Tell Me :
Talk
LOL I meant u2, not the Who! Sorry.
No new songs on 'Rattle & Hum' ? there are 15 U2 songs on it. Twelve of them were songs they were releasing for the first time (four of which were major hit singles) and three were live versions of old hits.
Funny definition of 'basically no new songs'.
Its not a concert CD. Its a studio album with 9 studio songs and 6 live tracks - 3 of which theyd never released before. And ten of the 12 new songs are original compositions.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-18 14:30 by Gazza.
isnt that a bit of a contradiction?
Well, they think its a good album but they want to re-record it, not satisfied with the way some of the songs sound. The songs are good but the production isnt always. I love it.
Since 1997.
He only strummed the acoutsic during some warhorses in 1997. I saw pics of the 2007 Euro tour with him actually out front, playing on an electric (I coulnd't tell what kind of guitar). Now there are 4 guitarists going at once sometimes (incl. Mick).
This kind of reminded me of the B2B lp - where is it Keith? Where is it Waddy Watchell (who seemed to play on every song)? Extra band members, 7 bass players...
Voodoo Lounge (my favourite latter-day LP) was so much more cohesive. Sort of Keith's last hurrah before people had to be Keith for him.
So Blondie, like Chuck, has been a necessary evil for over a decade now.
Still, gotta love Keef, eh?
[thepowergoats.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-21 19:50 by jamesfdouglas.
Wow...your name's "Taylorfan" AND you wish the Stones would quit?? Wow...what a surprise.
Sorry,I forgot to mention Taylor could have been replaced.A pity some joker replaced him.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Shine a Light - The Sunday Times "bad"review .
Posted by:
bumbum
()
Date: April 18, 2008 11:12
"I make it seven from 1987-2004, plus "Passengers" and various other soundtrack work, but do carry on."
I don't consider Rattle - it is a consert CD, like I neither consider LL, FF, Flashpoint, No Security and Stripped - because basically no new songs.
I don't consider Rattle - it is a consert CD, like I neither consider LL, FF, Flashpoint, No Security and Stripped - because basically no new songs.
Re: Shine a Light - The Sunday Times "bad"review .
Posted by:
LA FORUM
()
Date: April 18, 2008 12:05
Quote
FrankM
"I dunno why we compare them to U2 but ok. U2: a crappy record like Pop is actually great. A masterpiece, almost. Every record by the Who has something, some truly great song and they did change during the 90s, something happened between records, they produced music."
If you think Pop was almost a masterpiece you are entitled to that opinion but I don't think many will share your view. Every record by The Who has something? All two of them since 1982? Don't get me wrong I love The Who but they are not exaclty the poster boys for a successful latter day career. Lots of good songs on Endless Wire- no great songs imo.
"Macca has ben productive. Six new studio albums the last 15 years, and on top of that, his classical things, tours and the Wingsspan documentary. And pretty good quality also, not all, but alot."
Macca, Springsteen and Dylan have all been more productive as far as quantity of records over the last fifteen years but remember it is easier for a solo artist to be productive than it is for a band. A solo artist just has to get out of bed in the moring. A band consists of numerous members that have other projects to do outside of the band.
LOL I meant u2, not the Who! Sorry.
Re: Shine a Light - The Sunday Times "bad"review .
Posted by:
LA FORUM
()
Date: April 18, 2008 12:05
Quote
GazzaQuote
LA FORUM
I dunno why we compare them to U2 but ok. U2: a crappy record like Pop is actually great. A masterpiece, almost. Every record by the Who has something, some truly great song and they did change during the 90s, something happened between records, they produced music.[/quote
what was it, exactly?
I like U2, but youre the first person I've ever met who considers "Pop" a masterpiece.
Well U2 think its great and they want to re-record it, not satisfied with the production.
Re: Shine a Light - The Sunday Times "bad"review .
Posted by:
LOGIE
()
Date: April 18, 2008 13:16
I thought POP (the album) had some great moments; Last Night On Earth, Miami, Gone and Staring At The Sun, are all examples of a band fully aware of it's song-writing capabilities, and equally confident about experimenting with new production styles. For that, they should be applauded.
However, it is unfortunate that through poor time management and an utterly dreadful stage show, the whole POP concept is destined to become remembered, somewhat unfairly, as one of THE biggest turkeys in rock history.
It deserves better.
However, it is unfortunate that through poor time management and an utterly dreadful stage show, the whole POP concept is destined to become remembered, somewhat unfairly, as one of THE biggest turkeys in rock history.
It deserves better.
Re: Shine a Light - The Sunday Times "bad"review .
Posted by:
Four Stone Walls
()
Date: April 18, 2008 13:35
LA FORUM posted Shine A Light (the track) above.
It's ATROCIOUS.
In 1972 Taylor's blistering lead phrases lifted the song to the heavens, and was prominent even through verses. Now it's chuck's plinking that provides any melodic excitement. One fairly standard and unexciting Ronnie solo. Sorry, make that two.
The prominent acoustic - I BET that it's Blondie, (who is not followed by cameras in this clip) - and I bet Keith, posing on that stool, is just noodling. Or the prominent acoustic was overdubbed later. Just sounds a bittoo 'tidy.'
Chunky piano sing-a-long. Not quite Chas and Dave - but heading there.
(Not dark yet - but getting there).
Don't start me (up) on the, hmmmmm, slightly exaggerated gesturing, of the man on vocals.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-18 13:41 by Four Stone Walls.
It's ATROCIOUS.
In 1972 Taylor's blistering lead phrases lifted the song to the heavens, and was prominent even through verses. Now it's chuck's plinking that provides any melodic excitement. One fairly standard and unexciting Ronnie solo. Sorry, make that two.
The prominent acoustic - I BET that it's Blondie, (who is not followed by cameras in this clip) - and I bet Keith, posing on that stool, is just noodling. Or the prominent acoustic was overdubbed later. Just sounds a bittoo 'tidy.'
Chunky piano sing-a-long. Not quite Chas and Dave - but heading there.
(Not dark yet - but getting there).
Don't start me (up) on the, hmmmmm, slightly exaggerated gesturing, of the man on vocals.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-18 13:41 by Four Stone Walls.
Re: Shine a Light - The Sunday Times "bad"review .
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: April 18, 2008 14:24
Quote
bumbum
"I make it seven from 1987-2004, plus "Passengers" and various other soundtrack work, but do carry on."
I don't consider Rattle - it is a consert CD, like I neither consider LL, FF, Flashpoint, No Security and Stripped - because basically no new songs.
No new songs on 'Rattle & Hum' ? there are 15 U2 songs on it. Twelve of them were songs they were releasing for the first time (four of which were major hit singles) and three were live versions of old hits.
Funny definition of 'basically no new songs'.
Its not a concert CD. Its a studio album with 9 studio songs and 6 live tracks - 3 of which theyd never released before. And ten of the 12 new songs are original compositions.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-18 14:30 by Gazza.
Re: Shine a Light - The Sunday Times "bad"review .
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: April 18, 2008 14:32
Quote
LA FORUM
Well U2 think its great and they want to re-record it, not satisfied with the production.
isnt that a bit of a contradiction?
Re: Shine a Light - The Sunday Times "bad"review .
Posted by:
oldfan
()
Date: April 18, 2008 14:48
Hey Four Stone Walls- Why do you think it's overdubbed? Where is it from?
Re: Shine a Light - The Sunday Times "bad"review .
Posted by:
VoodooLounge13
()
Date: April 18, 2008 15:01
Personally I love Rattle & Hum - that along with Achtung Baby are the only U2 albums I need!!
Re: Shine a Light - The Sunday Times "bad"review .
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: April 18, 2008 15:08
Funny how the discussion shifted to U2, I was just loading Rattle and Tree in my ipod. Two great albums those were!
But let's cut the crap - SAL is mystical experience - I'm about to say it is their best live compilation ever.
C
But let's cut the crap - SAL is mystical experience - I'm about to say it is their best live compilation ever.
C
Re: Shine a Light - The Sunday Times "bad"review .
Posted by:
Pussy Whips
()
Date: April 18, 2008 15:25
Listened to all the songs.Like the interpretations on most.Couldn't give a rats what anyone else (expert journo's etc) thinks.Looking fwd to seeing the movie!
Re: Shine a Light - The Sunday Times "bad"review .
Posted by:
Four Stone Walls
()
Date: April 18, 2008 17:06
oldfan,
I was musing on the acoustic playing on the Shine A Light track - and questioning if it's actually Keith playing or Blondie. Then I thought it might have been overdubbed. These are just thoughts/impressions. But I'd be interested to know from someone who was at the gig if Blondie was armed with an acoustic weapon (guitar) for this track, (as on many others on the tour). None of the 15 award-winning camaramen show him on this track! I'm curious/suspicious. Sounds a bit 'clean' for a Keith live acoustic part these days.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-18 17:18 by Four Stone Walls.
I was musing on the acoustic playing on the Shine A Light track - and questioning if it's actually Keith playing or Blondie. Then I thought it might have been overdubbed. These are just thoughts/impressions. But I'd be interested to know from someone who was at the gig if Blondie was armed with an acoustic weapon (guitar) for this track, (as on many others on the tour). None of the 15 award-winning camaramen show him on this track! I'm curious/suspicious. Sounds a bit 'clean' for a Keith live acoustic part these days.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-18 17:18 by Four Stone Walls.
Re: Shine a Light - The Sunday Times "bad"review .
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: April 18, 2008 17:21
>> None of the 15 award-winning camaramen show him on this track! <<
what Shine a Light footage are you talking about? Shine a Light isn't shown in the film.
the number is played (in part) over the "epilogue" and dedication to Ertegun.
do you mean some 1995 footage maybe? Blondie wasn't with the Stones then.
what Shine a Light footage are you talking about? Shine a Light isn't shown in the film.
the number is played (in part) over the "epilogue" and dedication to Ertegun.
do you mean some 1995 footage maybe? Blondie wasn't with the Stones then.
Re: Shine a Light - The Sunday Times "bad"review .
Posted by:
oldfan
()
Date: April 18, 2008 17:54
Four Stone Walls- That's why I asked-the footage definitely is not from the first Beacon performance and it wasn't played at the second show.It's not the same theater either.. It's not from the Paradiso show but appears to be from around that time.
Re: Shine a Light - The Sunday Times "bad"review .
Posted by:
Four Stone Walls
()
Date: April 21, 2008 00:17
Sorry. When LA FORUM posted it I immediately assumed it was a clip from the film.
I've now clicked on the YouTube part of that window and it says it's from Brixton in 1995.
So Blondie wasn't touring with Stones in 1994-95?
Well, even if he was, I don't think he'd started on Acoustic Guitar duties by then.
So, it must be Keith - who could hold his own in those days.
Amazing that Jagger was doing such melodramatic stuff as early as that.
I've now clicked on the YouTube part of that window and it says it's from Brixton in 1995.
So Blondie wasn't touring with Stones in 1994-95?
Well, even if he was, I don't think he'd started on Acoustic Guitar duties by then.
So, it must be Keith - who could hold his own in those days.
Amazing that Jagger was doing such melodramatic stuff as early as that.
Re: Shine a Light - The Sunday Times "bad"review .
Posted by:
LA FORUM
()
Date: April 21, 2008 17:19
Quote
GazzaQuote
LA FORUM
Well U2 think its great and they want to re-record it, not satisfied with the production.
isnt that a bit of a contradiction?
Well, they think its a good album but they want to re-record it, not satisfied with the way some of the songs sound. The songs are good but the production isnt always. I love it.
Re: Shine a Light - The Sunday Times "bad"review .
Posted by:
erikjjf
()
Date: April 21, 2008 17:22
Quote
Four Stone Walls
So Blondie wasn't touring with Stones in 1994-95?
Since 1997.
Re: Shine a Light - The Sunday Times "bad"review .
Posted by:
Taylorfan
()
Date: April 21, 2008 19:41
Yes my fellow Iorr.org people,I told more than once before the Stones should
have quit many years ago.
Saw them in The Hague in'76 and they were awfull.
The article above comes 32 too late.
have quit many years ago.
Saw them in The Hague in'76 and they were awfull.
The article above comes 32 too late.
Re: Shine a Light - The Sunday Times "bad"review .
Posted by:
jamesfdouglas
()
Date: April 21, 2008 19:50
Quote
erikjjfQuote
Four Stone Walls
So Blondie wasn't touring with Stones in 1994-95?
Since 1997.
He only strummed the acoutsic during some warhorses in 1997. I saw pics of the 2007 Euro tour with him actually out front, playing on an electric (I coulnd't tell what kind of guitar). Now there are 4 guitarists going at once sometimes (incl. Mick).
This kind of reminded me of the B2B lp - where is it Keith? Where is it Waddy Watchell (who seemed to play on every song)? Extra band members, 7 bass players...
Voodoo Lounge (my favourite latter-day LP) was so much more cohesive. Sort of Keith's last hurrah before people had to be Keith for him.
So Blondie, like Chuck, has been a necessary evil for over a decade now.
Still, gotta love Keef, eh?
[thepowergoats.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-21 19:50 by jamesfdouglas.
Re: Shine a Light - The Sunday Times "bad"review .
Posted by:
Justin
()
Date: April 21, 2008 20:03
Quote
Taylorfan
Yes my fellow Iorr.org people,I told more than once before the Stones should
have quit many years ago.
Saw them in The Hague in'76 and they were awfull.
The article above comes 32 too late.
Wow...your name's "Taylorfan" AND you wish the Stones would quit?? Wow...what a surprise.
Re: Shine a Light - The Sunday Times "bad"review .
Posted by:
Four Stone Walls
()
Date: April 21, 2008 20:18
Jusin,
Now just you hang on there muskrat! Not wanting to take your comment too seriously (or Taylorfan's ofcourse) BUT there are many Taylor appreciators who are all too glad that the Stones did not quit. I agree with him that '76 was pretty poor - and that so was 2005-2007. But some pretty good moments in the intervening thirty years.
Now just you hang on there muskrat! Not wanting to take your comment too seriously (or Taylorfan's ofcourse) BUT there are many Taylor appreciators who are all too glad that the Stones did not quit. I agree with him that '76 was pretty poor - and that so was 2005-2007. But some pretty good moments in the intervening thirty years.
Re: Shine a Light - The Sunday Times "bad"review .
Posted by:
jamesfdouglas
()
Date: April 21, 2008 20:24
Re: Shine a Light - The Sunday Times "bad"review .
Posted by:
Taylorfan
()
Date: April 23, 2008 00:06
Quote
JustinQuote
Taylorfan
Yes my fellow Iorr.org people,I told more than once before the Stones should
have quit many years ago.
Saw them in The Hague in'76 and they were awfull.
The article above comes 32 too late.
Wow...your name's "Taylorfan" AND you wish the Stones would quit?? Wow...what a surprise.
Sorry,I forgot to mention Taylor could have been replaced.A pity some joker replaced him.
Re: Shine a Light - The Sunday Times "bad"review .
Posted by:
ablett
()
Date: April 23, 2008 00:17
Taylor nuts, you can't beat em and you don't wanna join them.....
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Amarant , keithpinkmoon , Necessitor , Nellcote1971 , P@py , Rambler62 , stoned52 , stonemac , stonesurvive , triceratops , YUQURMH
Guests:
2045
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10