stones' output from 1965-1972 overshadows nearly everything the released from 1973 until now.
Some of those 'Frankenstein' songs were great. Re-recorded? With who? How would you replace Wyman's bass on Plundered My Soul? Darryl? Ah, ha, ha. The reason those 'Frankenstein' tracks are great is because most are Golden Age, Original Rolling Stones' rhythm team of Wyman and Watts. Have you ever heard groups 're-record' their old songs? If any of them were any good they would be the exception to the rule. Sure, 2019 Keith would be MUCH better on guitar than 1972 Keith.
The only Frankenstein song I truly like is Plundered my Soul, and this for great new vocals (Jagger + BU), certainly not for the music.
On the others, I just can't get used to hear what you call the "Golden Age, Original Rolling Stones" tone, paired with Jagger's nowadays singing style, and mixed way upfront too!
Re record, why not?
Who cares if other bands did it?
And who cares if Bill's not there any more.
The point is not to recreate the sound of the 70s. The point would be to select good unfinished musical ideas from the vaults - a hook, a riff, a melody - and develop it today, as if they would play it today.
Stripped is a great example.
None of the stripped versions are better or worse than the originals. They are different. It is better world with both the old and new guitar arrangement of Horses, with the new versions of Love in Vain and Slipping Away.
And, just to be clear, I L O V E, Bill.
C
Or just include the occassional voxless track as a fabulous bonus on future re-releases?
The reason for what Terry recently termed the "cut and paste approach" was to avoid having to bring the band together. Keith was hardly playing guitar at that time and was finishing up his book. Relations between Keith and Mick were at a new low. Ronnie was still a mess and not yet with Sally. Charlie did come and play with Mick at Le Fork for at least some of the reworked SOME GIRLS tracks.
So true (even if the "cut and paste approach" somehow worked on Watching the River Flow)
Yet, if they had to release something for the sake of it, an anthology of best untouched reamstered outtakes (from whenever) would have been more welcome at my place rather than the Frankenstins, even if Plundered is such beauty, that that song alone legitimates the existence of the Frankenstins ...
C
its pretty good
Best album since 1984. Eddie's on fire on it.
Has anyone other than The Beatles released an anthology series of studio recordings?
This is not a joke - I don't know. I don't know about the quality of The Who's unreleased tracks, if they have any. But the Stones...
Why not release a kind of anthology? Their studio career warrants it - in a different way than The Beatles. Which are @#$%& awesome.
Sure, nowadays 1, 2 or 3, if they did such a thing, wouldn't sell like The Beatles' did... initially. Perhaps they never would. Regardless, the Stones have a great window of material to choose from, going back to whatever's left of EOMS through, dare I say it, the good stuff they left off of DW.
Because the 2019 Stones are a pale shadow of the 1972 Stones. It's taken Keith 7 years of stage work to knock off enough rust to be as good as he was after he fell out of a tree in Fiji. They haven't had a world class rhythm section for a quarter century. They simply don't have that much jam.
That's sad. All those songs and the top flight band you had to realize those dreams is long gone. I wonder if Mick feels that way sometimes.
The Stones throwaways won't be compared to the work of other bands, they'll only be held up in comparison to the Stones previous work. If they never release some vast archive set, I won't complain because we have a wealth of riches from their greatest decades.
And I think that's key: do they want what may be their final release to be a bunch of 'meh' also-rans that they didn't think were good enough to be released first time around? Because we've heard the best stuff already. Some reviewers may justifiably say that kind of barrel-scraping smacks of cynical fan exploitation.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Is that it for 'Deluxe Bonus' albums?
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: September 13, 2019 04:15
Quote
GazzaQuote
buttons67
gazza, the stones have a helluva big barrel to scrap though.
The quality isnt the issue. Filling an album with 20 year old leftovers is insane and smacks of utter desperation. Who else would do that? Thankfully the Stones wont. They'd be better just giving up if they were that bereft of inspiration.
That stuff belongs on 'anthology' style releases. Not on a 2020 'studio' album.
Agree, though they could name the album Leftovers from Bottom of the Barrel in an attempt to thwart criticism.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Is that it for 'Deluxe Bonus' albums?
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: September 13, 2019 18:45
Quote
GazzaQuote
buttons67
gazza, the stones have a helluva big barrel to scrap though.
The quality isnt the issue. Filling an album with 20 year old leftovers is insane and smacks of utter desperation. Who else would do that?
Tool just did that : they released an album including some riffs that go back to the mid-90's. The result? The album is average at best. The "funny part"? This is their 1t album in 13 years so one might think they had the time to cook up new music instead of re-heating old music that sounds stale.
C'mon Mick by hook or by crook finish this album!
Re: Is that it for 'Deluxe Bonus' albums?
Posted by:
keefriffhard4life
()
Date: September 13, 2019 20:32
Quote
dcbaQuote
GazzaQuote
buttons67
gazza, the stones have a helluva big barrel to scrap though.
The quality isnt the issue. Filling an album with 20 year old leftovers is insane and smacks of utter desperation. Who else would do that?
Tool just did that : they released an album including some riffs that go back to the mid-90's. The result? The album is average at best. The "funny part"? This is their 1t album in 13 years so one might think they had the time to cook up new music instead of re-heating old music that sounds stale.
C'mon Mick by hook or by crook finish this album!
the difference with tool is, at least the lead singer, has released like 8 albums the last 13 years with other projects
Re: Is that it for 'Deluxe Bonus' albums?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: September 15, 2019 22:51
Quote
LazarusSmithQuote
nickQuote
24FPS
I think the Stones non-participation in promoting any ABKCO new product says everything. ABKCO probably releases exactly what it legally is allowed to. Without their Stones catalogue, ABCKCO would be practically irrelevant. I wish they'd get this mess cleaned up before I'm Knock, Knock, Knockin' at Heavens Door.
The majority of Warhorses played at the concerts helps Abkco's product plenty.
It's kind of a fascinating way to look at the current band. I did some quick back-of-the-napkin figuring: They played 329 selections on the most recent leg of No Filter: 176 (53%) were ABKCO; 153 (47%) were later.
I think "Play With Fire" was the oldest ABKCO tune (Feb/March 1965) they played; the Let It Bleed songs (Dec 1969) were the newest ABCKO songs performed. That means that over half of their current setlist comes from songs released during a 4.5 year window out of a nearly 60-year history!
You forgot about the publishing of all the 9 original songs on STICKY FINGERS, of which 7 have been played on various tours over the years, and the 4 on EXILE, of which all 4 get played on various tours.
Re: Is that it for 'Deluxe Bonus' albums?
Posted by:
slewan
()
Date: September 15, 2019 23:14
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
LazarusSmithQuote
nickQuote
24FPS
I think the Stones non-participation in promoting any ABKCO new product says everything. ABKCO probably releases exactly what it legally is allowed to. Without their Stones catalogue, ABCKCO would be practically irrelevant. I wish they'd get this mess cleaned up before I'm Knock, Knock, Knockin' at Heavens Door.
The majority of Warhorses played at the concerts helps Abkco's product plenty.
It's kind of a fascinating way to look at the current band. I did some quick back-of-the-napkin figuring: They played 329 selections on the most recent leg of No Filter: 176 (53%) were ABKCO; 153 (47%) were later.
I think "Play With Fire" was the oldest ABKCO tune (Feb/March 1965) they played; the Let It Bleed songs (Dec 1969) were the newest ABCKO songs performed. That means that over half of their current setlist comes from songs released during a 4.5 year window out of a nearly 60-year history!
You forgot about the publishing of all the 9 original songs on STICKY FINGERS, of which 7 have been played on various tours over the years, and the 4 on EXILE, of which all 4 get played on various tours.
which just tells us what we already know: The qualtiy of the Stones' output from 1965-1972 overshadows nearly everything the released from 1973 until now.
Re: Is that it for 'Deluxe Bonus' albums?
Posted by:
Father Ted
()
Date: September 16, 2019 15:08
They could, if there was sufficient motivation, ask other vocalists to sing on their voxless but otherwise complete backing tracks. I know that idea might go down like a bag of cold vomit with MJ but if he's never wanted to commit a vocal, why not let some of the young guns try their hand?
Re: Is that it for 'Deluxe Bonus' albums?
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: September 16, 2019 19:28
Clapton's Beard, Father Ted! That would be worse than what Andrew did to his tracks on METAMORPHOSIS!
Mind you, as a tribute album, it's an idea with merit so long as it wasn't released as The Rolling Stones.
Mind you, as a tribute album, it's an idea with merit so long as it wasn't released as The Rolling Stones.
Re: Is that it for 'Deluxe Bonus' albums?
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: September 16, 2019 19:48
The Deluxe albums did not work for me.
I didn't like the Frankenstein songs, and the untouched ones were so few that it was just a tease!
As far as the Frankenstein songs go, they should have re recorded and released a selection of them from scratch, a-la Stripped.
That would have been an interesting project.
C
I didn't like the Frankenstein songs, and the untouched ones were so few that it was just a tease!
As far as the Frankenstein songs go, they should have re recorded and released a selection of them from scratch, a-la Stripped.
That would have been an interesting project.
C
Re: Is that it for 'Deluxe Bonus' albums?
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: September 16, 2019 23:46
Quote
liddas
The Deluxe albums did not work for me.
I didn't like the Frankenstein songs, and the untouched ones were so few that it was just a tease!
As far as the Frankenstein songs go, they should have re recorded and released a selection of them from scratch, a-la Stripped.
That would have been an interesting project.
C
Some of those 'Frankenstein' songs were great. Re-recorded? With who? How would you replace Wyman's bass on Plundered My Soul? Darryl? Ah, ha, ha. The reason those 'Frankenstein' tracks are great is because most are Golden Age, Original Rolling Stones' rhythm team of Wyman and Watts. Have you ever heard groups 're-record' their old songs? If any of them were any good they would be the exception to the rule. Sure, 2019 Keith would be MUCH better on guitar than 1972 Keith.
Re: Is that it for 'Deluxe Bonus' albums?
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: September 17, 2019 11:59
Quote
24FPSQuote
liddas
The Deluxe albums did not work for me.
I didn't like the Frankenstein songs, and the untouched ones were so few that it was just a tease!
As far as the Frankenstein songs go, they should have re recorded and released a selection of them from scratch, a-la Stripped.
That would have been an interesting project.
C
Some of those 'Frankenstein' songs were great. Re-recorded? With who? How would you replace Wyman's bass on Plundered My Soul? Darryl? Ah, ha, ha. The reason those 'Frankenstein' tracks are great is because most are Golden Age, Original Rolling Stones' rhythm team of Wyman and Watts. Have you ever heard groups 're-record' their old songs? If any of them were any good they would be the exception to the rule. Sure, 2019 Keith would be MUCH better on guitar than 1972 Keith.
The only Frankenstein song I truly like is Plundered my Soul, and this for great new vocals (Jagger + BU), certainly not for the music.
On the others, I just can't get used to hear what you call the "Golden Age, Original Rolling Stones" tone, paired with Jagger's nowadays singing style, and mixed way upfront too!
Re record, why not?
Who cares if other bands did it?
And who cares if Bill's not there any more.
The point is not to recreate the sound of the 70s. The point would be to select good unfinished musical ideas from the vaults - a hook, a riff, a melody - and develop it today, as if they would play it today.
Stripped is a great example.
None of the stripped versions are better or worse than the originals. They are different. It is better world with both the old and new guitar arrangement of Horses, with the new versions of Love in Vain and Slipping Away.
And, just to be clear, I L O V E, Bill.
C
Re: Is that it for 'Deluxe Bonus' albums?
Posted by:
Father Ted
()
Date: September 17, 2019 14:07
Quote
Rocky Dijon
Clapton's Beard, Father Ted! That would be worse than what Andrew did to his tracks on METAMORPHOSIS!
Mind you, as a tribute album, it's an idea with merit so long as it wasn't released as The Rolling Stones.
Or just include the occassional voxless track as a fabulous bonus on future re-releases?
Re: Is that it for 'Deluxe Bonus' albums?
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: September 17, 2019 15:00
Quote
liddas
On the others, I just can't get used to hear what you call the "Golden Age, Original Rolling Stones" tone, paired with Jagger's nowadays singing style, and mixed way upfront too! Re-record, why not?
The reason for what Terry recently termed the "cut and paste approach" was to avoid having to bring the band together. Keith was hardly playing guitar at that time and was finishing up his book. Relations between Keith and Mick were at a new low. Ronnie was still a mess and not yet with Sally. Charlie did come and play with Mick at Le Fork for at least some of the reworked SOME GIRLS tracks.
Re: Is that it for 'Deluxe Bonus' albums?
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: September 17, 2019 20:23
Quote
Rocky DijonQuote
liddas
On the others, I just can't get used to hear what you call the "Golden Age, Original Rolling Stones" tone, paired with Jagger's nowadays singing style, and mixed way upfront too! Re-record, why not?
The reason for what Terry recently termed the "cut and paste approach" was to avoid having to bring the band together. Keith was hardly playing guitar at that time and was finishing up his book. Relations between Keith and Mick were at a new low. Ronnie was still a mess and not yet with Sally. Charlie did come and play with Mick at Le Fork for at least some of the reworked SOME GIRLS tracks.
So true (even if the "cut and paste approach" somehow worked on Watching the River Flow)
Yet, if they had to release something for the sake of it, an anthology of best untouched reamstered outtakes (from whenever) would have been more welcome at my place rather than the Frankenstins, even if Plundered is such beauty, that that song alone legitimates the existence of the Frankenstins ...
C
Re: Is that it for 'Deluxe Bonus' albums?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: September 18, 2019 04:47
Quote
liddasQuote
24FPSQuote
liddas
The Deluxe albums did not work for me.
I didn't like the Frankenstein songs, and the untouched ones were so few that it was just a tease!
As far as the Frankenstein songs go, they should have re recorded and released a selection of them from scratch, a-la Stripped.
That would have been an interesting project.
C
Some of those 'Frankenstein' songs were great. Re-recorded? With who? How would you replace Wyman's bass on Plundered My Soul? Darryl? Ah, ha, ha. The reason those 'Frankenstein' tracks are great is because most are Golden Age, Original Rolling Stones' rhythm team of Wyman and Watts. Have you ever heard groups 're-record' their old songs? If any of them were any good they would be the exception to the rule. Sure, 2019 Keith would be MUCH better on guitar than 1972 Keith.
The only Frankenstein song I truly like is Plundered my Soul, and this for great new vocals (Jagger + BU), certainly not for the music.
On the others, I just can't get used to hear what you call the "Golden Age, Original Rolling Stones" tone, paired with Jagger's nowadays singing style, and mixed way upfront too!
Re record, why not?
Who cares if other bands did it?
And who cares if Bill's not there any more.
The point is not to recreate the sound of the 70s. The point would be to select good unfinished musical ideas from the vaults - a hook, a riff, a melody - and develop it today, as if they would play it today.
Stripped is a great example.
None of the stripped versions are better or worse than the originals. They are different. It is better world with both the old and new guitar arrangement of Horses, with the new versions of Love in Vain and Slipping Away.
And, just to be clear, I L O V E, Bill.
C
Re: Is that it for 'Deluxe Bonus' albums?
Posted by:
nick
()
Date: September 18, 2019 05:17
Is that VH album any good?
Re: Is that it for 'Deluxe Bonus' albums?
Posted by:
keefriffhard4life
()
Date: September 18, 2019 06:20
Quote
nick
Is that VH album any good?
its pretty good
Re: Is that it for 'Deluxe Bonus' albums?
Posted by:
Father Ted
()
Date: September 18, 2019 13:21
Our boys being our boys will undoubtedly have other ideas for their unreleased stuff. I just can't see them doing a straight Anthology release, it's too predictable and obvious for them. All their old peers have been down that road. They'll want to try and find a fresh angle. And while they're still raking the cash in from touring, there's no urgency to do an anthology either.
Re: Is that it for 'Deluxe Bonus' albums?
Posted by:
FrogSugar
()
Date: September 18, 2019 21:43
Quote
nick
Is that VH album any good?
Best album since 1984. Eddie's on fire on it.
Re: Is that it for 'Deluxe Bonus' albums?
Posted by:
buttons67
()
Date: September 18, 2019 21:45
if there are to be a lot of vault releases regarding outtakes etc, i dont think we will get a lot of them in a single package, they would rather drip feed us bits and pieces and attach it to an album of already released old stuff.
so if we do get every outtake eventually it will cost a lot.
so if we do get every outtake eventually it will cost a lot.
Re: Is that it for 'Deluxe Bonus' albums?
Posted by:
nick
()
Date: September 18, 2019 22:02
Well that's what they have been doing and it already costs a lot. You got Japan extras, Deluxe editions and Ward Super Deluxes. Then you take Grrr! for example the extras from 2012 has the 45 vinyl appearing in the On Air CD's, Doom & Gloom and One More Shot on Honk. The IBC disc is the only original item left. I've been busting these sets up for what I want and ditching the rest on eBay. I'd rather get tagged super big time once and let's get it over with.
Re: Is that it for 'Deluxe Bonus' albums?
Posted by:
slewan
()
Date: September 18, 2019 23:32
well, while we're discussing: Bob Dylan is to release this next Bootleg Series on Nov. 1 (expectingrain.com has already a cover on it's website)
Re: Is that it for 'Deluxe Bonus' albums?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: September 19, 2019 07:30
Quote
Father Ted
Our boys being our boys will undoubtedly have other ideas for their unreleased stuff. I just can't see them doing a straight Anthology release, it's too predictable and obvious for them. All their old peers have been down that road. They'll want to try and find a fresh angle. And while they're still raking the cash in from touring, there's no urgency to do an anthology either.
Has anyone other than The Beatles released an anthology series of studio recordings?
This is not a joke - I don't know. I don't know about the quality of The Who's unreleased tracks, if they have any. But the Stones...
Why not release a kind of anthology? Their studio career warrants it - in a different way than The Beatles. Which are @#$%& awesome.
Sure, nowadays 1, 2 or 3, if they did such a thing, wouldn't sell like The Beatles' did... initially. Perhaps they never would. Regardless, the Stones have a great window of material to choose from, going back to whatever's left of EOMS through, dare I say it, the good stuff they left off of DW.
Re: Is that it for 'Deluxe Bonus' albums?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: September 19, 2019 07:32
I have the Bob Marley box set and of course is Bruce.
But bands? Like what The Beatles did?
I really don't know.
But bands? Like what The Beatles did?
I really don't know.
Re: Is that it for 'Deluxe Bonus' albums?
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: September 19, 2019 08:52
Quote
liddasQuote
24FPSQuote
liddas
The Deluxe albums did not work for me.
I didn't like the Frankenstein songs, and the untouched ones were so few that it was just a tease!
As far as the Frankenstein songs go, they should have re recorded and released a selection of them from scratch, a-la Stripped.
That would have been an interesting project.
C
Some of those 'Frankenstein' songs were great. Re-recorded? With who? How would you replace Wyman's bass on Plundered My Soul? Darryl? Ah, ha, ha. The reason those 'Frankenstein' tracks are great is because most are Golden Age, Original Rolling Stones' rhythm team of Wyman and Watts. Have you ever heard groups 're-record' their old songs? If any of them were any good they would be the exception to the rule. Sure, 2019 Keith would be MUCH better on guitar than 1972 Keith.
The only Frankenstein song I truly like is Plundered my Soul, and this for great new vocals (Jagger + BU), certainly not for the music.
On the others, I just can't get used to hear what you call the "Golden Age, Original Rolling Stones" tone, paired with Jagger's nowadays singing style, and mixed way upfront too!
Re record, why not?
Who cares if other bands did it?
And who cares if Bill's not there any more.
The point is not to recreate the sound of the 70s. The point would be to select good unfinished musical ideas from the vaults - a hook, a riff, a melody - and develop it today, as if they would play it today.
Stripped is a great example.
None of the stripped versions are better or worse than the originals. They are different. It is better world with both the old and new guitar arrangement of Horses, with the new versions of Love in Vain and Slipping Away.
And, just to be clear, I L O V E, Bill.
C
Because the 2019 Stones are a pale shadow of the 1972 Stones. It's taken Keith 7 years of stage work to knock off enough rust to be as good as he was after he fell out of a tree in Fiji. They haven't had a world class rhythm section for a quarter century. They simply don't have that much jam.
Re: Is that it for 'Deluxe Bonus' albums?
Posted by:
ukcal
()
Date: September 19, 2019 09:46
The who - Pete says in his book he has over 400 unreleased songs, some are demos, part recoreded etc....what a waste...must be 10 great songs ...but then again the blurb for the new album says he wrote all but two in 2018
Re: Is that it for 'Deluxe Bonus' albums?
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: September 19, 2019 21:05
Quote
ukcal
The who - Pete says in his book he has over 400 unreleased songs, some are demos, part recoreded etc....what a waste...must be 10 great songs ...but then again the blurb for the new album says he wrote all but two in 2018
That's sad. All those songs and the top flight band you had to realize those dreams is long gone. I wonder if Mick feels that way sometimes.
Re: Is that it for 'Deluxe Bonus' albums?
Posted by:
schillid
()
Date: September 19, 2019 21:40
I had a drawing teacher freshman year who encouraged us to take risks, make mistakes, etc...
She said that she thought that there would have been so much to learn if we could have looked into great artists' wastebaskets and seen what they threw away.
Fact is, these were thrown away because they weren't up to the artists' own standards. The artist didn't want them to be seen.
She said that she thought that there would have been so much to learn if we could have looked into great artists' wastebaskets and seen what they threw away.
Fact is, these were thrown away because they weren't up to the artists' own standards. The artist didn't want them to be seen.
Re: Is that it for 'Deluxe Bonus' albums?
Posted by:
buttons67
()
Date: September 19, 2019 22:06
yes but what an artist throws away and didnt want to be seen might interest some one else in later life.
some of the stones throwaways are better than what many bands keep.
some of the stones throwaways are better than what many bands keep.
Re: Is that it for 'Deluxe Bonus' albums?
Posted by:
Father Ted
()
Date: September 19, 2019 22:36
Quote
buttons67
yes but what an artist throws away and didnt want to be seen might interest some one else in later life.
some of the stones throwaways are better than what many bands keep.
The Stones throwaways won't be compared to the work of other bands, they'll only be held up in comparison to the Stones previous work. If they never release some vast archive set, I won't complain because we have a wealth of riches from their greatest decades.
And I think that's key: do they want what may be their final release to be a bunch of 'meh' also-rans that they didn't think were good enough to be released first time around? Because we've heard the best stuff already. Some reviewers may justifiably say that kind of barrel-scraping smacks of cynical fan exploitation.
Re: Is that it for 'Deluxe Bonus' albums?
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: September 19, 2019 22:49
Realistically, do you imagine the releases will stop when the band ceases to be a going concern? Don't all the archival releases we're seeing suggest that they will attempt more? Solo concerts, unreleased demos, alternate versions, TV appearances. All of it is to come. It doesn't matter if we're there to enjoy it or not. It doesn't matter if the returns dwindle each decade. So long as there's an audience for the tongue and lips logo and the signature sound, it will continue just as assuredly as the repackaging.
Eventually, the catalog will be united, too. Maybe the Klein heirs will own the Promotone and Musidor property or maybe the reverse or maybe Universal or whatever conglomerate takes its place owns it all. It will continue. The gravy train doesn't end with mortality. Let it roll on.
Eventually, the catalog will be united, too. Maybe the Klein heirs will own the Promotone and Musidor property or maybe the reverse or maybe Universal or whatever conglomerate takes its place owns it all. It will continue. The gravy train doesn't end with mortality. Let it roll on.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
ade , britstones , charlystone , cowboytoast , DandelionPowderman , drwatts , esqcjh , georgelicks , hanemaaijer , Irix , martinw , philrock90 , rocknrollal , Rokyfan , Spud , Stilllife09 , TumblinDice76 , voodoodrew , werner67976
Guests:
1715
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10