Greetings to one an' all here in 'Caislean' Stones,

('Caislean' = Castle)

Just to add a link here to an interesting topic on the Status Quo Message Boardm comparing the stones' latest, "A Bigger Bang", to Quo's 2005 opus "The Party Ain't Over Yet"

They may not be very comparable in a lot of eyes, but, both bands have been around since the early sixties, both still alive an' kicking, still making albums, and both had new albums the same week in 2005 -- I'm sure the Quo gang won't mind me posting the link here to the Album Vs Album debate!

Two of the UK's longest running acts duke it out!

[www.statusquo.co.uk]

'Slainte'

Status Quo's TPAOY is OK, but nowhere near ABB. I'm a fan of both band BTW

musically I don't see anything comparable (thanks god).

AsTheQuoFlies from that forum writes this:


'A Bigger Bang', while obviously not as good as the stones' masterpieces, was a bloody fine album, and it still is 2 years down the line. I remember one memorable review proclaimed it "Decadent, delicious & disgraceful" ^ -- brilliant! Growing old disgracefully, with salacious tales and songs like "Oh No Not You Again", it just has, to quote an earlier post, balls.

Some genuine magical tracks on that album, Keef's "This Place Is Empty", Mick's "Laugh I Nearly Died", the funk strut of "Rain Fall Down", which is an album highlight, the visceral blues of 'Back of My Hand', and quite a few more genuinely great stones tracks. The album, again while not as sublimely brilliant as their classics, does kick up one hell of a musical storm, and to quote another memorable review: "The stones have no right to sound THIS GOOD in 2005".

The stones sound inspired again, but then they've been on a wonderful comeback since arguably the 'Steel Wheels' album but definitely since the brilliant 'Voodoo Lounge' album in '94.




I couldn't have said it any better. The album is amazing.

JumpingKentFlash

Could have been your post. Closet quo-fan, Kent?

I like Down Down and Rocking All Over The World. I'm guilty.

JumpingKentFlash

I'll always defend the Quo as a live band...one of the very best...but they haven't made a record I'd want to listen to since the 70s.
That's the difference for me.

I actually like Quo, but I can't listen to it for more than an hour or so. There's a bit too much boogie over it.

JumpingKentFlash

Try their 60s stuff when you get tired of the boogie. Actually, "Ma Kelly's Greasy Spoon" and "Dog Of Two Head" are two of my favourite Quo-albums.

AsTheQuoFlies is none other than me'self actually dudes & dudettes!

IrelandCalling4 on this board, buuuut, something more Quo-ish on t'other board...

Yahoo!

And in the blue corner - Status Quo.........aaaaaaaaand in the red corner: The Rolling Stones! Let's rumble and rock!!

Hehe - maybe one should switch boards as they seem to like Stones more on the Quo board than in here *lol*

Don't think I've listened to a Quo album in nigh on thirty years - maybe they will consider that a handicap???

---------------

Funny thing I noticed though - they also start their threads off with a "plea" not to be seen as illoyal just because you like some other band (better) ;-)

Status Who?

Even have to edit that



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-22 21:14 by TooTough.

Its easy to knock the Quo. I do admire their work ethic and longevity. Some of the 70s albums are great. They were -briefly- my favourite band around 82 (I was 11, so cut me some slack!). My brother and I some them last year in Glasgow and he reminded me that the last time we saw them was on their "Farewell tour" in 85!!

I've seen Status Quo 3 times. I especially remember the first show in Ahoy Rotterdam back in 1981 when they played most of their 1976 Live album. My God the whole place was dancing and jumping. And every boy had long hair! Aaaaah glory days!!

Wilco

Taken from that thread...

"Both the Stones and Quo are great live acts, yet Quo are in danger of becoming too predictable as their set list rarely varies. Contrast this with the Rolling Stones whom I took my son to see (twice) in 2003 when he was 12. On the second night, there were at least six songs different to the first night. "

Now put that in your pipe and smoke it you set list complainers.

sjs12 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On the second
> night, there were at least six songs different to
> the first night. "
>
> Now put that in your pipe and smoke it you set
> list complainers.

Perhaps the whiners only go see the Stones? They really should get around more ;-)

Is this some kind of horrible joke?????

sjs12 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Taken from that thread...
>
> "Both the Stones and Quo are great live acts, yet
> Quo are in danger of becoming too predictable as
> their set list rarely varies. Contrast this with
> the Rolling Stones whom I took my son to see
> (twice) in 2003 when he was 12. On the second
> night, there were at least six songs different to
> the first night. "
>
> Now put that in your pipe and smoke it you set
> list complainers.

Crisp expression; which I'll borrow on one sunny day, if ya dont mind!
...Anyway; donnow if its too fair to compare Stones set list variation
with Quo, which name is one of the most appropriate chosen ones in
the whole wide world of rock music.... My friends heard them in 78,
and then again in 87 & just one or two songs were different (one
was the hit You're In The Army Now, which didnt exist in 78).

But I love Quo too & I saw them back in 2006 & I gave a positive review
for my radio station.