He is literally the walrus

I try to avoid Wal-Mart, but I needed a couple things after band practice and it's down the street from our singer's house, so I went in, and literally the music section had been HALVED in the last two months, since the last time I was in there. I'm sure they will still make them for awhile to have something to sell at merch tables, but as a significant entity, It's time to let this format go...

Apparently the Warner office in Nashville has a fire-sale of stray stuff every year.

Literally got the Mob Rules vinyl reissue for $3. All I have to compare it to is an mp3 verison of the remaster, but I'd be happy to post some thoughts next week when I hopefully actually get around to listening to it.

Eh, I enjoyed about half the cuts from each of his three solo discs. Problem is, when you come from a band that literally changed so many people's lives, there's no way something like Human Conditions, pleasant as it was, was gonna cut it.

I literally laughed out loud. I love Nashville. :edthumbs:

I'm really surprised to read this. I was too young to have ever seen Queen, but I've literally watched dozens of live videos over the years and have a hard time fathoming them having a night this bad. Like any singer, he probably had off nights, but I always just imagined he covered it up with showmanship, and the rest of the band was so phenomenal that I thought it would still work. Really surprised a show like this even happened.

That's fair. But there's very few singers special enough to make it worthwhile, IMO. Emmylou, Dolly, maybe? (Those in this category are definitely mostly women) It's the whole "songwriting by committee" Nashville thing that results in everything basically sounding the same. It took FIVE people to write that Florida-Georgia Line song, which is literally Bb-F-Gm-Eb the ENTIRE four minutes. (And I know, I just had to write a chart for it). Whoever's name is on the spine, I just want to hear that person's creative vision and ideas (even Jeff Beck's albums comprised of other people's tunes...you know Jeff was 100% in charge musically)...that is the interesting part of music for me, more than the name of the person who happens to be singing. But you don't really get much of that on country albums with 20 different songwriters and dozens of session musicians just doing their jobs to create product. It's pretty uninspiring, even when the vocalist (like Martina) is a great singer.

The only serious downer is Alan White. Seems like the nicest dude, but he really can't cut it anymore. There was a part in "Roundabout" where he literally just sort of forgot to play for a couple measures. Anytime there were stops and starts (as there always are in prog), you never quite knew when Alan was going to come back in. His playing has gotten incredibly light, and he doesn't do most of the fills he used to do back in the day.

Got a few good pics, although being literally parallel to the Christine-Stevie-Lindsey line made it tough to get good views of the ladies. Alas.

Went to the Nashville show last night. I saw him in '08 at the Ryman, and in Boston for the reunion tour, so last night was basically a 'because it was cheap' kind of thing (they literally were giving away lawn tickets to the show). The band was fantastic, as always. Al sounded great, and Blondie was a nice touch (as someone who digs that short but fun era of the band). Brian himself was...a mixed bag, to put it best. His voice really can't do much these days...I told my girlfriend (who I took to see Love & Mercy, so at least she knew the backstory) to basically think of it like when we go see the Nashville symphony...it's more like going to see an orchestra play really great pieces of music than it is a thing about going to see Brian specifically, and I think that was emphasized by (wisely) handing some of the lead vocals over to Al's son and Darian. Matt Jardine did a good job, but I won't say Jeff Foskett wasn't sorely missed.

Ended up randomly buying a ticket last night in Nashville (for $95 with fees, instead of the absurd $250 most of the lower bowl tickets were) literally 3 rows from Lindsey's side of the stage, right next to it.

I will literally get up and move the needle past "Crocodile Rock" and "Benny And The Jets." Only two Elton songs I really, really hate THAT much.

To each their own. As soon as PJ split into 'analog' and 'digital', it was an easy decision, and much cheaper. If U2's thing offered different rates during non-tour years, I'd take it much more seriously. But U2 didn't offer 'U22' and 'From The Ground Up' as downloads for a $20 membership fee, so they aren't really comparable...I would've had to torrent them anyway since none of my computers still have optical drives. *shrug*

Even the $20 for Pearl Jam I question, since it literally took 7 years of living in Nashville before they played a show remotely near me (and even that was 3 1/2 hours away), but at least it's not an unreasonable number. But U2's is absurd, especially given their pathetic tour itinerary.

Streaming services don't make up their own albums, but any label with the rights to recordings can 'release' a title and have it on Spotify, etc. The discographies of Johnny Cash, Ray Charles, and others of a particular vintage are a complete mess there, and my one complaint about streaming is how terrible the user interface is for all of these sites, as far as ability to navigate artists with large catalogs.

There's also nothing in place as far as managing duplicate recordings, so you can look up Van Morrison and literally find 20 different (and often misleadingly titled) incarnations of the Bang Sessions. This is kind of a gray area though, as using an algorithm to remove these tracks would then also affect legitimate compilations & hits albums, and giving someone the editorial authority to remove things at whim also seems like a slippery slope that inevitably would accidentally result in the deletion of something important, eventually.

I hadn't carefully listened to the actual Born To Run album in quite awhile before I got the vinyl box...those songs show up so often on live things that I rarely seemed to play the original studio album the last few years. Was surprised to realize "She's The One" is almost literally a mono mix. Not sure if I only noticed this now after listening to a lot of mono Beatles lately and getting a mono/stereo switch, but man...

I guess maybe because it's a thing that I can't understand why it's such an issue. If it had been about any of the other things happening in 2001-02, maybe it would've digested better. And I rarely notice lyrics, unless I'm being hit over the head with something very literally, like on that one.

So...I went to see Patty last night at the Ryman. Just putting this out if you're considering going to see her in the next few weeks, it was a pretty short show (around 80 minutes), drawing about 60% from Servant Of Love, so really only about 5 or 6 old songs in the whole set, and one cover of a random spanish song that featured her guitar player. And oddly, "Rider Of Days" wasn't among them.

I think I figured why I haven't gotten into the new one much, if at all. Her band was subtle except for the guitarist, almost to the point of being non-existent, and several of the new songs she played were very, very drone-y. Like Patty had just discovered alternate guitar tunings, but hadn't learned how to form different chords with them yet. She played "Gunpowder," "250,000 Miles" and "Everything's Changed" in a row, all songs built on literally one chord for 4-5 minutes. I'm more of a music person than lyrics person, but I love Patty for her voice and the way she strings melodies together, and there just wasn't much of that in the new stuff. If you're into the new record though, you'll probably have a great time.

I think this is true to a point, BUT...I feel like if they were just doing it purely for non-financial reasons, they'd be a lot more adventurous with their performances, song-wise. Or they'd be making more new music. I don't think any of them would ever stop doing music, but as they all had side projects (Asia, Circa:, Squackett, etc) and/or solo albums, there's plenty they could do on a purely musical level. If money wasn't an issue, I doubt they'd be playing "Roundabout" for (quite literally) the 2,000th time.

I literally haven't played a CD in 7-8 years. I don't have anywhere to store more boxes. Vinyl, streaming and files only here...digital technology has allowed me to get my possessions more or less down to my vinyl collection, my guitars, a bed, a couch and a desk, which if you're jumping from apartment to apartment every couple years, is kind of a necessity.

Uggghhhh....why is this the only label getting literally dozens of titles I'd love to own? Super frustrating for U.S. buyers on any kind of budget.

I literally got a copy of that for free, otherwise there was no way I would've paid for it, even though I'm a huge REM fan (and really liked that album, musically). I played it once to make a rip for my media server, and that was it. I think it evens out to about 9 minutes a side. Why bother?

Those are literally two of the only 3 songs MJ wrote by himself on the album. I'm just speculating from the tracks I remember. There's no way anyone but the most dedicated fan could remember everything on a 77 minute album that runs about 30 minutes too long.

Found it for $15 at Amoeba a few years ago. Oddly, it's literally the only playable copy of SF I've ever seen in the flesh that was remotely affordable. So for that, I'm okay with it. The sleeve isn't in great shape but the LP itself is absolutely silent. *shrug*

Yeah. I guess I'm just less concerned with 'authentic' in certain situations, especially in situations where there literally was no real sleeve. I much prefer listening to the album that way though, for whatever reason.

Yeah. I don't really understand. The 2014 shows I'll let pass, they were done quickly, and there were a lot of them. I was happy just to have a soundboard copy of a show I attended.

But I definitely don't understand the point of putting out crappy-sounding stuff, it doesn't benefit Bruce or the fans. And the money made off of this is literally pocket change, it's not really a financial windfall, I think it's more of a tactic just to keep Bruce news coming during downtime.

The one with the TransTrem on it. I think it was the only VH song he ever used it on...the sound you hear between the pre-chorus and chorus is EVH literally changing the tuning on his guitar up 3 half steps in succession. I've never seen one of these in the flesh, or seen it used by anyone else, so I have no idea whether it would be useable in a live situation.

I've only listened on streaming, but is the wikipedia tracklist accurate, in that literally one song on the whole LP has writing credits from the actual band, besides the new singer? That may be why this one isn't really clicking for me. I know John Boegehold has been indispensable to the band post-Neal, but this is the first time he's really taken over the creative process so completely. Just strikes me as kind of odd.

It started more than 10 years ago, but yeah. I have a couple Paul Weller DVD's that literally are unwatchable.

The shows are probably enjoyable. Zak is a great drummer, and those songs will always be awesome when played at loud volumes. I passed on this tour, but enjoyed the Quadrophenia one, for what it was, since it's my favorite Who record.

But why is there any need to listen to this version of the band at home, when there are literally a half-dozen different recordings of every song in the setlist already released, with at least one, if not two extra actual Who members playing?

Any fan attending those shows to actually hear the band was probably going to be disappointed no matter what they played. They literally could've played 30 minutes of "Mr. Moonlight" and few would've noticed or cared.

Yeah, I suppose. I guess, since the recordings are already made, I wonder why something like the Wake Up The Nation show didn't get some kind of digital release as a live album, since it literally would cost no money to put it out there. I'm not intentionally ignoring DVD's, I just rarely have the time to watch them, even the good ones, but I have music playing basically every waking minute of my day. (Also haven't bought a 480p DVD since blu-ray happened...it's kind of hard to go back to low-resolution now that everything's in HD, innit?)

But my original point stands...the period of his solo career with possibly the biggest discrepancy between studio and live versions seems the least documented on live albums, and that's a bummer. I saw him in 2014, and really liked his then-current band. (I assume it's still the same guys on the Saturns/Kind Revolution tours?)

This is literally the #1 responsibility of a drummer. I like Asia and ELP, but his drumming drives me crazy. No groove, and tempos all over the place.

Listening, it's enjoyable, but can't help wondering how much better it'd be if they'd played 30-40 shows, then recorded this. Of course the musicianship is great and the songs are played well, but it's very...controlled, because it's literally their first public performance. Definitely makes it feel more like 'product,' rather than something released for artistic reasons. (especially since it doesn't feel like the reunited band is going to do much more other than isolated dates)

The number of people who care wouldn't fill an arena at one of Paul's shows. It's not about giving away anything, it's about making a product that a very small number of people would care about. Getting Paul, Ringo, Olivia, and Yoko to sign off on something that would maybe shift a few thousand units isn't really worth the effort, in their opinion, and I can't say I blame them. I don't think they'd lose money, but I think they'd make more money selling literally anything else, including square-inch cut pieces of McCartney's bedsheets.

Honestly, I recommend Apple Music if only for the library feature.

Every service has a sort of library/collection aspect to it, but Apple's is the only one that seems to work like a traditional media library. (Like, on Tidal and Deezer, you can add albums/songs to your collection, but you have to mark favorite artists separately, and then clicking on those favorite artists doesn't take you to a list of just the stuff of theirs you saved...it's very odd)

So Apple lets you save 100,000 tracks (Spotify tops out at 1/10th of that, an arbitrary limit they seem to have no intent of changing, because they want everything to be playlists). So when I signed up, I definitely spent some of my spare time amassing a custom library; This may seem unnecessary, but when you look up artists with massive back catalogs (and in some cases, like, say, Johnny Cash's Sun recordings, the same recordings released on many different albums by different labels all cluttering up his streaming discography), some initial effort results in a much better experience down the line. So when I go to the Grateful Dead in my own Apple library, I have just the stuff I listen to often, and don't have to weed through literally dozens of releases just to find Europe '72.

There's a lot I wish it did, and I wish they streamed lossless, but for the way I interact with online music, it's the only one that's so far worked for me.

There was no 'original vinyl release.' I know the CD's are the same. But it's like literally no one has actually spun the LP's from the box. I'm not expecting much, but I'd love someone to at least give impressions.

This is basically the same scenario every other 70's artist faced by the mid-90's though. Like, Tom Petty filled arenas literally up until his last week on earth, but his last real mainstream success was "Walls" in 1996. This has come up in other threads as well, but between radio/TV ageism and their original audiences getting too caught up in life and adulthood to have the time to keep up and digest new music, I generally think there's an approximately 20-ish-year limit from your first big breakout to your last genuine hit (at least from my perspective in the States). Petty ('76-'96), Yes ('71-'91), U2 ('83-'05)...even Springsteen's casual audience had largely moved on by his 20-year mark in 1992.

I don't really understand the story of Snow, but it's not any better or worse than Tommy or The Lamb as far as cohesiveness goes. The lyrics don't really get in the way of the music. (Although concept album formats going from double-LP's to double-CD's means that about half of Snow disc 2 is total filler or recycled themes, but I remember Testimony being even worse in that regard). But "not much wiggle room" is sort of like taking a novel or short story and just literally narrating it over music. And it's also a story so specific that only a certain subset of the population can in any way relate to it. But really, if I can't have good lyrics, then I just want lyrics that sound good that I can ignore and just rock out. (translation: I'm also a Kiss fan :laugh:)

The acoustic albums in mono (it's literally just vocals and guitar, what is there to separate?). The electric albums could go either way.

I'd be really into that, but I'd consider myself a fairly hardcore Dylan fan, and I don't have that many live recordings. Especially considering there are literally thousands of shows just from the Never-Ending Tour alone, I wouldn't even know where to start, let alone be able to fully listen to them all unless I stopped paying attention to all other music. I'm not really into crappy audience tapes, and also think many of Dylan's post-80's tours would be best represented by compiling the best bits rather than trying to release dozens of complete shows (how many versions of "Watchtower" does one really need, anyways?)

I hope both live and studio material from this era gets another deep dive in a future release, but since we already have Tell Tale Signs, I'm hoping a live set comes first.

Actually funny you should ask, as I am literally spinning Stanley Road for the first time this moment. The mastering is really nice, the vinyl itself is a bit noisy, which is frustrating, especially since my Kind Revolution LP I bought the same day was absolutely perfect. If you get a good deal (they were around $24 at my local shop...I know others in this thread have commented on absurd pricing for them) and love this album, it's probably worth it, but YMMV as far as pressing quality.

We do. I literally work across the street from it. Although I feel a little bad making them spend money on a book literally no other human would want to read. :laugh: I'll probably just get the kindle version and read it on my ipad. I wish I had room for an actual bookshelf/book collection.

Related: I'm writing charts for a gig this weekend, and I randomly did two (newer) songs in a row where I literally copied and pasted one song's chart into a new document, and only had to change one chord. Even the song structure was identical. And probably the lyrics, too, but luckily I don't have to pay attention to those for this gig.

Some of Neal's solo stuff is easier to stomach than others. It's when the lyrics get too direct/literal that I can't ignore them, and I have to put on something else. It's prog...for me the singing is just another instrument. Great lyrics are a nice bonus, but really at minimum I just want lyrics that aren't distracting. I'm not sure I ever made it through Testimony all the way through, because I was constantly being jolted out of the music to go "wait, did he really just sing that in a song?" Or like that "King Jesus" bonus track on one of his records...I love the music, but I wish the song was about...literally anything else.

I thought Similtude and Grand Experiment were really strong, and much better lyrically than some of the earlier ones.

The self-titeld Spock's record IMO is the strongest one with Nick on vocals. I remember not being into it when it first came out (It was barely a year after Octane, it definitely seemed rushed at the time), but in the years since I've really grown to love it. I think "As Far As The Mind Can See" was the one attempt at a 15+ minute prog suite that post-Neal Beard really nailed. "Rearranged" is also a total jam.

I don't think there's any serious beef between Hackett and the other three (some lingering animosity over how that recent documentary was handled, notwithstanding), but I presume the main thing keeping them apart would be the same now as in 2007: the 4-man lineup only made two records, and with Phil singing and arenas/stadiums booked, most of the set would come from '78-91. (You're not going to fill up an arena with just 71-77 material without Gabriel, nor would Collins, at this point, do a tour made up of 70% material he didn't sing originally)

Of course they could do a similar thing to the 2007 setlist and have Hackett guest on the 70's tracks, but I just don't see either side doing it...Genesis having a full member on tour who only plays 3 or 4 songs, and Hackett taking that much time and effort just to play 3 or 4 songs. (Not to mention the issue of what Steve would be paid for such a thing). It'd be super easy to have him guest if the band played London (or wherever Steve lives these days), but if there's one thing Genesis gigs are not known for, it's spontaneity, whether it be improvisation or setlist surprises or guest appearances or...literally anything that wasn't rehearsed and planned for every night of the tour.

But really, the whole thing is kind of moot...i know no one wants to hear this, but I don't think Phil could sing a Genesis gig anymore. I've watched clips from a few different recent gigs, and he's struggling, but the big band and backup singers are covering a lot of it up. He'd be very exposed with Genesis, vocally, and also a lot of those songs can't be tuned down much more than they already were in 2007. I wish they'd go in the studio and write some new songs together, instead of worrying about touring, but I suppose that's even less likely than live shows.

The idea of someone else (a massive corporation, at that), picking the songs I'm listening to in my car or at home seems like such an odd concept now. Sometimes I do want to blast "More Than A Feeling" at maximum volume, but I don't want someone else deciding when that time is.

That said, there are literally dozens of songs I'm more burnt out on than "Purple Haze." Every CCR, Doors, and Eagles radio single, for starters.

There's lots of stuff that isn't up on services because no one's bothered to put it up there. But the only reason something gets taken down is if someone specifically pulls it themselves. And that does happen (a project I played on years ago is no longer up because the singer rebranded himself as part of a generic country duo, and can't have anyone finding out about his sordid past :laugh:). But once it's up there, stuff won't "disappear" because the cost to keep it there is literally zero. It's different than physical products/CD's vanishing, which cost money to manufacture/distribute and thus needed a certain amount of interest to maintain. I believe it's only going to improve over time, as hopefully lingering licensing issues and other corporate crap gets sorted out. If not, the internet will still take care of it elsewhere...

That would be really cool, but I don't think there's many venues that could accommodate it. Neither version of Yes is an arena-sized band anymore. I also think Chris Squire' was a huge presence (literally and figuratively) in making those in the round shows work, and I'm not sure it'd really work without them.

Personally, after only getting to see Anderson-led Yes once (in 2004), in a giant arena, I was ecstatic to get to see ARW in our beautiful, modestly sized symphony hall. Of course I wish them all the success in the world (particularly as a Rabin defender), but getting to see legends like that in smaller/mid-sized venues is really a gift.

Yeah. Although they're pretty random, and not mainstream releases. (It's odd to me that there's literally dozens of Live Phish releases streaming on Apple Music, but none of the Live Bait ones. I'd think it'd be the other way around)

Like, A Live One is still the best Phish live document because it's carefully curated, and flows together due to everything coming from the same year. I'd love more things in that vein.

It's literally like a millimeter too tall to fit in IKEA shelves. ONE MILLIMETER. It's like they knew half their buyers use those for vinyl storage and wanted to have fun with them.

My favorite vinyl box set packaging is the David Bowie Five Years box, I can store it in it's box, but open with the LP spines facing outward along with all my other LP's, and I don't have to remove the whole box just to play one.

He's doing really well now, but it took several years and multiple albums to get his solo career to this level. (And honestly, those first two solo albums left me somewhat cold, and I know I'm not the only one. I don't know how many PT fans stuck with him for four years until he really nailed his solo thing with The Raven)

It seems like a no-brainer to me to take 5 seconds and google a band you like and find out what their members are up to, but so many people don't bother to do this. It's why I bet if "The Guess Who" (featuring literally just the drummer) and Burton Cummings booked separate shows in the same town, I'd bet any amount of money the drummer's band would sell more tickets, because that's just how the world unfortunately works.

It's not the best live performance caught on tape ever. But it's definitely my favorite live Hendrix performance. All the fire (literally) and fury, but without the indulgent long jams he'd get into in later years. (thinking about this and some Zeppelin threads...man, I love good jams, I'm a Phish fan...but long jams with just a guitar/bass/drums power trio can get pretty boring pretty fast). Constrained to his 45 minute timeslot, Hendrix was rarely ever this focused or tight onstage again (at least on tape). I love the Monterey LP as much, if not more than, his studio albums.

Literally not a word of this applied to where I lived. :shake: I am so grateful the internet put an end to this absurd practice.

This seems like a good list. Depending on your age and musical preferences, everyone has probably heard at least one or two of these, but I doubt anyone hear has heard all 50. These kind of hyperbolic article titles aren't to be taken literally, except by people with no imagination, I guess.

Nice to see The ArchAndroid on the list. What a brilliant record that was.

As revisionism, no. But in places where a track literally doesn't exist, I'm fine with it. Considering there's no other properly recorded live versions of "Ten Years Gone," it's the best we could get. I'd rather have something than nothing, but that's just me. Especially if it was only one track out of the whole show, and it meant we could have a professionally mixed late-period Zep recording.

They could literally press mono on side A and stereo on side B. :laugh: They'd never give that kind of value for money, but I'd buy it if it existed.

The actual value of $250 has gone down, as it always does over time. But I think the number of people to which $250 (per ticket, mind you, so that's $500+ for a date night, let alone if you wanted to bring an offspring to see the Stones or U2 while they still can) is no big deal has shrunk considerably.

There's still lots of U2 seats available for the show here, and it's literally U2's second real show in Nashville, ever (and first arena gig). They could've sold out two or three nights here at $150 or less, and made a lot of people happy, but at $325+fees? There will be tickets available till the day of the show. It's not always about extracting the literal maximum dollars from every show.

Filler very much exists.

The 40-45 minute running time of an LP was, as you say, completely arbitrary, as was the 74-80-minute limit of a CD.

But I genuinely think the vast, vast majority of artists rarely have much more than 40 minutes of grade-A stuff ready to go at any one time. That doesn't mean the extra stuff is necessarily bad, but it's just not up to the level of the rest.

I mean, look at post-Dirty Work Stones albums...most Stones albums between 1968 and 1986 had 8-10 tracks on them, and it was the perfect length. Then suddenly they had 12, 15, 13, and 16 tracks, respectively, yet I think most can agree they still only had about 6-10 really solid tracks on each one. (I'm speaking to the people who actually enjoy those albums, not the "everything after 1972/78/81 is terrible" crowd)

In the vinyl era, filler literally was stuff added to fluff out the running time: "Voices Of Old People," those Sabbath instrumentals, etc. In the CD era, I define it as "any song on a long album that you know wouldn't have made the cut had it come out in the vinyl era."

I personally think it lessens the impact an album has. Like, I love Alanis Morissette's Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie, but at 72 minutes and 17 songs, it's really a drag to get through in it's entirety, even though I'm a fan and think it has some of her best songs. I think it'd be a better album at 10-11 songs, with the rest going on some kind of b-sides/odds-n-sods compilation down the line for when fans are in the mood to dig deeper.

I love a lot of the prog or prog-adjacent supergroups that have popped up over the last 20 years, from Transatlantic to Winery Dogs to SOA to Kino (who finally has a 2nd album out after a 13 year wait), but there's literally nothing that can substitute for the chemistry between musicians after they've done a bunch of gigs together. Plus, a lot of these supergroups' first albums consist of stuff written by one or two members and adapted to whomever ends up comprising the band, whereas hopefully we'll get a second album with everyone writing now knowing exactly what all 5 guys are capable of. I have high hopes for this project if it continues.

There used to be a venue outside of Detroit that was literally the top of a parking garage. Saw Dream Theater and the pseudo-Verve there in the late 90's/early 2000's.

True. But it costs absolutely nothing to keep tracks on streaming services, so I can't see any reason why they'd disappear. (And to be fair, if literally no one plays a track, does it matter if that track is still available?) And I don't think a lot of people realize a huge chunk of the "30 million tracks!" services advertise are weird things: karaoke tracks, anonymous soundalike covers, forty different orchestras' recordings of "The Rite Of Spring." It's not like there's 30 million actual songs out there that have never been listened to. We're still definitely in a transitional period right now, as far as how people are going to interact with and listen to music going forward.

Now, I think there's validity in saying there's plenty of stuff that sold out and cashed in (see: Starship, 80's Chicago/Heart, etc), but I don't see how Bruce gets lumped in with that. With a couple exceptions of some Joe Grushecky collaborations, he's literally written every word and chord of every song on his studio albums. There's no way he, or Bob Dylan, or Van Morrison, or Lou Reed, or any great writer with a massive catalog could have lived, experienced, or have had first-hand knowledge of everything in their songs. I hate to break it to you, but most of it is made up. I listen to something like "Racing In The Streets," and like...does it really matter if Bruce himself, who couldn't drive, was the one doing the racing? No. It's just a great song with a beautiful arrangement and everything you want in an epic, slow rock song. But if you're going to hold every song to that standard of "is it honest?" you're going to miss out on a lot of great songs.

I can't believe it's 2017 and labels still can't release music worldwide. There may be only a handful of Manics fans in the States, but it costs literally nothing to release their stuff digitally here.

Literally no one can make that song listenable. And lordy, does it seem to show up in the weirdest of places. Saw Gov't Mule do it, Tears For Fears (it seems like they cover it in every show for the last 20 years for some reason), not to mention the ones I didn't see in person (Pretenders, Prince). I really don't get the appeal for artists covering it...it's slow, boring, and is the same three chords the entire song. And when you see it in person, you're thinking of all the great songs by that artist that aren't being played so they can do "Creep" instead. It's nuts.

There's literally no way a rock band of U2's vintage could have a hit in 2018, even if the song was that good. Granted, the "experimental" (not really that experimental) NLOTH was also the worst record they've ever made, so I'm really not sure where they go. But I think step one would be "stop trying so hard."

That's literally less than 10% of their recorded studio output.

I really liked the show I saw last year that was half and half. As someone else said, he's literally the only band member out playing 70's Genesis music right now, so I'm okay with it. I'd happily go see him do an all-solo material gig, but the two-set format seemed like a good compromise.

Of course, perhaps the audience for his solo material would be bigger in the 21st century if he'd let someone else handle more of the vocals.

Pearl Jam has always been incredibly frustrating as far as official video content. They've released hundreds of complete gigs on audio, but literally only one on video in 27 years? (And not even from one of their better gigs/tours either)

There's literally 300-level tickets priced at $325 for the Nashville gig. Absolutely bonkers.

I saw the 2015 show for around $100 literally right next to the stage, from tickets that were released the day of the show. Considering how much touring they've done in the past 10 years, I'm counting on there being some extras floating around the day of the show. If I can get in for under $60 I might go just for the curiosity factor, but I can't justify paying much more than that unless they're going to do something drastically different setlist-wise, which I doubt.

I'm not ashamed to have ever been a fan, but let's be honest: Kiss has been on a (well-earned) victory lap since 1996. There's no reason for this tour, now, at their ages, if they can't do it. The victory lap was the '96-97 reunion tour, or the 2000 farewell tour, or hell, even the Alive! 35 tour...take your pick. They've been playing every song in their set regularly at some point for the last 20 years.

If they were upfront about it, I don't think people would be as upset. But with the ticket prices being what they are, yeah, I think it's okay to be upset, or a little embarrassed even, because it flies in the face of everything rock n' roll is supposed to be. (And since several Kiss songs are literally about rock n' roll, this is kind of important)

Kiss are really athletes, with the kind of shows they do and the kind of music they play, and it was always a huge part of the appeal. And just like athletes, there comes a time when you can't play at the level you need to, and it's okay to retire and go on to the next phase of your life, which can still involve playing music. Just not being the Starchild singing "Detroit Rock City" in the same register and style you sang it age 25, and that needs to be okay.

Literally no one buying any of these reissue boxes doesn't already own the proper album(s), so they're already inherently flawed and overpriced. But really I just have no interest in CD's of any kind, just let me stream/download the stuff I don't already have, or let me buy a live blu-ray. I thought The Promise was great as a standalone album, and I thought they should've done the same with the River set, but they knew the unreleased songs weren't anywhere as strong (and most of the good stuff had already been on Tracks). It's cool that those are out there for the people who like...stuff...and have lots of shelf space, but hiding a great film like Tempe (perhaps the only truly great film of the original '73-88 E-Street Band) in a box few people could afford is criminal.

But anyway, back to the live archive discussion, and my wish that it also somehow could involve video. I'm sure lots of people would be interested in stuff like No Nukes in visual format, and even the feeds from the video screens for the reunion-era and onward shows would surely generate a lot of interest.

It also doesn't fit the album because it involves no other Beatles. Which is not the only Beatles track that fits that description, but it feels especially out of place on Pepper, which feels like such a group effort otherwise. I just think the track belonged on a side-project, which I guess wasn't a thing band members did in the mid-60's. Replace it with the SFF/Penny Lane single tracks, and you literally have a perfect Beatles record. Which bums me out, since I love George, but he just wasn't delivering during that year, for whatever reason. (I like "It's All Too Much" a lot, but even that would feel like a total throwaway next to everything else on the record)

There's literally no reason for anyone who wasn't a kid in the 60's to listen to the US albums. While they inadvertently made one enjoyable rock n' roll mixtape (Second Album), there's no rhyme or reason to any of it.

And I'd argue those albums could've been any combination of tracks and Beatlemania still would've happened. The albums sold, because it was the Beatles, but the popularity was still driven by the hit singles during 64-65. They're completely irrelevant, other than as a strange, forgettable footnote in the overall Beatles story.

Yeah there's really no rhyme or reason for it, other than it to be "product." I'm sure he insisted on the two Get Up songs...there are literally hundreds of greatest hits albums with an oddly disproportionate amount of whatever the artists' last thing was. I guess maybe he thought a few people might hear his new songs that way.

(Also, by my count, there's 3 songs from 18 Til I Die?)

But in the playlist era, there's really no need for this. I think it's just something to exist to have some product on whatever shelves are left, because those places probably aren't stocking his (better) comps from the 80's/90's or the double-disc Anthology at this point. No more rhyme or reason to it than that.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It's literally the same band. Of course they changed it up a bit after getting a more technically proficient singer, but it's still 95% of the creative team that wrote the previous Sabbath LP's. (I'm giving Ozzy 5% for...the harmonic solo on "The Wizard," I guess? :laugh:)

It's definitely worth going to if you have even a passing interest in Motown or the history of American music. As someone else said, it's modest...the Motown building was literally a series of adjacent houses, and the museum reflects that. The tour shouldn't take more than an hour or so. I went in 2012, and by that point it definitely wasn't as casual as it probably was in the early days, but you still get enough time to soak in the studio. Keep your typical "museum" expectations tempered, and instead just go to soak up the vibe of the place and the feeling of being in the room where all of that happened, and you'll have a great experience.

(I wasn't aware they're expanding...obviously my comments reflect the museum as it was as of 2017)

Cool with me. I mean, I literally just saw them play the whole album. Other than "Streets" I don't need to hear anything from side A of that album live again. ("One Tree Hill" is welcome back anytime, anyplace, forever though)

Clearly, it does. I listened to it a few times and literally couldn't remember a single thing I'd heard afterwards. A lot of the album almost felt like someone wrote a bot that created DT-style music and just let it run. DT was so inspiring when they came out, because no one was doing what they did, but now they face the challenge every band faces 25+ years on: how do we keep inspiring the audience (and ourselves)? They swung for the fences, which is noble, but man, they whiffed badly.

Honestly, DT could be singing about burritos and it wouldn't really matter...I find LaBrie's enunciation largely indecipherable when he goes up high anyway. (I probably knew every note of Images & Words before I actually sat down and read the lyrics along with it and went "oh, THAT's what he's saying?") I mean, this is a band influenced by (and that largely shares a fanbase with) a band that wrote a song about like, trees fighting or something? :laugh: It's great when the lyrics work, like on Scenes, but like, a combined hour of songs about Portnoy's AA meetings? Happy for the guy, but I just zone that stuff out. (If only I could zone out the annoying "Dying Soul" riff being used over and over )

i really didn't expect anyone to jump in and defend it so staunchly. It's literally one repetitive chord. There may be some cool jams out of it, but I'm just talking about the actual song. (still a song guy, sorry not sorry)

I liked "Royals," it was so out of left field and a nice gesture to the local crowd. It wasn't the most compelling song when performed acoustically, but it worked better than I would've expected. Lorde was the first New Zealander to have a worldwide #1 hit, ever, so I imagine it was a pretty big deal around the time of that show, and I thought it was a brilliant way to open the gig and really create a bond with an audience he'd literally only ever played one show for in the previous 40 years. I really loved all the localized covers he did on that run...not many artists would make that extra effort to bond with long-ignored local audiences like that.

Oh, no doubt. There's literally thousands of gigs over the years that were probably wonderful in person for emotional or historical reasons, but didn't necessarily translate into inspiring live albums.

I guess I just don't need anything "to show for it," because if I don't need a physical object to do it and literally no one else in my world would care about said physical object, why would it matter to me?

Also, I make music a priority by seeing as much of it as I can afford live. I balk at the price of tickets to big shows, then end up going anyways, because I know those bands won't be around forever. I'd rather spend $150 on a ticket than a bunch of CD's I'd end up ripping and filing away never to be used again, but that's just me. (And luckily Nashville is getting more smaller tour stops that are much more affordable)

(Related: my dad is like you with movies, and at some point in the next 10-15 years I'm going to have to trash a collection of about 1,500 DVD's and blu-rays that literally no one besides my dad has seen and that he himself has barely watched more than once)

A little wait is better than driving in stop-n-go traffic. At least I can close my eyes, read the news, put headphones on, do literally anything else besides scream at other drivers and try not to get killed (or kill anyone else). They guesstimate 100+ people have moved to the Nashville area per day over the last 5-8 years, and our infrastructure is not built to handle it, at all. I am very much looking forward to the day self-driving cars mean I don't have to drive (or own) a car again.

Duran Duran's Astronaut disappeared for some reason, but I don't think it's a rights issue since the other albums they did for that label are still around. It's just a weird thing, but it isn't like there aren't literally tens of thousands of other records to stream.

It was the JT tour, so I don’t think it would’ve been an issue. I would’ve picked “Bad” over SBS (in literally any situation), but I doubt it was ever a contender since it was already on UABRS. (I know a fake live “Bad” was on that EP, so that probably eliminated it as well)

"Because" is the last great Lennon Beatle track. Easily the best thing he contributed to a Beatles project in 1969, IMO.

I never really thought about it until now, because Lennon kicks off the album and has at least a fair chunk of the side 2 medley, but there's...not a ton of him on either 1969 album when you think about it. "Mean. Mr. Mustard" and "Polythene Pam" both go back to India, "One After 909" was resurrected from the Cavern days, and "Across The Universe" is literally an old recording. So really, the only new songs John brought to the band in 1969 were "Come Together," "I Want You," "Sun King," "Dig A Pony," and "The Ballad Of John & Yoko." I don't know when his heroin dabbling started and ended, but whatever the cause, he definitely was less engaged creatively during 1969 than he had been previously.

Selling records is the point of archival Dylan releases, though. There are still so many Dylan eras still untouched by this series, and pretty much everyone else on the planet realizes the archivists' time and energy is better spent on literally anything else. Eight-plus hours (not even counting the original studio albums) of Jesus Bob is all the market is going to bear.

I literally only know like 3 of them that I had to learn for gigs...and I had to learn them off a copycat cover version on Spotify since you can't listen to his actual recordings. I just love making fun of him trying to make his own internet, basically. I had to work on that site briefly years ago...it was kinda hilarious.

It's hard for me to imagine a Stones song rocking much harder than "Rough Justice." Whether you like the song (or any song) or not, they literally rocked very hard the last time they made a record. It just happenens to be far too many years since they have.

I have dozens of Dead shows/live albums in my media library, and literally just deleted the Drums/space tracks from my hard drive...there's no circumstances in which I'd ever voluntarily play them. No sense in wasting the hard drive space.

As someone who couldn't get to shows at the time of it's release (I caught their lone post-drivers' license Detroit stop in December of '99, but that was all I could do as a suburban high school kid), I think I just wanted more of the atmosphere. A Live One made a Phish show sound like the happiest place on earth to be, and I wanted more of that feeling. Of course now I have literally hundreds of options, but at that time of Hampton it was either Phish's official releases, or audience tape cassette dubs, for the most part.

It costs virtually nothing, possibly literally nothing if it’s through a major label.

My guess is someone at Apple Corpse thinks it’d be “confusing” or whatever to have both versions there. The Beatles have never been ones to be super in touch with what fans want.

I think when they came back in '09, it was also designed from the outset to be a smaller operation. They haven't topped 50 shows in a year since the first year of 3.0, and I suppose you don't need as many employees when the scale is smaller. I wish they'd kept more stuff in-house...I see what outsourcing has done to U2 over the last 10+ years and literally nothing about it has been good. The fact that they still do their own partial ticketing (without requiring a buy-in to a fan club) is really all I need them to keep doing.

I'm just not sure what that would be. I don't doubt that music consumption will continue to evolve, just like movies, TV, games, etc, but the idea of "things starting to go downhill," i can't imagine what that would entail. Format changes have always been driven by consumer preference/convenience, and we've literally reached the absolute pinnacle there, from a consumer standpoint, and they're never going to go back. I don't think any label would be stupid enough to pull a CBS and try to start their own service, because the whole appeal of streaming services to many people is having everything in one place, and being able to share/make playlists/etc. If one of the big labels tries that, it'll fail miserably.

Of course I hope the services get better, and issues with them get sorted out. We went from 78's to LP's to cassettes to CD's, each in the name of convenience or quality, but you literally couldn't create a better consumer product than "(most of) the history of recorded music available for an insanely reasonable monthly fee." I don't know what could replace that years from now going forward.

I still have a hard drive full of FLAC files, so I'd be fine. But I find myself using it less and less as time passes, and the number of things absent from digital services decreases. I'm a big bootleg collector, so I'll always have a hard drive full of music as well. (And a backup of that hard drive. I'm not stupid!)

The arrangements in a Kiss song, even live, don't change at all from night to night. They can all still play so there's no reason to think guitars and bass aren't live (and the drums, obviously are). But they're all on in-ear monitors, so they all get a count-off in their ears and away they go.

Think of Van Halen playing to a pre-recorded keyboard track on "Jump" or "Dreams" or "When It's Love"; those songs are literally the same length every night...if the band is playing the same exact arrangement, you could literally fly any voice or instrument in it you wanted. Flying in Paul's lead vocal is no different, except that he needs to work hard to make sure his lips match it. It actually sounds a lot harder to do than it really is, from a purely audio standpoint.

I saw that, that's very cool. I randomly saw them when they toured with Journey and Mick was out sick. So it literally was 100% a cover band. What killed me is that no one in the audience really seemed to notice.

I still think eventually they'll do streaming/download audio releases of these things as soon as someone keys them in that it would cost literally zero dollars to do and might bring in a few extra bucks. But then again, not much they've done in the past 15 years makes a ton of sense.

We will never move past that. Anyone buying a box set like that already owns the original album, so you're literally starting with redundancy.

Maybe. I'm just saying they could release it literally any day and it wouldn't really make a difference. It's not anything remotely interesting to the casual/impulse fan.

I'm guessing it was the same Catch-22 that any music documentary has to face at some point. You can't make a good documentary with the primary subjects dictating/controlling the narrative, but it's also very difficult (not impossible, but difficult) to make a good documentary without participation of the primary subjects.

It's why the recent Chicago documentary was so disappointing to me. It was a very, very subjective (and selective) look at their history, literally directed by a band member's relative and produced by the band itself.

I wouldn't mind a change of drum sound, but those vocals and the production I think is what made Def Leppard stand out. I wouldn't really be into it if they just sounded like any other band who goes into a studio and bashes out an album in a few days. I think the songs on their big albums were good enough to be successful without Mutt's meticulous production, but I think that production is what helped blow them into the stratosphere for a time. If I want "rawness" and "realness" there's literally thousands of rock albums I could (and do) turn to. It's like, I don't want every album to sound like Boston, but I love that Boston sounds like Boston, y'know?

Maybe if Tales was a single LP with just sides 1 and 4, it'd be marginally better. I think "Ritual" is really the only side I'd keep though. I think you could fit the interesting bits of the first three tracks on one 20-minute album side, if they'd had the self-discipline to do so. I feel like the decision to make "4 sides, 4 songs" was made before they actually had any solid material written, and it shows. If there weren't literally a dozen better Yes albums within easy reach, perhaps I'd be kinder to it, but I find more enjoyment from literally every record they ever made except maybe Open Your Eyes or Heaven & Earth.

But yeah, Talk rules. There are records I like because of their production, and albums I like despite the production, and Talk definitely falls into the latter.

I think my issue with Clapton isn't Eric, it's that a lot of his biggest songs are the most boring ones in his catalog. "Wonderful Tonight," "Cocaine," "Lay Down Sally"...literally anything played Unplugged-style especially "Layla." I love From The Cradle and of course the entire Layla album, and a select few of other hits are genuinely great and have a lot of energy: "Let It Rain," "After Midnight," "Pretending," etc. But if I went to an arena show and Clapton spent 1/3 of the set on a stool playing acoustic stuff, I'd probably get bored.

It does have some fine moments, but I'm already half-asleep by the time you get to them. Even Tormato I've come to appreciate some of, but I don't think I'll ever learn to love Tales, when there's literally thousands of better records I could spend 82 minutes with. The surround mix is really nice though, for what that's worth.

No. But the audio engineer has done that on the majority of popular titles for over two decades now. It isn't the fault of the format, but it's something that was enabled by the format, and to this day, few seem to be able to resist it's (non-)charms. It is what it is, but the result is that there's literally no audible difference to playing a modern day Iron Maiden album on CD vs. streaming it.

I can literally count the number of times I've been under a non-booze influence on one hand, and none of them have been at shows. And I can't really afford to drink at shows, so... But now in my late 30's, the last couple Phish gigs I've been to, I definitely have moments where the jams lag a bit and I'm like "ooooh, now I get why everyone here is doing drugs" :laugh:

Why do they need to press new copies at this juncture? There's literally millions of them flying around. Nothing has been "deleted," they might just not be pressing new copies of things that don't need it. You can get the 2009 CD or the 2012 LP on Discogs for a couple bucks, and probably get the '87 CD for pennies, let alone the millions of LP's sold between the 1960's and the end of the 80's.

The original mixes are still available on all digital services. They're very much "in print" for the vast majority of listeners in 2019.

A lot of the stuff on Please Please Me they'd been playing for months, if not years, in clubs. Playing a song in front of an audience once is worth at least 20 takes in rehearsal, and presumably they'd played everything on it several dozen times by Feb. '63. I always assumed the 10 songs recorded that day were largely chosen for that reason, because they could be done quickly. "She Loves You" was a brand new song, recorded literally days within writing it, so it was probably harder to zip through a 100% perfect take after just learning the song.

Music is all that matters to me. I don't care what the products and services are as long as I'm able to listen, and the number of things I'm unable to listen to this way seems to shrink every month (even Robert Fripp, the world's crankiest janitor, somehow is onboard and I can nerd out to Discipline literally any time I want). I used to care a lot more, but after almost a decade of incorporating streaming into my musical life (I remember being a MOG and Rdio subscriber at least back to 2010, when I got my first smartphone), I just don't really have many worries left about it, because there's no real motivation for labels to pull their wares from circulation. I just don't lose any sleep over most of the stuff I listen to regularly suddenly vanishing from the entire planet.

Nothing you can do about pure numbers, but eliminating the benches that no one uses would at least put everyone on a level playing field (literally). If everyone's standing on the benches, that means the number of "rows" that can actually see the stage is pretty small. Eliminate those, and everyone at least gets a view. There's no perfect system, but elminating "seating" that literally no one uses to sit seems like it'd be a major step forward here.

To each their own. And if the music in this particular case was weirder, maybe I'd understand where you're coming from. But (having never heard this song before), it sounds like the most stereotypical mid-60's Byrds-y pop number you could think of (not necessarily a criticism, just an observation), so breaking the "rules" with a mix doesn't make sense to me when the music is literally following a well-established template.

It's literally two chords...one on some of the acoustic versions. The words are powerful, but not backed up by much until the band got ahold of it.

I've been using it almost exclusively since launch, and the primary benefit for me is having an actual library. Tidal/Deezer let you "favorite" artists and albums, but not together. (So if I "favorite" Sam Cooke but only favorited the 4 or 5 albums of his I'm interested in, clicking into Sam in my favorites just takes me to his artist page, with dozens of redundant albums issued by unofficial labels, compilations, etc...I literally can 'favorite' a couple thousand albums and I'm not sorting through all of them just to find Night Beat)

oh my god what is up with Elton's hair in that video?

One of those songs that literally wouldn't have gotten released if it had been by a new/unknown artist. There's a lot of mediocre Elton tunes that are still enjoyable due to his default melodic gifts, but man, that ain't one of them.

I'd be interested in hearing more from later in the year after the band gelled a bit, and some songs got added to the repertoire and arrangements altered a bit. Releasing an album from literally the first shows a band lineup plays is rarely a great idea. I don't need a bunch of shows, just a nice comp of the best of the later '78 tour material.

Looking at the setlist from Hayward's last solo show, he literally played one song from his entire solo catalog (along with two 44 year-old Blue Jays tunes), and 12 or so Moodies tunes. A few deep cuts but nothing the band itself didn't play occasionally ("The Actor," "Voices In The Sky," etc) that would've been unfamiliar to the larger Moodies audience.

Not to mention there's literally three times as many stages as there were 10 years ago: twice as many bars, and those bars all have 2, 3 or 4 stages running from open to close. So lots more gigs for hack musicians like myself, but also less money to be made at a lot of them.

Literally no one needs another Chicago compilation, so yeah, this is the next logical step.

Both versions of Chicago II remain available, so it's not like they're replacing the old version.

For me though, a mix is about making everything sound like it belongs together, whether it's stereo or 5.1 or whatever. Even though most records aren't made with the band recording at the same time, a good mix should still create that illusion. I mean, parts of Hysteria were literally recorded one note at a time...it's absurd. But yet it all sounds like one, massive unit. Some of these early 60's Beatles/Kinks recordings only have 3 or 4 instruments plus vocals, and in stereo they sound like they're in completely different studios. Just not a fan, now that we have a proper alternative.

Sigh. Guess I’ll never know, then. I mean, I’d love to buy some Cooke LP’s, but I’ve literally never seen a vintage one in good condition in all my years. And honestly, I don’t even know if that pre-RCA stuff is any good, I’m just curious to check it out and see how he evolved. It just seems like such an important artist should be better represented.

My friend literally made a FB group to share images of the all-time champion:

Bruce Springsteen Pointing At People

He only did about 50 shows worldwide for Rattle That Lock. Unless he makes another album, that was probably it. I doubt he'll do another major tour without any new music...he doesn't need the money and if he feels the urge to play a few songs onstage, there's literally dozens of artists who'd be happy to have him guest on a few songs.

I was really bummed when his 2016 itinerary was so skimpy...there weren't any shows I could viably get to, just NYC, Chicago and LA. And that was probably my last chance to ever see the one member of Pink Floyd I actually care about seeing. :shake:

Isn't the definition of evolving literally moving on from stuff from the past? You have more options than vinyl, and plenty that involve CD-quality resolution or greater. Sucks you're going to miss out on a lot of great new music in the next few years.

My first show wasn't until 2006, even thought I'd been a fan since the beginning. I was too young to see them in the 90's, and missed them in the early 2000's because reasons (fall 2000 was my freshman year of college and I didn't have a car or any way to get there, the 2003 show was at Pine Knob, which isn't even worth going to for free). Moved to Chicago in '04 and finally caught them when the s/t album came out, both shows at the United Center. The first night hit almost every song I wanted to hit at my first show ("Release" opener," "Present Tense," "Given To Fly," "Baba") that the second night was inevitably a let down. Then moved to Nashville before Backspacer, a city they hate for some reason, so my only two shows since then were Memphis in 2014 and Louisville in 2016 (the only times they've played non-festival gigs within road trip distance of Nash).

Then I left Nashville after 12 years for a new job, and they literally announce their first Nashville gig in 17 years the week after I left. :realmad:

That rarely ends well for me. Like, "Yahweh" would be a good song if it was about...literally anything else. The music is okay, but the chorus is so...awkward.

that’s literally the case with any band that’s been around more than 15-20 years. Yes, they should all just be human jukeboxes and pander to fans who never moved on past 1974.

I get that with some bands...no one needs new Doobie Brothers tunes. But Fripp fought the legacy thing for so long, it’s crazy to me that he’s so complacent now. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve seen this band twice and it was incredible both times...but I’m amazed he’s been doing basically the same thing for six years straight now. If he wants to run in place that’s his decision, but don’t crap on people who would actually enjoy new music.

Live In London is okay but 1973's In Concert is a much better listen. You can skip 15 Big Ones until you've literally listened to every other thing they put out before 1973, it's really not great. The Philharmonic one also seems incredibly unnecessary, but I also haven't heard it.

Literally just staying up right now to find out what they're actually going to be playing. A+ on the Phishbill though. Someone clearly spent some time on that.

Sounds like it could just be comprised of modern interviews from those involved in his 1980 sessions and vintage news clips and the like. There's literally hundreds of unauthorized music docs from the DVD era that are now polluting the listings of Amazon Prime, Hulu, etc.

it literally costs $0 for them to add it to steaming. Even if they made 50 cents off me streaming “Headless Cross” a few times they’re coming out ahead.

Also notable that Dehumanizer has always been available so I don’t think it has anything to do with IRS or that era

It sounds like you're literally sitting on the stage. That recording is amazing on the pressing I have.

That was the show after Danny guested. Obviously no one knew what would happen soon after, but maybe Bruce knew it had been the last time. Setlist-wise it wasn't that different than other shows on that leg, but yeah, the reports were pretty brutal.

But if that's the only show we can think of out of literally 2,000+ that was notably bad in that way (and not in a way that was out of Bruce's control, like bad sound or a terrible crowd or whatnot), I'd say that's a pretty good ratio. We all have days when we just can't do our jobs well, and even the best rock stars have ones so bad that they can't put on a face and hide it. As someone who has struggled with it my whole life (and rarely been able to have it treated in any way) I really appreciated how open he was about his depression in his book, and I'm genuinely amazed Cinci is such an outlier.

totally missing the point.

the point is having them available when the mood strikes, and being able to deep dive into back catalogs you’d have never otherwise discovered. Of course no one’s going to listen to 5 million tracks, but I’ve listened to literally thousands I never heard (or in some cases even knew about) during the CD era.

All those semi-obscure Stax & Motown albums, all those solo albums and side projects from members of prog-rock bands I dig, dozens of synthpop b-sides and remixes... I have a 1,000 square foot apartment in downtown, I’d need the entire floor to store all the stuff I’ve heard in the last decade of digital music.

Sure, but the rest of the album is literally the aural equivalent of a still life painting, so I guess the Stones knew what they were doing when they named it.

I think the reissue campaign was only supposed to cover the first three albums.

There are some really nice sounding Noel demos of the entire album, but those have literally been circulating in perfect quality since before the album's original release date, and there's already a live album from the tour, so I don't think there'd be much to entice people to double dip on this. (The album was also quietly reissued on vinyl in 2016-18, so not much demand for that either)

How is it out of print? I mean, they probably aren't making new CD copies because there's virtually zero demand for them, and it's tougher to repress box set packaging than another generic copy of Born To Run. You can literally get one on Discogs for under $15. But it's on all streaming/digital services, which I consider the new definition of being in or out of print. The number of multi-disc/fancy-packaged catalog titles still actively pressing new CD copies is probably pretty small at this point.

Prince. There literally wasn't a rock/pop instrument he couldn't shred on. Never forget, before the Linn machines took over around 1999, he played all the drums on his first four albums, and played them well.

The whole point of the tour was to literally do the same thing they were doing 30 years ago. :laugh:

I had no problem finding Stanley and Heavy Soul, but I've literally never seen the first two albums in the flesh, and believe me, I've been looking ever since they came out. Granted, I'm in the States, but I still never have a hard time finding new Weller albums on their initial release here...he's fairly popular with the crowd that still goes to vinyl shops, I suppose, even here.

Lots of these gray-area releases coming out, using Euro loopholes. Bowie HQ is quiet because these have nothing to do with them. But it's such a small-scale thing at this point that it's probably not worth the legal expense to go after them. There are literally dozens of these releases for every artist imaginable, but also these recordings are available for free from tons of bootleg swapping sites...collect boots, but don't support the for-profit bootleggers. :righton:

There's literally only three Brian/Bboys albums I've never listened to: the Disney thing and the two Christmas albums. I'm sure the harmonies are lovely but just zero interest. I thought the Gershwin record was surprisingly fun, though...I wouldn't have minded something else along those lines in lieu of new original tunes.

There's literally millions of copies of the original mixes in circulation, and both are still available digitally. This is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

I can definitely understand that. It sucks when there’s no good option for literally hundreds of your favorite albums. So you suck it up and listen anyways.

Sure you can. There’s literally hundreds of examples of artists being too close to their just-finished work to be objective about it, and hundreds more where the artist has expressed regrets about it years later: mixing choices, song selection, personnel, etc.

I like Back to the Egg just fine but I have literally thousands of other things I can listen to.

I love and follow literally hundreds of other artists, but I feel like a studio album should really be just the best stuff, if your goal is to draw in new listeners and find a larger audience. That doesn’t mean dumbing down or selling out or anything, but making a record a statement, whether you have 35 minutes of A-grade stuff or 60.

It's as good a time as any to do it, so maybe early in the new year they'll put something out. Doubtful, but there's literally going to be no better time.

they literally could record it in a week, basing it off a live in-studio thing...like the 3,000 live albums they’ve put out in this incarnation, just playing new material and releasing it in a logical, cohesive manner. Making records is not expensive unless you decide it has to be.

they’re fine performances, although it’s obvious Bruce was kind of worn down from touring BTR by this point. But the sound quality isn’t particularly inspiring. No way they’d release more shows from those kind of sources from tours where they have literally any other show on multitrack.

You put it better than I could. And I dig "mildly groovy," just want it to kick up a few (or several) notches now and then. They both had solo things going to explore their more mellow tendencies, for me the reason to reconvene the Crowes in the studio was to get their rocks off, literally and figuratively. And I don't think they needed to repeat themselves and just do regurgitated Stones and Faces forever, but evolve without losing the hard rock element.

You literally couldn’t do worse than the original “Day Tripper” stereo mix. Egads.

To me, it literally couldn’t be worse than the existing one. I think they’ve done a good job so far, I don’t care that I’m in the minority there. It’s fun to hear familiar things in a new way.

I totally do. Literally no one who would buy this doesn't already have the original mix, quite possibly in multiple formats. It's redundant. (especially since it was just remastered a couple years ago)

Jon Anderson could’ve sung literally anything that sounded good and Yes would’ve worked. It was all complete nonsense...but he sounded amazing doing it, so no one cared.

Literally anyone can have a #1 chart hit if you make the chart specific enough.

Literally the most pointless, arbitrary metric there is.

there’s literally no reason they couldn’t have included both versions. The album can’t be much more than 30 minutes long.

There's literally zero reason the mono & stereo shouldn't be on the same disc, other than artificial price inflating.

She was booked to play literally two blocks away from my apartment before Covid happened. Such a bummer. Saw her once in 2015 but was hoping to do so again while I still have the chance. Looking forward to this album though.