mothers little helper
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteElmo Lewis "You May Be Right" - Billy Joel "we didnt start the fire" "its still rock & roll to me / its only rock & roll" medley
Forum: Tell Me

wandering spirit > voodoo lounge, that should've been the next stones album
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteSilver Dagger QuoteGasLightStreet QuoteSilver Dagger Unfortunately with the exception of the brilliant Thru And Thru and the OKish I Go Wild, everything after the first 5 songs is utter rubbish and an embarrassment. Honestly, put any of those songs up even next to the rockers on Emotional Rescue and you'll know what I'm talking about. They ain't no roll. And not even no rock f
Forum: Tell Me

high and dry
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteS.T.P I find it a litle strange that so many on this site often express more enthusiasm for live recordings from the Vegas area than from the bands heydays. Take for instance Hyde Park '69 witch have the first ever version of Midnight Rambler. I would love to hear it in its entirety. Then you have Altamont..! One can hear a huge difference just from one year to another on their tours fr
Forum: Tell Me

dont even get started with keith richard lol
Forum: Tell Me

1. Fort Worth '78 2. L & G 3. Hampton 1981 4. LA 1975 5. Roundhay Park 1982 6. Marquee 7. Brussels 8. Leeds 9. Charlie 10. Hyde Park 69 11. Ya-Yas 12. Checkerboard Lounge
Forum: Tell Me

mothers little helper plz
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteElmo Lewis If it is truly a raw blues album, I think it will be great. But..... here are a few things that could mess it up: 1. Clapton playing more than Keith and Ronnie. 2. Don overproducing it. 3. If it is a "return to blues" in name only ala Rod's last 10 "I'm getting back to mandolins and acoustics" albums. Also, I'd love a couple of
Forum: Tell Me

great on some girls and barbarians live, but ridiculous with cheezy horn section and backing vocals, kills the whole vibe of the song. not as embarrassing as vegas T&A though.
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteBeforeTheyMakeMeRun I'd argue that 1978 was the best performing Jagger, as well as the best on-stage Stones.absolutely, with garden state 78 being the greatest jagger show ever, its all about the attitude.
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteHMS Quotebobo Only 3 weak (boring) songs for me and that's Keith numbers. I almlost do agree. You are right about two songs. But the reggae-tune isnt boring. Thief In The Night & How Can I stop are probably the most boring songs they ever recorded, to close the album with such sleeping pills is a crime.neither as bad as thru and thru zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteGibson668 Fantastic!! Happy memories of that day..of course it won't appeal to all..but, for me, the last proper 'Stones' giginsdeed. histoeic, cant wait.
Forum: Tell Me

mcdowell was perfect, but mick wouldve been pretty good.
Forum: Tell Me

Flip the Switch ==> B Anybody Seen My Baby? ==> D Low Down ==> C Already Over Me ==> C Gunface ==> C You Don't Have to Mean It ==> F Out of Control ==> B Saint of Me ==> B Might As Well Get Juiced ==> D Always Suffering ==> C Too Tight ==> B Thief in the Night ==> C How Can I Stop ==> C C
Forum: Tell Me

flashpoint = got vegas if you want it
Forum: Tell Me

Quotemtaylor It has become a "Big Band" concert with his 15-20 something musicians. It is too much show and too little music. Happy Stones are down-scaling to at max. 10-11 musicians.soozie on stage = no sale
Forum: Tell Me

Quoteshadooby The Blu-ray is widescreen (for those trying to skip the bullshlt). read and learn lol: The Rolling Stones Live at the MAX appears in an aspect ratio of 1.78:1 on this Blu-ray Disc. That meant a moderate cropping of the more squarish IMAX dimensions, but the framing of the original footage allowed for a lot of headroom much of the time. While I’d have preferred to get the film i
Forum: Tell Me

Quoteshadooby QuoteSlick Quoteshadooby Nope, not cropped...16:9.i dont think the imax presentation was 16x9., but then again i never saw it on its release, A standard IMAX screen is 22 m × 16.1 m (72 ft × 52.8 ft), but can be significantly larger. that is 1.36:1, not 1.78:1 (16x9) Seriously dude, talk about cutting hairs, wow.no, there is a big difference, see for yourself, 1.36:1 is pr
Forum: Tell Me

Quoteshadooby Nope, not cropped...16:9.i dont think the imax presentation was 16x9., but then again i never saw it on its release, A standard IMAX screen is 22 m × 16.1 m (72 ft × 52.8 ft), but can be significantly larger. that is 1.36:1, not 1.78:1 (16x9)
Forum: Tell Me

Quotejamesfdouglas QuoteSlick Quotejamesfdouglas I'm sure the Bluray looks pretty damned good on a big flatscreen.ive seen it projected onto my 133" screen, video quality is ok, not great, The bluray, not the DVD, correct?yes, i dont watch dvds anymore. i could be wrong, but i do believe the picture is cropped from the original presentation to fit a 16x9 display.
Forum: Tell Me

el mocambo 77 please
Forum: Tell Me

Quotejamesfdouglas I'm sure the Bluray looks pretty damned good on a big flatscreen.ive seen it projected onto my 133" screen, video quality is ok, not great,
Forum: Tell Me

i still have the laserdisc, havent watched it in years though
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteThrylan Quote71Tele Quotebonddm I don't get all the love for Worried About You.If it was such a good song,why didn't it make the cut on Black and Blue? Because they put crap like Melody and Cherry Oh Baby on it instead. Imagine B&B with Slave and WAY. A much better album, imo... I'm imagining it with ten songs and nothing gets cut.perfect as is, but if anything gets
Forum: Tell Me

first put a monty python-type 16-ton weight over chuck, bernard, and lisa, drop it, lift it up, and scrape the sh$% off the stage. then maybe this could be the best version of the band since wyman left.
Forum: Tell Me

perfect song for the vegas stones... vintage vegas even. truth be told though, its all been downhill for that song since garden state 78, back when jagger still had attitude. that epic version could not and now obviously would not ever be topped.
Forum: Tell Me

even scarier, just imagine all the oldsters in the crowd going to see them now in 9 years, yikes!
Forum: Tell Me

jagger took a calculated risk in 1989 by selling out and going vegas. he wanted to maximize money by making the shows appealing to as many people as possible. he tossed the smaller number of hardcore fans aside for the larger number of lightweight fans. now that vegas stones has been done and established, he is not about to mess with the formula, gotta give the lightweight fans what they want: so
Forum: Tell Me