A treasury and a place to meet people of all ages with various interests from all over the World
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  



Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10
 on: August 25, 2015, 01:51:24 AM 
Started by In My Life - Last post by Hello Goodbye
The 'Mystery Ship' is what I'm the most interested in.  I'm baffled that it was never recognized.  I'm not sure how that's even possible really.  More than Lord vouched that they saw it.  There would have to be records of said ship being there somewhere you would think.

A star?  A planet?  Or perhaps...

No one heard them calling
No one came at all
'Cause they were too busy watching
Those old raindrops fall

What do you think, Kathleen?

 on: August 24, 2015, 11:55:16 PM 
Started by In My Life - Last post by Normandie


 on: August 24, 2015, 11:14:19 PM 
Started by ibanez_ax - Last post by Hombre_de_ningun_lugar
I know what you mean Hombre but "Queen" still have the cheek to play live (as Queen!) despite the death of Freddie Mercury and the consequent (and creditable, in my opinion) departure of John Deacon. Really, Roger Taylor and Brian May could have the good grace to demote themselves to "Princess" or even "Lady In Waiting" or something but no, they go out there bold as brass as QUEEN. I mean, Queen without Freddie Mercury? Come off it!!

Same with Slade, now touring as Dave Hill (lead guitar) and Don Powell (drums) with a couple of makeweights standing in for lead singer/front man Noddy Holder and co-writer/bassist/multi instrumentalist Jim Lea. It's like George and Ringo having the nerve to tour as "The Beatles".


Of course, Mick Jagger still could take the name of the Stones and tour without Keith Richards, but I think that most fans wouldn't respect that.

There are other examples of secondary members using the name of the band they had been part of. After the break up of Buffalo Springfield, drummer Dewey Martin formed a new group (without Stills, Young and Furay) using the same name. The Yardbirds still exist as a band with drummer Jim McCarty as the only original member (none of the three guitar heroes is there).

Mick Jagger is a main member of the Stones, of course, but the band is too big to be carried just by his name. I don't see him touring as the Stones with other musicians.

 on: August 24, 2015, 10:58:29 PM 
Started by In My Life - Last post by ibanez_ax
Sorry, couldn't resist.   :angel:

 on: August 24, 2015, 10:58:19 PM 
Started by In My Life - Last post by Normandie

She must be very excited; hyperventilating and quoting herself and all.    ;D

ha2ha I didn't even notice that. I probably should have gone off to hyperventilate, calmed down, and then posted.  ;)

 on: August 24, 2015, 10:57:34 PM 
Started by Hello Goodbye - Last post by In My Life
Ooo BABY! I just love John.  icon_love

 on: August 24, 2015, 10:54:46 PM 
Started by In My Life - Last post by In My Life

Kelley, I owe you a huge debt of thanks for posting that picture, which eventually led me to re-check on this book. Mr. Mustard, I owe you a debt of thanks, too!

I'm going to go finish hyperventilating now.  ha2ha

 :) You're welcome. I hope your book arrives quickly. And that you had a paper bag handy for your hyperventilating episode.

 on: August 24, 2015, 10:51:52 PM 
Started by ibanez_ax - Last post by ibanez_ax
Thats a fair comment mate , I suppose what I meant was that I really like loads of bands that really do move me, I love bands like The Kinks and America and Pink Floyd, but although they all move me they dont have the X factor that the fabs had, each album after RS had what I thought of as magical qualities, all the fictitious people they invented, all the new sounds they invented, The Beatles were pioneers, leaders of the day in style and in music, no-one knew what gems were coming next, each album a cavalcade of invention and idea's.
From music hall to heavy rock, they did it all and it was a brilliant (yes magical) time to be alive.

I remember from Geoff Emericks book, "we recorded Tomorrow Never Knows, then afterwards I had a cup of tean and some nice biscuits"..........like an accountant that had had a normal day at the office.  ;D

I see what you're saying.  One thing I don't do is hold up any band to The Beatles, because they will come up short IMO.  I try to let each artist stand on their own merits. 

 on: August 24, 2015, 10:01:50 PM 
Started by Hombre_de_ningun_lugar - Last post by Moogmodule
I tend to agree with you. In terms of LPs, the Stones were far behind the Beatles in 1965-1967. But we're talking about the best period of the best band ever. However, in 1968-1969 both bands were at the same level, in my opinion.

I certainly think the Stones found their groove from 68 and were much more on the Beatles level, who had fragmented after their 65-67 heights.  I'd only hedge by saying that the Beatles pulled out Abbey Road, which is a great album that soared the Beatles back out of the pack one last time.

 on: August 24, 2015, 09:52:00 PM 
Started by In My Life - Last post by Hello Goodbye

She must be very excited; hyperventilating and quoting herself and all.    ;D

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10

Page created in 0.795 seconds with 22 queries.