О Rolling Stones замолвим слово

to: papan - Еще "Некоторые девки" (1978) вышли и "Черное с желтым" (1976).

Горыныч***
Ага! Про девок я отметил,просто по иностранному:-)).А почему "...с желтым"?

2papan:

>странные звуки несистемного характера

Любопытно, а для меня они всегда были естественной деталью песни, отношение к ней у меня правда не лучшее, но эти звуки присутствуют и на оригинале винила 74 года выпуска так что это не брак.

2Primal Scream:

>Винца роллинговского не желаете?

Видели, видели, но учитывая стоимость данного продукта решили обойтись без сего сувенира… я лучше хорошее марочное выпью при всем уважении к группе.
Кстати описывая концерты, забыл отметить одну пикантную, но очень показательную деталь, женское нижнее белье до сих пор летит на сцену его конечно меньше, но все же…

Спасибо за пояснения о бонусах.
Насчет разбираться - может, у кого-то есть прямой выход на предполагаемого автора (или, скажем, куратора) это серии?
Что-то он давно здесь не появлялся.
Правда, не исключено, что опять туману напустит:)

2papan:

>песню Time Waits for No One где-то с середины
>начинают сопровождать какие-то странные звуки
>несистемного характера,отдалённо напоминающие
>переборы на стиральной доске.

Мне больше напоминают перестукивание пальцами по пустотелому предмету

Вопрос к обладателям фирменных CD.
В частности CD Rolling Stones фирмы Virgin.

Было-ли у кого такое, что диски одного наименования, но разных Верджиновских заводов, годов, стран, были-бы определенно разными по качеству звука?

2Alex GB:

>Вопрос к обладателям фирменных CD.
>В частности CD Rolling Stones фирмы Virgin.
>Было-ли у кого такое, что диски одного наименования,
>но разных Верджиновских заводов, годов, стран,
>были-бы определенно разными по качеству звука?
разного года выпуска "по определению" несколько отличаются по звуку.
Последние, ремастированные с плёнок, за 2005 , например показалися, что записаны по уровню-мощще громчЕе, чем ранее выпущенные. А с разных заводов в один год -- думаю на слух ловить разницу -- слух испортишь...Лучше звать Большого Уха, можа улОвит различия :-)

О банде милых и надежных стариканов "со страстью в членах" все тот же Ножиков-ИвАнов:

The Rolling Stones
«A Bigger Bang»
2005, EMI

Отношения группы The Rolling Stones со слушателями отличаются беспрецедентной простотой. Группе прекрасно известно, чего именно хотят от нее слушатели, а слушатели, в свою очередь, могут быть на сто процентов уверены в том, что они это получат. “A Bigger Bang” – очередное тому подтверждение. Всем прекрасно известно, что здесь будет: ершистый, напористый рок-н-ролл (“Rough Justice”, “It Won’t Take Long”), сладкие Миковы баллады (“Streets of Love”), грязный блюз (“Back of My Hand”), а под конец Кит Ричардс прохрипит вам пару прекрасных песен (“This Place Is Empty”, “Infamy”). Предсказуемость в данном случае ни в коем случае не идет в минус – всё это исполнено «роллингами» с такой энергией и явным удовольствием, что заводить речи о каких-то самоповторах или почивании на лаврах попросту неуместно. В конце концов, достаточно только послушать, с какой интонацией Мик Джаггер пропевает строчки “There was a time, when I was your rooster, now I’m just one of your cocks” (непереводимая игра слов), чтобы тут же преисполниться завистью к его энергичности и возмечтать, что и у тебя к 60 годам останется еще столько же огня и страсти в членах.

КосухинСтепан ***
Докладываю касательно скрытого 15-го бонус-трека со STRIPPED. Это Black Limousine (1st live vers.,London, England, July 19, 1995)-вторая песня с сингла Like a Rolling Stone (October 30, 1995 ).Студийный вариант на альбоме Tattoo You.

Если, кто собирался следующим летом на Stones в Финляндию, то тут скорее всего облом :-(
Исчезло из списка вероятных мест тут:
http://www.iorr.org/tour05/tour06.htm
да и на скандинавском форуме, по поводу Хельсинки, особого оптимизма в последних постах не наблюдается:
http://mickijaggeroo.proboards38.com/index.cgi...&action=display&thread=1116156472

Я в Хельсинки особо не собирался, но еще есть шанс что город вернется, ясно будет только когда опубликуют официальный график тура. Но вообще это напоминает тур U2, только западная Европа, из восточной только Польша и практически не было Скандинавии, Хельсинки точно, у этих групп очень дорогие билеты, а денег в Европе сейчас мало. Я думаю у Стоунз на 90% будет Прага, из-за дружбы с Гавелом и все больше никакой восточной Европы, а вот Хельсинки может все-таки и вернется.

2Bog:

>а вот Хельсинки может все-таки и вернется.

на этом скандинавском форуме, довольно непривычно листаются страницы,
Но смысл трепа в том, что местный промоутер типа 2 недели назад говорил, что
еще ведет переговоры, и надежда еще есть:-/
И еще, что появились слухи о 2-х концертах в Норвегии и "Боливар" (в данном случае Скандинавский п-ов) не потянет двоих.

Stones Concert Leads to Noise Complaints
11/15/2005

It's only rock and roll — but they didn't like it. San Francisco officials received a deluge of complaints from residents who live near SBC Park, where the Rolling Stones played to a packed stadium Sunday night. Neighbors complained of windows and floors vibrating.

"I've got no artistic judgment against the Rolling Stones, but just because they're too old to hear their music doesn't mean their music has to be so loud," said Ted Weinstein, who said he heard noise from the concert from his home miles away.

Bob Davis, executive director of the city's Entertainment Commission, said his phone started ringing as soon as the Stones began playing.

Davis said city officials will likely attend Tuesday's concert with a sound meter to monitor whether stadium officials are obeying noise laws. Officials from the Giants baseball team, which owns SBC Park, said they will try to reduce the noise level.

http://launch.yahoo.com/read/news/25502349

Так то ж не Роллинги! Это Металлика на разогреве шумела.

2 papan:
Thanx a lot!!!
Будем знать.
Типа век живи - век учись.

Оказывается Жорж Старостин еще функционирует. Обнаружилась рецензия, чуть ли не единственная, которая меня устраивает и с которой почти полностью согласен.

A BIGGER BANG

Year Of Release: 2005
Record rating = 6
Overall rating = 11

Well, after decades of waiting I now know what a "generic Rolling Stones album" really is. And I like it.
Best song: LOOK WHAT THE CAT DRAGGED IN


This review is dedicated to the loving memory of my father - which is more than appropriate, considering his ever-positive attitude towards the band (even though he sort of lost touch with their output after Let It Bleed). He even lived to see them play live in Moscow in 1997, and surprised me by speaking fondly of Bridges To Babylon - I have a hunch he'd find A Bigger Bang to his liking as well, had he lived long enough to hear it. The oddest thing is, I was just opening the Stones page for editing when I got the news - which is why the review is almost a month late. Looks like I'll always have a special kind of relationship with this record from now on. Well, this one's for you, Dad, wherever you might be.
A Bigger Bang. Such a presumptuous title, but a little bit prophetic, because by now we have been told by critics a-plenty that this is easily their best since [insert anything beginning with 1972 and ending with 1981 here]. Well, perhaps they're right and maybe they're wrong, but to me it seems that I have long since lost the ability to arrange Stones' albums, bar the three or four most obviously outstanding ones, on a well-gradated personal preference scale. Do I really care whether A Bigger Bang is an improvement over Bridges To Babylon or not? With twenty-five studio albums behind their backs and more than fourty years of playing experience, the Stones have effectively deprived me of those considerations.
That said, A Bigger Bang is definitely a major improvement over the last studio album to come out of the Stones camp, Mick Jagger's Goddess In The Doorway. In fact, it's so definitely and, I'd say, intentionally everything that album was not that I can't get rid of weird mental images (such as Mick kowtowing before Keith, begging and imploring to be pardoned for a temporary descent into the Dark Side, and Keith doing a "may the Force be with you, son" kind of ritual). In any case, if you agree with a superficial understanding of Mr Jagger, Bang is a Keith Richards album all the way through. But on a deeper level, samsara and nirvana are in the end one and the same, and so are Mick and Keith. So it's just a Stones album.
Hey, that phrase actually meant more than I intended. It is, indeed, JUST a Stones album. The kind of album that people who only know about the Stones based on a couple radio hits and maybe an occasional best-of collection would think the Stones have been releasing all their life. Big, brawny, rhythmic, aggressive barroom rock'n'roll. Experimentation is out the window, face down in the garbage bin. Even the instrumentation reaches some kind of ultimate minimalistic record; about half the songs do list "piano" or "keyboards" in the credits, but dammit, I can't remember a single key-stroke - only the guitars. And Charlie's drums, which seem to progressively get louder and louder as Charlie himself gets older and older.
Not only that, but the songs are also impossibly "generic" in mood, melody, and attitude. Misogyny, sarcasm, character assassination, sleazy soul, and a disarming tear-jerker from Keith; not a single off-putting psychedelic surprise or, perchance, a stab at an amusing bossa nova. You have heard all of this before - many times. So many times, in fact, that not one of these songs is a song you haven't heard before. If you haven't heard one of these songs before, it probably means that you haven't heard a lot of Rolling Stones songs before, because the more Rolling Stones songs you've heard before, the more you realise there isn't one song on here that you haven't heard before. Of course, I'm not being literal when I say that you've heard all these songs before; I'm just saying that you've probably heard so many Rolling Stones songs before that not a single song on here can get you to state that you haven't heard it before. And vice versa, of course.
What I was really trying to say before I got into this whirlpool of conscience was that A Bigger Bang offers no ready-made "classics". It's pretty hard for me to find anything that would fit well on a "career retrospective" collection. Unless, of course, Jagger eventually makes something on here take on an entirely different life onstage (like he did with 'Out Of Control'), although recent reviews from the band's live shows do not hint at anything like that. In this respect, A Bigger Bang is a hell of a bigger disappointment; not since Dirty Work have we seen an album so devoid of, er, let's call it "major forms of expression". Time may prove me wrong, of course, but for now, fuck time.
Or maybe don't fuck time. You see, all of these guys are now in their sixties. Not even in their fifties. A decade and a half ago, the Stones gave the world a nice example of how to continue practicing rock'n'roll while acting their age; all the while, however, they were also spending loads of efforts in order to keep hip and cool, hooking up with newer generation producers and technologies, diversifying their creative approach and partying with Sheryl Crow. Now, when every Rolling Stones record really threatens to be their last, due to certain bureaucratic restrictions imposed on us by whatever supernatural powers there are, they probably think that as long as they keep on rocking - and that's that - they have their point stated out loud, proud, and definite. They don't need to take creative chances anymore. Being over 60 delivers them from that responsibility.
And I'll say that they have every right to display that attitude. No instantly memorable hits? Well, as long as the songs aren't awful, ain't no big deal; they already got more hits tucked away in their pockets than any major respectable rock band could carry. No diversity in the arrangements? Well, as long as the playing is solid, who gives a damn; go look for diversity in their 60s albums instead. Can't call the album a masterpiece? Well, is it even supposed to be one? (So apparently Jagger did compare it with Exile On Main St. in his interviews, but what he probably meant was a certain similarity in approach during the writing and recording process, not the standard "this one is just as good as that one" routine).

I don't think my money's on the songs anyway. This time, my money's primarily on the sound. The record is awesomely produced. The guitars are crunchy and mean in an early Seventies kind of way, maybe even meaner than the Stones themselves in that period - more like early Alice Cooper, perhaps. (Okay, so maybe they are keeping it cool, after all, and all of this attitude is simply Jagger sniffing the right way again, what with all the neo-garage revivalism of the Strokes and the Stripes and all the other plural forms going round). Charlie's drums, like I already mentioned, sound as if, after all these years, he's finally shaken the last grains of sand out of their bottom. And Mick is Mick's usual self, except that he is also seriously involved in the playing, contributing lots of guitar parts - and occasionally, even bass parts, if the record notes are to be believed.
There's a very spontaneous atmosphere throughout; the emphasis is clearly on getting together and having a good time rather than contributing something self-consciously "important". And I think you have to focus on that. If you go like, "man, 'Rough Justice' is a terrible song! Did it take them thirty or fourty seconds to pull these two chords out of their asses?", then, yeah, I guess you won't be able to get a nice positive vibe flowing. But if you go like, "wow, Keith and Ronnie are really getting it on with that interplay, who else can get so sincerely ecstatic within such a generic context?", you're onto something. For some magic reason, no matter how generic brawny rockers like 'Rough Justice', 'Oh No Not You Again', or 'Driving Too Fast' are, I have managed to easily memorise all of them; but that's not the point. The point is Keith and Ronnie are still kicking booty like only Keith and Ronnie can.
From that viewpoint, you'll probably understand it when I say that 'Look What The Cat Dragged In' is my favourite tune on here. Oddly, I've seen it compared with some ancient INXS hit that I haven't heard yet, but whatever the resemblance might be - and I do think rather positively of INXS and their legacy - with all due respect, INXS could only wish they had anything like the kind of Richards/Wood guitar battles as captured on tape during the instrumental parts of this song. Not to mention the oddly shaped Eastern melody that runs through the song and the marvelous descending riff that Ronnie gets going in the chorus. That's some kind of interplay out there.
The rockers thus constitute the high points, but nothing really constitutes low ones. Well, speaking of the ballads, I'd say 'Streets Of Love' is a potentially good song, but is severely marred by cheap lyrics ('I walk the streets of love and they're full of tears' - what are we, playing some kind of Shakira?) and ugly power-balladeerish heavy guitar arrangements; the tune really calls for some sort of epic Paul Buckmaster-worthy orchestral arrangement instead. As it is, it's way too similar to 'Out Of Tears' in attitude and atmosphere, and I've never liked that one too much either. On the other hand, 'Laugh, I Nearly Died', I think, is a success. It's dark and kinda creepy, and although it takes not knowing anything about Mick to actually suppose it really reflects some of his personal thoughts and feelings, I still find myself willing to be deceived. Occasionally.
In other news, there's a - by now obligatory among the liberal crowds - anti-Bush diatribe on 'Sweet Neocon', a funny catchy ditty with lyrics even more inane than on 'Streets Of Love' (but then maybe it was Mick's aim to provide the liberal masses with nursery rhyme slogans like 'Where's the money gone/In the Pentagon' and nothing else). The band briefly taps into its funk/disco legacy with 'Rain Fall Down', which is kinda like 'Dance Pt. 3' but with better guitars and a better pronounced faux-decadent mood; throws in a few lazy pop hooks on songs like 'Let Me Down Slow' and 'The Biggest Mistake'; and gets all threatening and ominous on the grungey 'It Won't Take Long'.
As a final bonus, Keith contributes two songs that are anything but his usual soulful slop - well, they are soulful, but they're pretty well structured and "sing-along-able" compared to his usual self. And he still got that magic touch - 'Infamy' has, like, one chord to go along with, but it still manages to provide a respectable coda to the album. Maybe it's because that one chord is sort of oddly processed (easily the only case of such processing on the record), but more likely it's just ragged charisma time again.
The bottomline is - it all depends on the standards you're judging this against. Against the Strokes this holds up pretty well. Against Exile On Main St., its scope, broadness, depth, actuality and freshness - it doesn't. If we really want to hold on to the comparison, this is very much a poor man's Exile, a perfect gift for Stones-haters who finally have some real proof that the Stones are just generic geriatric ga-ga. Deep down inside, I feel myself somewhat duped and frustrated: this is the kind of music I think the band should be making, instead of going for the 'Anybody Seen My Baby' trends, and this also isn't the kind of music they should be associated with. A case study could be made of 'Back Of My Hand', an "original" blues tune in the vein of 'You Gotta Move', which is at the same time near-flawlessly performed and completely and utterly useless from a general view of the band's legacy. Curiously, Mick Jagger has only barely reached the necessary age to emulate an old, weathered bluesman, and yet he was so much more convincing and effective at it thirty or even fourty years ago.
But in the final end, I enjoyed the music, and never really found all that much to complain about while staying away from comparisons. Who are these guys? I don't know them. Sounds like a pretty tight, sharp-toothed rock'n'roll band to me. Nothing jaw-dropping, but they sure love their guitars and crap. Say, could we maybe get them to appear on Ed Sullivan?

А вот как раз то, о чем я тут говорил все это время. В переводе на английский)):

"Hey, that phrase actually meant more than I intended. It is, indeed, JUST a Stones album. The kind of album that people who only know about the Stones based on a couple radio hits and maybe an occasional best-of collection would think the Stones have been releasing all their life. Big, brawny, rhythmic, aggressive barroom rock'n'roll. Experimentation is out the window, face down in the garbage bin. Even the instrumentation reaches some kind of ultimate minimalistic record; about half the songs do list "piano" or "keyboards" in the credits, but dammit, I can't remember a single key-stroke - only the guitars. And Charlie's drums, which seem to progressively get louder and louder as Charlie himself gets older and older.
Not only that, but the songs are also impossibly "generic" in mood, melody, and attitude. Misogyny, sarcasm, character assassination, sleazy soul, and a disarming tear-jerker from Keith; not a single off-putting psychedelic surprise or, perchance, a stab at an amusing bossa nova. You have heard all of this before - many times. So many times, in fact, that not one of these songs is a song you haven't heard before. If you haven't heard one of these songs before, it probably means that you haven't heard a lot of Rolling Stones songs before, because the more Rolling Stones songs you've heard before, the more you realise there isn't one song on here that you haven't heard before. Of course, I'm not being literal when I say that you've heard all these songs before; I'm just saying that you've probably heard so many Rolling Stones songs before that not a single song on here can get you to state that you haven't heard it before. And vice versa, of course.
What I was really trying to say before I got into this whirlpool of conscience was that A Bigger Bang offers no ready-made "classics". It's pretty hard for me to find anything that would fit well on a "career retrospective" collection."

А такое здесь было с Кифом?

DVD Release Date: September 27, 2005
Rollicking piano. Infectious horns. Hypnotic drum beats. Rocking guitar licks. Put them all together and you've got the exuberant sound of New Orleans music! Join a world-class lineup of artists, including the Neville Brothers, Allen Toussaint, Irma Thomas, Lloyd Price, Bonnie Raitt and Keith Richards, as they slip, slide, strut and glide their way through the spicy gumbo of sounds that took over the world, influencing the course of popular music for over a century. From "Fire On The Bayou" to "Let The Good Times Roll" MAKE IT FUNKY! is a raucous tribute to the musical heritage of the Crescent City, chock full of blazing performances, fiery archival footage and red-hot conversations with the remarkable men and women who created it. Let good times roll!