|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Jul 25, 2008 12:43:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rockwizard on Jul 27, 2008 15:01:17 GMT -5
With all the "umbrellas" now, kinda hard to keep track of which label is owned by who. Boils down to another catalog shift(and money grab) for the Stones. Wish I still had my original Stones albums(especially the London ones!). I'd burn them to CD and they'd blow the doors off of anything coming out on CD.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2008 16:22:36 GMT -5
I rate my record/cd collection quite highly...
What's so good about it you ask......
It doesn't contain any Stones albums......
;D
|
|
ImBigK
Very Clean
Take a sad song and make it better
Posts: 66
|
Post by ImBigK on Jul 28, 2008 19:44:25 GMT -5
A 'long term' contract for the Stones these days is what, like one new studio album and four live albums? And yet, I keep buying them. Go figure. -Big K NP - FREEDOM BEAT
|
|
|
Post by Cosmos on Jul 29, 2008 9:29:51 GMT -5
I rate my record/cd collection quite highly... What's so good about it you ask...... It doesn't contain any Stones albums...... ;D ;D I've never bothered to count them, but don't the Stones have more "greatest hits" and "compilations" than actual studio LP's? IMO they were an outstanding singles band in the early sixties, and recorded a handful of decent, fully-realized LP's in the late 60's and early 70's. The last one I actually bought, and thoughroughly enjoy to this day, was "Some Girls".
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 29, 2008 11:32:41 GMT -5
I rate my record/cd collection quite highly... What's so good about it you ask...... It doesn't contain any Stones albums...... ;D ;D I've never bothered to count them, but don't the Stones have more "greatest hits" and "compilations" than actual studio LP's? IMO they were an outstanding singles band in the early sixties, and recorded a handful of decent, fully-realized LP's in the late 60's and early 70's. The last one I actually bought, and thoughroughly enjoy to this day, was "Some Girls". I tend to agree with that analysis of The Rolling Stones. They became my second favorite band next to The Beatles(proving that the two bands can co-exist with fans) but after Tatoo You, I couldn't stomach an entire album of new material from them anymore. The Stones are about 5th or 6th on my list now. They still have some good new songs but talk about sticking to a formula. Actually, "Mixed Emotions" is the last great Stones' song in my opinion. Their early singles(and some album cuts) and that great run of albums from Beggar's Banquet to maybe Some Girls(with one or two clunkers in there) is an amazing collection. Hot Rocks: 1964 to 1971 is still one of the greatest compilations ever.
|
|
|
Post by revolver66 on Jul 29, 2008 12:00:26 GMT -5
With all the "umbrellas" now, kinda hard to keep track of which label is owned by who. Boils down to another catalog shift(and money grab) for the Stones. Wish I still had my original Stones albums(especially the London ones!). I'd burn them to CD and they'd blow the doors off of anything coming out on CD. I'm not so sure about the old London LPs blowing the doors off of anything coming out on CD. In fact many of the old London Lps sound pretty crummy(Use of Fake Stereo on all the Early LPs). In fact the New SACDs are some of the best Sounding Stones ever!! MFSL Also did a LP Boxset years ago that is Highly Aclaimed. Next why are so many Beatles Fans defensive about the Stones? Sorry but if the Stones aren't in your LP/CD collection then it is incomplete. While the Stones don't neccesarily put out the most cohesive LPs/CDs these days there are always a few Gems for the Stones fans. I thought A Bigger Bang was a pretty good one to be honest. I think the need to fill the CD format with the most music for one's buck(when coming to a new studio work) is the down fall many artists are facing. Give me a Killer No Filler 30 Minute LP/CD anyday. We have asked this before but what would the Beatles LPs/Cds sound like if they would have stayed together as long as the Stones?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 30, 2008 9:33:09 GMT -5
Next why are so many Beatles Fans defensive about the Stones? Sorry but if the Stones aren't in your LP/CD collection then it is incomplete. The Stones are my second favorites. But I own compilations, not full studio albums. Why would Beatles fans need to be defensive about the Stones, when the Beatles rule the roost and are #1 of all time? There is nothing the Stones can do to threaten us. The Beatles achieved more music success in 7 years than the Stones have in 45! The Beatles were the trail blazers, the Stones were their followers. As George once said: "Mick was always a day late and a dollar short"! ;D I've answered before that the Beatles went out on top, and it was a good thing they did, as there is no way they could have kept up having endless hits and albums which were consistently listenable all the way through. Like JSD said about the Stones' LPS after TATTOO YOU. And the Stones had long ago reached the point where they're just repeating themselves and they sound the same. Lennon made that observation in the early '70s, even - though as it turned out, they still had some changes left in them with songs like MISS YOU, EMOTIONAL RESCUE, and UNDERCOVER OF THE NIGHT.
|
|
|
Post by revolver66 on Jul 30, 2008 10:46:14 GMT -5
Next why are so many Beatles Fans defensive about the Stones? Sorry but if the Stones aren't in your LP/CD collection then it is incomplete. The Stones are my second favorites. But I own compilations, not full studio albums. Why would Beatles fans need to be defensive about the Stones, when the Beatles rule the roost and are #1 of all time? There is nothing the Stones can do to threaten us. The Beatles achieved more music success in 7 years than the Stones have in 45! The Beatles were the trail blazers, the Stones were their followers. As George once said: "Mick was always a day late and a dollar short"! ;D I've answered before that the Beatles went out on top, and it was a good thing they did, as there is no way they could have kept up having endless hits and albums which were consistently listenable all the way through. Like JSD said about the Stones' LPS after TATTOO YOU. And the Stones had long ago reached the point where they're just repeating themselves and they sound the same. Lennon made that observation in the early '70s, even - though as it turned out, they still had some changes left in them with songs like MISS YOU, EMOTIONAL RESCUE, and UNDERCOVER OF THE NIGHT. Well in my many encounters many Beatles Fans put down the Stones and Vise a versa. I think both are great groups and enjoy them both. Sure the Stones have repeated themselves as it's been over 40 years of recording together. Can't we say the same to a degree about the Solo Beatles recordings? I love the Beatles but sometimes over zealous fans who think the Fabs were the only Group or Music that counts is ridiculous(and I've met quite a few).I guess I agree that Variety is the Spice of Life(there's so much Music and so little time). And Joe..I don't think the Stones are worried about threatening you.
|
|
|
Post by revolver66 on Jul 30, 2008 10:48:35 GMT -5
How many of you are actually familiar with the Stones Catalog?
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Jul 30, 2008 11:02:55 GMT -5
;D I've never bothered to count them, but don't the Stones have more "greatest hits" and "compilations" than actual studio LP's? IMO they were an outstanding singles band in the early sixties, and recorded a handful of decent, fully-realized LP's in the late 60's and early 70's. The last one I actually bought, and thoughroughly enjoy to this day, was "Some Girls". The Stones are about 5th or 6th on my list now. [ Who is second, third , fourth and maybe fifth?
|
|
|
Post by Cosmos on Jul 30, 2008 11:19:20 GMT -5
How many of you are actually familiar with the Stones Catalog? I eluded to this earlier. I am intimately familiar with their output from the sixties and most of the seventies, and appreciate the Stones' music for what it is. I imagine that sums it up from my point of view; I love the Stones for what they WERE, but certainly not for what they became after this period. I admit, my familiarity of everything post-seventies is sporadic, however let's just say that from what I HAVE heard, nothing has excited me enough to pursue them any further.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 30, 2008 11:44:38 GMT -5
in my many encounters many Beatles Fans put down the Stones and Vise a versa. I think both are great groups and enjoy them both. Sure the Stones have repeated themselves as it's been over 40 years of recording together. I would not put the Stones down, except when pressed to compare them with the Beatles. First, the solo Beatles are not The Beatles, so this is irrelevant. But when it comes to John and Paul, they've been different, I think, in their solo releases. I don't think they are. And I certainly am not threatened by them as a Beatles fan, as everyone knows the Beatles are #1.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 30, 2008 12:15:25 GMT -5
The Stones are about 5th or 6th on my list now. [ Who is second, third , fourth and maybe fifth? 2. Bob Dylan; 3. Bruce Springsteen; 4. Brian Wilson/Beach Boys(emphasis on Brian); 5. Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers; and 6. The Rolling Stones. I would put John, Paul & George solo material ahead of some of these if forced but J,P&G fall under my #1 The Beatles. 7. Van Morrison(if one was to ask! ;D ). 23.Ringo's solo material.
|
|
|
Post by revolver66 on Jul 30, 2008 12:30:38 GMT -5
I don't think comparing the Stones to the Solo Beatles is irrelevant. If that is the case then comparing what the Stones did after the Beatles as a case against them isn't fair. I appreciate that Cosmos has listened and is familar with the Stones Golden Period. However he also states that he didn't like what they became. Again if the Beatles stayed at the Party too long wouldn't it be the same? JSD: Nice list and I'm sure we all have our own. I have never been big on Springsteen or Van Morrison. I like Petty but not as much as you do. I actually hate to list a Top 5 or whatever because I feel guilty leaving out Bands/Artists that are just as good in my mind. For this post I will list a few: 1) Beatles 2) Stones 3) Kinks 4) Who 5) Beach Boys....There are of course 100's others. I am also a big Dylan fan.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 30, 2008 13:45:54 GMT -5
I don't think comparing the Stones to the Solo Beatles is irrelevant. How do you figure? The Beatles and Stones as a band are what is to be considered. If you want to compare John and Paul as solo artists to Mick and Keith as soloists, that's more accurate - though we know who'd come out ahead in that exercise! I can compare them during the years both were together, and The Beatles had more hits and were ahead of the Stones, who usually followed their lead. As for using the Stones'material AFTER 1970, well you asked what I thought would have happend with the Beatles had they continued for as long as the Stones, and that's where I bring up the Stones' later albums. The Beatles' would have gotten worse too, I think.
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Jul 30, 2008 18:06:04 GMT -5
Who is second, third , fourth and maybe fifth? 2. Bob Dylan; 3. Bruce Springsteen; 4. Brian Wilson/Beach Boys(emphasis on Brian); 5. Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers; and 6. The Rolling Stones. I would put John, Paul & George solo material ahead of some of these if forced but J,P&G fall under my #1 The Beatles. 7. Van Morrison(if one was to ask! ;D ). 23.Ringo's solo material. Good list, but I thought for sure that E.L.O. would have been somewhere in your top 5. The Stones have dropped for me as well over the years. They were always number 2 on my list, but most of their stuff has gotten old except for the very early bits. 2. Bowie 3. E.L.O. 4. Doors 5. Zeppelin 6. Floyd
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 30, 2008 18:55:05 GMT -5
Good list, but I thought for sure that E.L.O. would have been somewhere in your top 5. The Stones have dropped for me as well over the years. They were always number 2 on my list, but most of their stuff has gotten old except for the very early bits. 2. Bowie 3. E.L.O. 4. Doors 5. Zeppelin 6. Floyd Likewise a great list. ELO is in my top 15. The abbreviated ELO reminded me that R.E.M. is high on my list, bumping Van Morrison or even the Stones. I stupidly forgot about them and in fact they might be my number 4. Mind you, I like their older stuff best and I haven't kept my collection current but they were hot throughout the 80's and 90's.
|
|
ImBigK
Very Clean
Take a sad song and make it better
Posts: 66
|
Post by ImBigK on Jul 31, 2008 0:37:22 GMT -5
How many of you are actually familiar with the Stones Catalog? Well, I think I have everything except LIVE LICKS.... -Big K
|
|
|
Post by revolver66 on Jul 31, 2008 10:34:49 GMT -5
How many of you are actually familiar with the Stones Catalog? Well, I think I have everything except LIVE LICKS.... -Big K Hey ImBigK, Where would you rate the Stones on your list? What is your take on their Newer Stuff?
|
|
|
Post by revolver66 on Jul 31, 2008 10:36:22 GMT -5
2. Bob Dylan; 3. Bruce Springsteen; 4. Brian Wilson/Beach Boys(emphasis on Brian); 5. Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers; and 6. The Rolling Stones. I would put John, Paul & George solo material ahead of some of these if forced but J,P&G fall under my #1 The Beatles. 7. Van Morrison(if one was to ask! ;D ). 23.Ringo's solo material. Good list, but I thought for sure that E.L.O. would have been somewhere in your top 5. The Stones have dropped for me as well over the years. They were always number 2 on my list, but most of their stuff has gotten old except for the very early bits. 2. Bowie 3. E.L.O. 4. Doors 5. Zeppelin 6. Floyd I love all those choices. Great List!
|
|
|
Post by rockwizard on Jul 31, 2008 13:17:37 GMT -5
How many of you are actually familiar with the Stones Catalog? Being a child of the 60's.....VERY. Besides, a friend of mine who is roughly 8 years my senior LOST 12,000 albums in Katrina. I freaked out when I lost roughly 600, but 12K?
|
|
ImBigK
Very Clean
Take a sad song and make it better
Posts: 66
|
Post by ImBigK on Jul 31, 2008 17:44:06 GMT -5
Hey ImBigK, Where would you rate the Stones on your list? What is your take on their Newer Stuff? I'd probably put the Stones in the lower half of my top ten at this point. At one time I'd have picked them as my #2 group, but I've come to like other bands more over the years. As for their later stuff, every album has some material I really like on it, but it's been a while since I really got into every track on a Rolling Stones album. Even so, there is some buried treasure to be found there. I really like some of the atypical tracks (CONTINENTAL DRIFT, NEW FACES, etc.) For that matter, even some of the later radio singles can hold their own with Stones classics. (SAINT OF ME comes to mind.) At this stage of the game, that's really more than anyone can reasonably expect from such a long-lived band. -Big K
|
|