RE: Fifty years of the Stones

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Fifty years of the Stones

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Fifty years of the Stones

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Fifty years of the Stones - 7/17/2012 7:37:08 PM

Marini

Posts: 3629
Joined: 2/14/2010
Status: offline

Love, love, love, love the Stones!

Did I mention that I love the Stones?

I have had this weird crush on Keith Richards for over 25 years.
Everyone loved Mick, I adored Keith.

I don't know why, so don't ask.

Say what you want about Keith he is STILL rocking and STILL alive.
Many, health nuts----dead.
Keith Richards? still rolling!

Sex, drugs and rock and roll, damn it.

Three of my favorite Stones tunes:

Wild Horses/Original Version

Ain't Too Proud to Beg/Stones

Brown Sugar

No doubt one of the greatest Rock and Roll bands EVER!

Rock On!

< Message edited by Marini -- 7/17/2012 7:57:31 PM >

_____________________________

As always, To EACH their Own.
"And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. "
Nelson Mandela
Life-long Democrat, not happy at all with Democratic Party.
NOT a Republican/Moderate and free agent

(in reply to Anaxagoras)

Post #: 21

RE: Fifty years of the Stones - 7/17/2012 8:32:32 PM

Anaxagoras

Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hardcybermaster
Question......would they be just as famous/revered/rich if they had quit 25 years ago?

cos they should have as they have not made a decent record in the last 25 years

They would have been as famous if they quit but not as wealthy I suspect. Their major tours brought in serious money, not that I would resent that though.

I haven't heard much of their newer stuff as I didn't bother listening to their new albums by the late 1990's (after hating their version of "Like a rolling stone") but Voodoo Lounge from 1994 was a fairly reasonable album with some high points, especially after a fairly rotten Steel Wheels which is a contender for their worst album. By that point they had been around for 30+ years, and seeing how some excellent bands rarely have a creative shelf life of more than 10 years (as Ronnie Drew once pointed out), IMHO its not really that bad.

_____________________________

"That woman, as nature has created her, and man at present is educating her, is man's enemy. She can only be his slave or his despot, but never his companion." (Venus in Furs)

(in reply to hardcybermaster)

Post #: 22

RE: Fifty years of the Stones - 7/17/2012 8:35:09 PM

Anaxagoras

Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
One of my (fairly remote) friends at the pro audio site related his experience re Mr. Jagger.

He was teaching a drummer the part to some song, and sang along with. Mick sang clearly above it, seemingly just as an everyday effort. The recording engineer was amazed.

The engineer always had the tape rolling (he and Jagger still use the medium), and Jagger still sang over the drummer, even in just a demo.

Again, not the largest fan, but the intent and the professionalism combined cannot escape notice here.

Yeah its something of a legend by now how instantly Jagger transformed Bowie's version of "Dancing in the street". Even then it wasn't that great a rendition (it was a hurried session AFAIK) so the pre-Jagger version must have been hateful! lol

You mean Jagger still uses analogue tape or the digital equivalent? Neil Young went a bit potty over analogue tape - he's probably using up all the remaining world stock!

_____________________________

"That woman, as nature has created her, and man at present is educating her, is man's enemy. She can only be his slave or his despot, but never his companion." (Venus in Furs)

(in reply to Edwynn)

Post #: 23

RE: Fifty years of the Stones - 7/17/2012 9:21:49 PM

Marini

Posts: 3629
Joined: 2/14/2010
Status: offline

Thanks for starting this thread, I have been listening to all of my favorite Stones hits.

I am not going to argue with the Collar Me experts, over how great the Stones are.

They are legendary and in the same league with the Beatles, regardless if you like them or not.

You Can't Always Get What you Want :)

Gimme Shelter!!

Tumbling Dice

Let's Spend the Night Together :)
AND ONE OF MY ALL TIMES STONES FAVORITES----MISS YOU!!!
Damn skippy, I might dance all night.

Miss You

Lawd, I miss you child.

***Happy Bloody 50th Rolling Stones!***

I Know it's Only Rock and Roll, But I like it!

Jumping Jack Flash Its a gas gas gas

< Message edited by Marini -- 7/17/2012 10:11:19 PM >

_____________________________

As always, To EACH their Own.
"And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. "
Nelson Mandela
Life-long Democrat, not happy at all with Democratic Party.
NOT a Republican/Moderate and free agent

(in reply to Anaxagoras)

Post #: 24

RE: Fifty years of the Stones - 7/18/2012 3:30:43 AM

Edwynn

Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
One of my (fairly remote) friends at the pro audio site related his experience re Mr. Jagger.

He was teaching a drummer the part to some song, and sang along with. Mick sang clearly above it, seemingly just as an everyday effort. The recording engineer was amazed.

The engineer always had the tape rolling (he and Jagger still use the medium), and Jagger still sang over the drummer, even in just a demo.

Again, not the largest fan, but the intent and the professionalism combined cannot escape notice here.

Yeah its something of a legend by now how instantly Jagger transformed Bowie's version of "Dancing in the street". Even then it wasn't that great a rendition (it was a hurried session AFAIK) so the pre-Jagger version must have been hateful! lol

You mean Jagger still uses analogue tape or the digital equivalent? Neil Young went a bit potty over analogue tape - he's probably using up all the remaining world stock!

Neil Young actually sold all his tape machines when digital recording came on the scene. He went whole hog into the new technology. It's been awhile since I read this account of things, please pardon inaccurate dates and details.

In any case, in the late '90s he came 'back into the fold,' so to speak, and has been on a tear to buy up anything analog ever since.

I surely don't want to derail the thread, even though all the good Stones tunes are on tape, but I liked Ray Davies' (The Kinks) comment on digital recording and CDs in particular; "It's not sitting on anything, that's the only way I can explain it."

I'm past the sound business now but even still, when I get done at the uni, after a year at whatever job, I'm going to buy a reel to reel, just for the heck of it.

Some small outfits even sell outboard valve record and playback electronics for these machines. Let's not go half measures here!

Here's some info on a few songs from the Sticky Fingers album:

http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/print/the_brown_sugar_sessions

As you might or might not know, people would kill (almost) to have several Neumann U47, RCA DX77, and RCA 44 microphones in their studio, all at once, but it's funny that this was de rigueur even in some small recording studio in some podunk in Alabama, in 1969. Thence we have the majority of that Brown Sugar we hear on the record.

Seriously, a U47 for a drum overhead mic? That is just crazy by today's standards. Those few good working U47s still around are used only for 'speshul' singers nowadays, but they were used all over the place back in the day, drum overhead mic included.

(in reply to Anaxagoras)

Post #: 25

RE: Fifty years of the Stones - 7/18/2012 8:48:19 AM

Anaxagoras

Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
Yeah its something of a legend by now how instantly Jagger transformed Bowie's version of "Dancing in the street". Even then it wasn't that great a rendition (it was a hurried session AFAIK) so the pre-Jagger version must have been hateful! lol

You mean Jagger still uses analogue tape or the digital equivalent? Neil Young went a bit potty over analogue tape - he's probably using up all the remaining world stock!

Neil Young actually sold all his tape machines when digital recording came on the scene. He went whole hog into the new technology. It's been awhile since I read this account of things, please pardon inaccurate dates and details.

In any case, in the late '90s he came 'back into the fold,' so to speak, and has been on a tear to buy up anything analog ever since.

You're correct but being a bit of a trainspotter its slightly inaccurate with the dates. He turned from analog recording to digital slightly later than some of his contemporaries. Dylan was using digital as early as 1983 for his excellent LP "Infidels". Young first used digital for his 1988 album "This notes for you". He then switched back for "Mirrorball", the dodgy album he did with Pearl Jam in 1995. However, his last digital album "Sleeps with angels" (1994) is truly an excellent sounding recording as well as a great album - check it out.

quote:

I surely don't want to derail the thread, even though all the good Stones tunes are on tape, but I liked Ray Davies' (The Kinks) comment on digital recording and CDs in particular; "It's not sitting on anything, that's the only way I can explain it."

Its a good way of seeing it. There is a thin sound to digital even though it can sound good with decent engineers. Just compare Steely Dan's last analogue album "Gaucho" (1980) with their recent digital recordings like "Everything must go" (2002) - they would have used the best of the best in each era but there is no fucking comparison in the sound quality.

quote:

I'm past the sound business now but even still, when I get done at the uni, after a year at whatever job, I'm going to buy a reel to reel, just for the heck of it.

Some small outfits even sell outboard valve record and playback electronics for these machines. Let's not go half measures here!

Here's some info on a few songs from the Sticky Fingers album:

http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/print/the_brown_sugar_sessions

As you might or might not know, people would kill (almost) to have several Neumann U47, RCA DX77, and RCA 44 microphones in their studio, all at once, but it's funny that this was de rigueur even in some small recording studio in some podunk in Alabama, in 1969. Thence we have the majority of that Brown Sugar we hear on the record.

Seriously, a U47 for a drum overhead mic? That is just crazy by today's standards. Those few good working U47s still around are used only for 'speshul' singers nowadays, but they were used all over the place back in the day, drum overhead mic included.

Yeah the Neumann is famous but wasn't familiar with the RCA. Many of those old valve ribbon mics are regarded as real classics though. I compared Pink Floyd's quite primatively recorded "Piper at the gates of dawn" album to "A momentary lapse in reason" through my tube audio setup, which has a revealing sound, I found the vocals on Momentary sounded awful. Piper sounded surprisingly natural albeit distorted at times. Thats shocking when you consider they used the very best of late 1980's technology on Momentary!!

Thanks for the link. I think its time you start an audio/hi-fi thread with all the talk of tubes!

BTW I wanted to buy a massve 24 track (2 inch tape) machine for 3000 Euro a while back. Let me add that I don't have or ever had a recording studio!!! ROFL

< Message edited by Anaxagoras -- 7/18/2012 9:30:42 AM >

_____________________________

"That woman, as nature has created her, and man at present is educating her, is man's enemy. She can only be his slave or his despot, but never his companion." (Venus in Furs)

(in reply to Edwynn)

Post #: 26

RE: Fifty years of the Stones - 7/18/2012 9:25:03 AM

Anaxagoras

Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini
Thanks for starting this thread, I have been listening to all of my favorite Stones hits.

Glad it provided some enjoyment. It was nice hearing some unusual song choices from the others on here too.

quote:

I am not going to argue with the Collar Me experts, over how great the Stones are.

They are legendary and in the same league with the Beatles, regardless if you like them or not.

I would agree. I think one has to look at the totality of their career to measure them as a band. Their early years, say from 1963 to 1967 had some mixed results but it was their most innovative period, and if they split after that they would still be one of the biggest names in rock n' roll today. From 1968 (Beggar's Banquet) to 1972 (Exile on Main Street) they are broadly considered to have been at their best, and few could match their quality as a live act at the time either. They kind of slowed down creatively with their next two albums (Goats Head Soup and It's Only Rock 'n Roll), although they still had the same vibe as their previous albums. For myself "Black and Blue" was really the start of a decline when they lost the dangerous edge and a sense of mystique to their music but they were definitely still a good band making generally decent albums, perhaps until the mid 1980's with the album "Dirty Work" which was something of a fall from grace.

Still a 20 year period of genuine creativity would be exceptional for many bands. Here are a couple more tracks I enjoy:

Monkey Man from "Let t bleed": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNY8eYmzdH4

Torn and Frayed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b-bComz_d8 - a song where one has to try to listen to get into it!

Winter from "Goats Head Soup": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwu0MQrk_ec

_____________________________

"That woman, as nature has created her, and man at present is educating her, is man's enemy. She can only be his slave or his despot, but never his companion." (Venus in Furs)

(in reply to Marini)

Post #: 27

RE: Fifty years of the Stones - 7/18/2012 2:15:51 PM

Edwynn

Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

Yeah the Neumann is famous but wasn't familiar with the RCA. Many of those old valve ribbon mics are regarded as real classics though.

Ribbon microphones are classed as dynamic microphones, i.e., no active electronics, valve or otherwise. As with any dynamic or non-active electronics mics, the output level is quite low. Condenser mics require active electronics as part of the circuit, which includes a wire soldered directly to to the diaphragm itself. Ribbon mics need the built-in transformer (an electronically passive device) to give any useful output at all.

The RCA 44 ribbon microphone was used as the overall pick-up microphone, very often the only mic at all, in the majority of Hollywood movies till the early or even mid '50s. The sound we hear today from those efforts is more due to the amplifier electronics available at the time ('30s & '40s, remember, valves were very good at the time, but the necessary balancing transformers and output transformers not nearly as good as what we have today) in getting the low output of those mics into something we could hear at the movie theater. (Of course, the 106dB/w cabinets across the stage might have helped there, especially with the early Western Electric 300B 8 watt amps)>

But the RCA 44 certainly has a 'speshul' sound, no question, and about the most accurate mic there is within the frequency range. Some guy makes perfect replicas of those mics today and gets anywhere from $3,000 to $4,000 per mic (depending on options), to this day. The mics, and the sound, are still highly valued, we can safely assume.

Boy, if people only knew how many ribbon mics and valve ('tube,' 'röre') condenser mics were involved in the CDs they hear and the movies they see.

Dinosaur technology, to make today's world listenable.

PS

I have actually held in my own hands the RCA 44 mic through which James Brown sang all his earliest hits. Al Green, after first giving up being a singer to become a preacher, searched far and wide to relocate his beloved RCA 77DX ribbon microphone when he decided to record again. The RCA 44 was used in front of Bill Wyman's bass cabinet on Brown Sugar ... who knows where those things might wind up being. But that's what we are hearing on those records, folks.

Barbara Stanwyck, Cary Grant, James Brown, Bill Wyman's bass, all through the same microphone. Freaky, no?

< Message edited by Edwynn -- 7/18/2012 3:14:45 PM >

(in reply to Anaxagoras)

Post #: 28

RE: Fifty years of the Stones - 7/18/2012 2:19:48 PM

JstAnotherSub

Posts: 6174
Status: offline

I had AOL blues radio on today at work, and heard this one. It absolutely moves me.

I Got The Blues

_____________________________

yep

(in reply to Edwynn)

Post #: 29

RE: Fifty years of the Stones - 7/18/2012 3:03:04 PM

Anaxagoras

Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
Yeah the Neumann is famous but wasn't familiar with the RCA. Many of those old valve ribbon mics are regarded as real classics though.

Ribbon microphones are classed as dynamic microphones, i.e., no active electronics, valve or otherwise. As with any dynamic or non-active electronics mics, the output level is quite low. Condenser mics require active electronics as part of the circuit, which includes a wire soldered to to the diaphragm itself. Ribbon mics need the built-in transformer (an electronically passive device) to give any useful output at all.

As far as I understand it, the word dynamic with respect to mics is only used for moviing coil technology. Ribbon technology is similar but the diaphragm and voice coil are one and the same - hence the greater transient speed and clarity but physical fragility as well. You're right that they don't require power - I sorta fudged together valve pre-amps and mics.

quote:

The RCA 44 ribbon microphone was used as the overall pick-up microphone, very often the only mic at all, in the majority of Hollywood movies till the early or even mid '50s. The sound we hear today from those efforts is more due to the amplifier electronics available at the time ('30s & '40s, remember, valves were very good at the time, but the necessary balancing transformers and output transformers not nearly as good as what we have today) in getting the low output of those mics into something we could hear at the movie theater. (Of course, the 106dB/w cabinets across the stage might have helped there, especially with the early Western Electric 300B 8 watt amps)>

But the RCA 44 certainly has a 'speshul' sound, no question, and about the most accurate mic there is within the frequency range. Some guy makes perfect replicas of those mics today and gets anywhere from $3,000 to $4,000 per mic (depending on options), to this day. The mics, and the sound, are still highly valued, we can safely assume.

Yeah RCA did important work developing ribbon mics - I just wasn't familiar with the individual models. They are very highly valued today. BTW there are some who argue that transformers are more linear than active electronics and some of the old designs are highly respected - apparently transformer design has become something of a lost art.

_____________________________

"That woman, as nature has created her, and man at present is educating her, is man's enemy. She can only be his slave or his despot, but never his companion." (Venus in Furs)

(in reply to Edwynn)

Post #: 30

RE: Fifty years of the Stones - 7/18/2012 3:43:29 PM

Edwynn

Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

I'm not actually "all in" with the pro audio classification of ribbon mics as 'dynamic,' but there it lies and I'm not going to argue over the matter. All that matters to the guy tracking the session is output level of the mic anyway (much lower for ribbons or moving coil mics than condensers), which is why none of us felt the need to pursue the matter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

BTW there are some who argue that transformers are more linear than active electronics and some of the old designs are highly respected - apparently transformer design has become something of a lost art.

I agree with the first part of your statement, but I and others might disagree on the latter part.

Transformer materials and winding techniques are quite a ways beyond what they were in the '30s, '40s, or '60s. They charge 2 to 10 times the money now as they did in the '50s to make a good transformer these days, but that is another issue. (Audio Note sells a pure silver-wound step-up transformer for moving coil pick-up cartridges for ~ $8,000, if we want to go there ... )

Once solid state took over, with no need of output transformers, economy of scale went out the window. It's all 'custom' or 'bespoke,' now. We can't expect any good cost function there.

< Message edited by Edwynn -- 7/18/2012 4:20:11 PM >

(in reply to Anaxagoras)

Post #: 31

RE: Fifty years of the Stones - 7/18/2012 6:34:21 PM

Anaxagoras

Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
I'm not actually "all in" with the pro audio classification of ribbon mics as 'dynamic,' but there it lies and I'm not going to argue over the matter. All that matters to the guy tracking the session is output level of the mic anyway (much lower for ribbons or moving coil mics than condensers), which is why none of us felt the need to pursue the matter.

I understood that there was a distinct difference between dynamic and ribbon mics, as per this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microphone#Dynamic_microphone but word use may be different in your neck of the woods.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
BTW there are some who argue that transformers are more linear than active electronics and some of the old designs are highly respected - apparently transformer design has become something of a lost art.

I agree with the first part of your statement, but I and others might disagree on the latter part.

Transformer materials and winding techniques are quite a ways beyond what they were in the '30s, '40s, or '60s. They charge 2 to 10 times the money now as they did in the '50s to make a good transformer these days, but that is another issue. (Audio Note sells a pure silver-wound step-up transformer for moving coil pick-up cartridges for ~ $8,000, if we want to go there ... )

Once solid state took over, with no need of output transformers, economy of scale went out the window. It's all 'custom' or 'bespoke,' now. We can't expect any good cost function there.

I take your point but I would add that much more effort was put into getting the most out of transformer design back then, and some seem to feel since the abandonment of that technology for audio use in the 70's that some of the knowledge of how to optimise design was lost. Thats not to say many transformers today aren't impressive but often they have money thrown at them with optimum quality materials (e.g. the Audio Note model you mention) that weren't cost effective before.

_____________________________

"That woman, as nature has created her, and man at present is educating her, is man's enemy. She can only be his slave or his despot, but never his companion." (Venus in Furs)

(in reply to Edwynn)

Post #: 32

RE: Fifty years of the Stones - 7/18/2012 7:58:26 PM

Edwynn

Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

Sent you a PM re the transformers.

But in any case, I never claimed that modern manufacture audio transformers were cost effective. Quite the opposite, in fact!

The reason some of the tube amplifiers cost as much as a small house is due to using expensive chokes in the power supply and then using interstage transformers for phase-spltting duties in a push-pull amp. The output transformers for single-ended valve amps are monstrously expensive.

One can still find whatever technology he or she desires in home or studio amplifiers or speakers, but it costs, and costs quite a lot sometimes.

A full blown Western Electric or Klangfilm four-way actively amplified system with valve active crossovers and field coil drivers with their own separate valve power supplies for each costs anywhere from $80,000 to $500,000. The Japanes wacko audiophiles bought up all that stuff some years ago. They WILL out-bid you on any original WE 274 rectifier tube, make no mistake.

"Cost effective" not being the first term coming to mind here, concerning anything in better class audio.

< Message edited by Edwynn -- 7/18/2012 8:08:59 PM >

(in reply to Anaxagoras)

Post #: 33

RE: Fifty years of the Stones - 7/19/2012 5:16:20 AM

Anaxagoras

Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline

More stones:

The lesser heard studio version of Midnght Rambler http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92lHgxYLpfg

Another one from Goats Heads Soup - a song by Keef called Coming Down Again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UG7WIrHtLUQ - "slip my tongue in someone else's pie - tasting better every the time" - what a funny line!

The Girl With Far Away Eyes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKYhXEsYqbc

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
But in any case, I never claimed that modern manufacture audio transformers were cost effective. Quite the opposite, in fact!

The reason some of the tube amplifiers cost as much as a small house is due to using expensive chokes in the power supply and then using interstage transformers for phase-spltting duties in a push-pull amp. The output transformers for single-ended valve amps are monstrously expensive.

One can still find whatever technology he or she desires in home or studio amplifiers or speakers, but it costs, and costs quite a lot sometimes.

Indeed the quality of valve amps is very high much of the time but it does seem that some of the old art of transformer construction has been lost, and instead manufacturers throw money at materials and over-specification - it has some parallel with the high cost of NOS (new old stock) valves because its difficult to get the same quality today. This IMHO has two negatives, it leads to greater expense to achieve a desired level of quality, and limits refinement regardless of cost.

_____________________________

"That woman, as nature has created her, and man at present is educating her, is man's enemy. She can only be his slave or his despot, but never his companion." (Venus in Furs)

(in reply to Edwynn)

Post #: 34

RE: Fifty years of the Stones - 7/20/2012 7:36:50 AM

Marini

Posts: 3629
Joined: 2/14/2010
Status: offline

quote:

The lesser heard studio version of Midnght Rambler http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92lHgxYLpfg

Another one from Goats Heads Soup - a song by Keef called Coming Down Again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UG7WIrHtLUQ - "slip my tongue in someone else's pie - tasting better every the time" - what a funny line!

The Girl With Far Away Eyes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKYhXEsYqbc

Thank you, sharing unique tunes from the Stones is a great thing.
I swear I danced so much to the Stones the other night, it helped me shed a pound.

Now that I am on the old school Rock n Roll, British invasion, I am also listening to Rod Stewart, and dancing my ass off.
Good show, carry on.

< Message edited by Marini -- 7/20/2012 7:37:25 AM >

_____________________________

As always, To EACH their Own.
"And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. "
Nelson Mandela
Life-long Democrat, not happy at all with Democratic Party.
NOT a Republican/Moderate and free agent

(in reply to Anaxagoras)

Post #: 35

RE: Fifty years of the Stones - 7/20/2012 9:41:17 AM

littlewonder

Posts: 15659
Status: offline

Ok, you know I've read about the "housewife porn" book for so long that when I looked at the name of this topic, my brain read it as 50 shades of stones. haha

_____________________________

Nothing has changed
Everything has changed

(in reply to Marini)

Post #: 36

RE: Fifty years of the Stones - 7/21/2012 8:55:23 AM

Anaxagoras

Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini
Thank you, sharing unique tunes from the Stones is a great thing.
I swear I danced so much to the Stones the other night, it helped me shed a pound.

Yeah its great to rock out to this stuff! Here's a few more tracks...

Hot Stuff http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwtiPwW3npo – perhaps their first big dance tune – a great track off “Black and Blue”. Mick’s moves in the video remind me a bit of Iggy.

Dancing With Mr D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLxaijo4LeY - from Goats Head Soup.

Can't you hear me knocking http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fa4HUiFJ6c from Sticky Fingers. Mick said the band were at their most musical when Mick Taylor was the guitarist. Reckon its twue!

A live version of Under My Thumb from 1969 with some backstage footage of the guys with Hendrix: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAoi7VS8GcY

_____________________________

"That woman, as nature has created her, and man at present is educating her, is man's enemy. She can only be his slave or his despot, but never his companion." (Venus in Furs)

(in reply to Marini)

Post #: 37

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Fifty years of the Stones

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109