Quotejahisnotdead It's great to know they are working behind the scenes to produce product, and wise to keep it a fairly steady rate of production. It keeps them "warmed up" in the minds of music consumers. I am glad they have been using the time to work on things like this. Not sure who "they" is that you're referring to, but this compilation of previously released
Forum: Tell Me

I'll never forget that day. I watched most of the show on a screen as my friends and I were so far back from the stage. My biggest regret is missing the Flaming Lips' set because I was stuck in a beer tent line watching a woman flash her boobs. Good times.
Forum: Tell Me

I'm glad to see Lars Ulrich didn't make the list. Personally, I would have included Pentti "Whitey" Glan and John Densmore. Stevie Wonder is a very underrated drummer but not a "drummer", per se. And I would have put Ringo higher up on the list, certainly ahead of Charlie.
Forum: Tell Me

"From rock thunder machines to punk powerhouses, we count down the kings and queens of slam" Slam? Who the hell is writing this crap? Oh wait, it's Rolling Stone.
Forum: Tell Me

RIP Peter Green. Fleetwood Mac were an incredible blues band, certainly better than The Stones.
Forum: Tell Me

Pay Bob Ludwig to master your tracks.
Forum: Tell Me

I recently fell in love with An American Werewolf In London.
Forum: Tell Me

Mick asks John "Do you remember that old place off Broadway?" What is he referring to? Is there a story there or was Mick just making shit up?
Forum: Tell Me

I hope they don't do that dumb thing where songs from the concert are included as "bonus tracks".
Forum: Tell Me

Quotejbwelda >i wouldnt bother saving any BB stuff ...… on the same wavelength there, that's why I was asking. I have read a few books on doings in Hollyweird but not all that much specifically about the BBs. Other than the Manson connection they were regarded by many as being a pretty clean living bunch, other than the typical LSD experimentation back in the sixties...and of course Br
Forum: Tell Me

It's obvious to me that Charlie was miming his performance to a pre-recorded track. His snare "hits" we were hearing at times did not sync with what he was doing. Not at all. It's hilarious that confused people are still talking about this days later. It's not rocket science. "(A rep for the Stones declined to comment on what was actually going on with Watts’ per
Forum: Tell Me

Here I was thinking this was going to be a video of Mick Jagger crowdsurfing.
Forum: Tell Me

Here's a good autobiography by Prakash John, bassist on Rock And Roll Animal. He talks about his time with Lou but the whole thing is worth a read. "Wagner and Hunter - I remember this clearly - all these guys that came after Wagner and Hunter in '73, all these guys in that band Aerosmith, and a band called Boston, they'd have those dueling guitar things, you know... lea
Forum: Tell Me

Forum: Tell Me

QuoteRollingFreak Harry Nilsson's also not in the rock and roll hall of fame which is insane. I agree. The only reason I can think of why he's not in there is because he didn't play concerts and tour, which is a silly reason.
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteHairball And with Nirvana having only three proper studio albums - with the first (Bleach) going practically unnoticed initially and not even charting- the amount and quality of work just isn't there. Jimi Hendrix has only three proper studio albums...
Forum: Tell Me

Berlin Trans Band, 1982 A concert film directed by Michael Lindsay-Hogg in October 1982 on the Trans tour. That was officially released on DVD years ago.
Forum: Tell Me

Could the Stones have played pretty much every Doors song and done them justice? What about The Velvet Underground? The Byrds? The Beach Boys? The answer is no. Of course not. It's a ridiculous suggestion and to say they can do pretty much every Beatles song is nonsense.
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteMileHigh They just don't have that swing and a certain earthy rock and roll feel. Sure they did. The Beatles were a rock and roll band in the early days before "Beatlemania". They continued to have rock and roll songs in their catalogue for their entire existence but they also moved onto different things at the same time.
Forum: Tell Me

QuotePalace Revolution 2000 Re Nick Cave - he is one of the very few artists who IMO are getting better as time goes on. Most artists have that overdrive era of Golden inspiration, and then coast on that. As much as I like early Nick Cave, once he did 'Abattoir Blues:, then Grinderman, and then every album since, he has really ramped it up. Respect to co-writer Warren Ellis, as well.
Forum: Tell Me

Quotekeefriff99 There's no doubt that Mick has the endurance and athleticism for long-distance running... Feeling the excitement from the crowd pumps Mick up, like it would with any musician up on stage in front of a large audience. The adrenaline is flowing. Long-distance running off-stage is a much different world. Would Mick excel at that? We don't know.
Forum: Tell Me

No Frank Sinatra? Harry Nilsson? Ella Fitzgerald? Louis Armstrong? Chris Cornell?
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteStonedAsiaExile Lennon beating out Jagger? Nope. Sorry but Lennon was a much better singer than Jagger.
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteDeanGoodman Nick is very powerful, no doubt. But he's no Iggy Pop. And Iggy Pop is no Nick Cave.
Forum: Tell Me

Headline is a little misleading. Leavell isn't playing in the studio Muscle Shoals or even in the city of Muscle Shoals.
Forum: Tell Me

And again, no Harry Nilsson.
Forum: Tell Me

My earliest concert memory in my life is seeing Little Richard, Chuck Berry, and Bo Diddley in 1989 in Toronto. I was 10 years old. I only remember two things. People booing Berry because he didn't allow himself to be shown on the big screen at the venue, and Little Richard doing a "woo" call and response thing with the crowd that ended with him comically telling the crowd to shut
Forum: Tell Me

"I seriously doubt Janie Hendrix would do a one time showing in London, with no further nothing, period. I would bet on a DVD/Blu Ray release somewhere down the road." I agree. This "strict one time viewing" is just a marketing ploy to get people to come out for the screening. It'll be released eventually. There is money to be made.
Forum: Tell Me

It's a one time showing at Royal Albert Hall... I would imagine it'll be screened and for sale eventually worldwide. edit: never mind, I just read the site where it says "This screening is a strict ‘One Night Only’ experience for fans as there are no current plans for a further release of the concert." That sucks!
Forum: Tell Me

I would have airbrushed Mick out of that cover image to put the focus on Charlie not Mick. But that's just me.
Forum: Tell Me