|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 19, 2022 17:07:04 GMT
That's what I was thinking. I have to admit, it would be a lot of fun hearing the Beatles play some of those solo hits. (And funny if Lennon and McCartney chose some of their sniping songs, though obviously there are many much better songs available.)
|
|
|
Post by kds on Sept 19, 2022 18:22:24 GMT
That's what I was thinking. I have to admit, it would be a lot of fun hearing the Beatles play some of those solo hits. (And funny if Lennon and McCartney chose some of their sniping songs, though obviously there are many much better songs available.) Ringo could throw in Back Off Boogaloo, with George doing the Sue Me, Sue You Blues for good measure.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Mar 3, 2023 15:09:21 GMT
What do you think about remakes by the original artists? (And especially about remakes that aren't particularly different than the originals.)
I ask because David Lee Roth just released another of those live-in-the-studio sessions of Van Halen classics, this time with "Unchained." Roger Waters is in the news with his new Dark Side of the Moon. (I'm not sure how faithful to the original that's meant to be.) Other bands in the past have redone their own material for various reasons, such as Prince's 1999 version of "1999" accompanied by threats he'd rerelease his entire catalogue for financial reasons, and Taylor Swift recently having been making good on his old threat by doing exactly that with her back catalogue. In 2004, Twisted Sister redid their best known album, 1984's Stay Hungry, after singer/songwriter Dee Snider's complaints about the production of the original.
A variation on the theme is when artists more completely reimagine their previous work, most often (it seems) in stripped-down or acoustic versions. U2 is about to do a 40-song album, Songs of Surrender, along those lines. Many other artists have done something along the same lines, though not usually to that degree all at once.
Personally, I sometimes like the more fully reimagined versions. I almost never see the point of the more faithful ones, or rather, even if I intellectually understand the point (a la with Prince and Swift), I don't care as a fan and see no reason to get involved in their financial squabbles. In either case, I tend to be marginally interested at best.
What about you?
|
|
|
Post by kds on Mar 3, 2023 17:31:45 GMT
In general, I find them to be somewhat redundant and pointless.
Edit - Expanding on this a little. If it's a bit of a reimagining, or releasing a more fully realized version (thinking Queen's Seven Seas of Rhye), it makes more sense. But, if it's one of those label obligated bonus discs for a Walmart exclusive release of a new album, then it's not something that I really have any interest in.
And after hearing Roger Waters's recent remake of Comfortably Numb, I can't say I really have any desire to hear him attempt to redo an entire classic album.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Apr 14, 2023 23:29:52 GMT
I really like the song, "These Days". Jackson Browne wrote "These Days" at the age of 16 in 1964 or 1965. Do you like the song? Do you have a favorite version? I posted four versions below, but maybe there's another version you enjoy:
|
|
|
Post by jk on Apr 15, 2023 11:48:45 GMT
I really like the song, "These Days". Jackson Browne wrote "These Days" at the age of 16 in 1964 or 1965. Do you like the song? Do you have a favorite version? I posted four versions below, but maybe there's another version you enjoy: I'm not familiar with the song but these all sound great. And they're all so different! That, in a way, says enough about the quality of "These Days". Curiously, apart from "Doctor My Eyes", Jackson Browne has always been just a name to me!
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 15, 2023 11:55:53 GMT
I only know the Nico version. (What a collection of songwriters she had for that album, Chelsea Girl: Browne, Lou Reed, John Cale, Bob Dylan, Tim Hardin...) I also think all four of these sound great, with Nico's and Campbell's being my two favorite arrangements of the bunch. I think the song works best really understated.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Apr 15, 2023 12:25:01 GMT
I only know the Nico version. (What a collection of songwriters she had for that album, Chelsea Girl: Browne, Lou Reed, John Cale, Bob Dylan, Tim Hardin...) I also think all four of these sound great, with Nico's and Campbell's being my two favorite arrangements of the bunch. I think the song works best really understated. I agree. Those are my two favorites - Nico's being my favorite - because it is understated. That approach seems to work best with the song and especially the lyrics.
I stumbled across two Nico songs - "These Days" and "Chelsea Girls" (from The Velvet Underground Gold CD) and I can't get them out of my head. I'm blown away by the sound and lyrics to "Chelsea Girls". Is it a pretentious record or a psychedelic masterpiece? Are Nico's vocals amateurish or "the real deal"? I mean, she was there. She saw it. She lived it. "Chelsea Girls" is such a period piece. I sometimes wish either "These Days" or "Chelsea Girls" would've been on The Velvet Underground & Nico album, but, in my heart, I know they wouldn't have truly fit. Those songs, that album, was Lou Reed's statement, his baby - and obviously those Nico songs were recorded way after the VU album.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 15, 2023 13:20:36 GMT
I only know the Nico version. (What a collection of songwriters she had for that album, Chelsea Girl: Browne, Lou Reed, John Cale, Bob Dylan, Tim Hardin...) I also think all four of these sound great, with Nico's and Campbell's being my two favorite arrangements of the bunch. I think the song works best really understated. I agree. Those are my two favorites - Nico's being my favorite - because it is understated. That approach seems to work best with the song and especially the lyrics.
I stumbled across two Nico songs - "These Days" and "Chelsea Girls" (from The Velvet Underground Gold CD) and I can't get them out of my head. I'm blown away by the sound and lyrics to "Chelsea Girls". Is it a pretentious record or a psychedelic masterpiece? Are Nico's vocals amateurish or "the real deal"? I mean, she was there. She saw it. She lived it. "Chelsea Girls" is such a period piece. I sometimes wish either "These Days" or "Chelsea Girls" would've been on The Velvet Underground & Nico album, but, in my heart, I know they wouldn't have truly fit. Those songs, that album, was Lou Reed's statement, his baby - and obviously those Nico songs were recorded way after the VU album.
Yeah, at first glance they are almost contemporaneous, more or less--both 1967 albums--but when you consider how long the VU album was more or less done and just sittng there, it ends up being probably a year and a half or more between the earliest stuff on VU and Chelsea Girls. I've never known quite what to make of Nico. I don't think she's an especially good singer, but I sure do like some of her recordings. I do like her better in small doses, so in that way I like the VU debut. A full album of her can be too much for me. She must have been magnetic, having gotten the attention and affection of so many brilliant people: Fellini, Brian Jones, Jimmy Page, Warhol, Lou Reed, Jackson Browne, Jim Morrison, John Cale, and Bob Dylan were all connected to her within just a couple of years--many of them romantically connected (or trying to be).
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Apr 15, 2023 13:53:54 GMT
I agree. Those are my two favorites - Nico's being my favorite - because it is understated. That approach seems to work best with the song and especially the lyrics.
I stumbled across two Nico songs - "These Days" and "Chelsea Girls" (from The Velvet Underground Gold CD) and I can't get them out of my head. I'm blown away by the sound and lyrics to "Chelsea Girls". Is it a pretentious record or a psychedelic masterpiece? Are Nico's vocals amateurish or "the real deal"? I mean, she was there. She saw it. She lived it. "Chelsea Girls" is such a period piece. I sometimes wish either "These Days" or "Chelsea Girls" would've been on The Velvet Underground & Nico album, but, in my heart, I know they wouldn't have truly fit. Those songs, that album, was Lou Reed's statement, his baby - and obviously those Nico songs were recorded way after the VU album.
Yeah, at first glance they are almost contemporaneous, more or less--both 1967 albums--but when you consider how long the VU album was more or less done and just sittng there, it ends up being probably a year and a half or more between the earliest stuff on VU and Chelsea Girls. I've never known quite what to make of Nico. I don't think she's an especially good singer, but I sure do like some of her recordings. I do like her better in small doses, so in that way I like the VU debut. A full album of her can be too much for me. She must have been magnetic, having gotten the attention and affection of so many brilliant people: Fellini, Brian Jones, Jimmy Page, Warhol, Lou Reed, Jackson Browne, Jim Morrison, John Cale, and Bob Dylan were all connected to her within just a couple of years--many of them romantically connected (or trying to be). Again I agree. I'm not familiar with Nico's entire catalogue, but I think I could probably (only?) enjoy her most in 1966-67 and with/around The Velvet Underground and Chelsea Girl. For those not familiar with Nico, she was stunning, a real beauty:
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 22, 2023 0:54:02 GMT
Through the years, I have mentioned many times that the first album I ever bought (in a way) was The Muppet Movie soundtrack. I was maybe 4 or so, and was (as were my siblings) given one choice for something like a Columbia or BMG club package. This was mine. And I have always loved it, and still love it. But when I listen to it now (as, as you may have guessed, I am doing right now, hence the post), I still think it's great. Not just as nostalgia. Not ironically. I truly love that album. "The Rainbow Connection," "Movin' Right Along," "I Hope That Something Better Comes Along," "Can You Picture That?"--to me, those are actually very, very good songs. So my question, question, question, is: am I nuts? Is this just my own nostalgic trip, or is this soundtrack a good album? www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_lXBTljjo5V9T94ebmzhGOHTbttwT-Qi1g
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Apr 22, 2023 10:53:34 GMT
Through the years, I have mentioned many times that the first album I ever bought (in a way) was The Muppet Movie soundtrack. I was maybe 4 or so, and was (as were my siblings) given one choice for something like a Columbia or BMG club package. This was mine. And I have always loved it, and still love it. But when I listen to it now (as, as you may have guessed, I am doing right now, hence the post), I still think it's great. Not just as nostalgia. Not ironically. I truly love that album. "The Rainbow Connection," "Movin' Right Along," "I Hope That Something Better Comes Along," "Can You Picture That?"--to me, those are actually very, very good songs. So my question, question, question, is: am I nuts? Is this just my own nostalgic trip, or is this soundtrack a good album?
It can be both.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 22, 2023 13:05:56 GMT
Despite being a Muppet fan as a kid, I somehow didn't see the first two Muppet movies until I was in my 30s.
And, I love the songs from the original movie. Which makes sense since Paul Williams also wrote a few Three Dog Night songs I like.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 22, 2023 12:47:44 GMT
In the Beatles thread, Sheriff John Stone said (in the context of Ringo's All-Star Band shows): I actually think these kind of shows, maybe not multi-artists playing in the same band, but having concerts featuring four or five artists playing shorts sets (of their hits) will become more popular in the future. Most of these artists can't carry an entire show, but they can be very entertaining for 20-25 minutes playing their...popular...songs. I think I disagree. While I fully agree that these shows would be better for audiences, I don't think the economics would work in most situations. Touring is expensive. Even a medium-sized act has not just the four or five members of a typical band, but some roadies, a tour manager, some number of audio techs, possibly security, etc. Obviously the number of people involved depends on the show, but it's safe to say with the kind of oldies act envisioned, those musicians aren't dealing with gear at all. Massive tours (McCartney, Springsteen) can have well over 100 people involved. Clearly we're not talking about that in this situation, but even if you're talking about another 10 non-musical people, if you have four bands of four, that's already almost 30 people who need to be paid. What's more, tours need to be profitable now. The days of a tour possibly losing money because they boosted the real product--album sales--are gone. Long gone. Obviously nobody (relatively speaking) buys albums anymore: in fact, albums often are released to support tours, not vice versa. And if anything, the kinds of groups we're probably talking about in these scenarios are legacy acts who are the least likely to have new music to promote--that's kind-of the whole point of these tours in the first place: reliving past glories, giving 'em the hits. So I think these tours would only have a shot at being profitable if the bands were not expecting any significant cash from the deal, but rather more the approach of working musicians, of sidemen. People who actually enjoy making a living driving around the country (or world) in buses, playing for small and medium sized audiences every night, making enough to get by. I'm not sure how many former rock stars, presumably at least well into their 50s but often 20 years older, would want to live that life anymore. The big factor that could change the economics, of course, would be sky-high ticket prices. If they were to do these shows in nice theaters and charge a premium, they could pay everyone a good amount. But how many fans want to pay $150-200 (or whatever) for those revues? The article Sheriff John Stone shared and that brought on discussion included complaints that Ringo was selling tickets for his All-Star band for over $100, after fees (and $140 after parking and such). These multi-band tours definitely would not bring costs down. They may well be a better musical experience, but I doubt they would work out better overall, considering bands' and fans' bottom lines. But maybe I'm missing something. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Sept 23, 2023 11:53:28 GMT
Kapitan, I know nothing about the economics of the multi-artist tours, so I can't engage in intelligent conversation when it it comes to the bottom line, and, of course, the bottom line determines whether there is a tour...or not. I made my comment based strictly on observations. It could be completely irrelevant.
The concept of the multi-artist concert goes way back, as far back as the 40s and 50s, maybe even before then. As we know from seeing old concert posters that The Beach Boys played in the 60s and even 70s, they played on bills with four, five or more groups. Granted, their sets were very short, but that was the way things were done. I'm actually starting to see more of that springing up. Maybe it's a reflection of the artists living longer and still being healthy enough to perform. Maybe it's the audiences having a lack of attention or patience and not being open to sit through longer sets (just give me the hits). Or, maybe it is, in fact, like I said, a continuation of past practices.
I was basing a lot of my opinion on the popularity of those PBS oldies/folk/soul/British Invasion/Christmas themed concerts. I read that those are among the most-viewed shows on PBS, and some are several years old now. They keep repeating them. I'm also basing my comment on seeing a few of those Happy Together Tour shows. They have been "doing it" for several years now, too. I recently read that there are a few of type those shows in existence, and they actually have certain acts that play both tours. They change things (lineups) up and use mutual acts to fill in when illness or other unfortunate things occur.
I've noticed that the aforementioned PBS shows and the Happy Together Tour employ set backing bands that accompany all of the artists. Obviously, they are comprised of versatile musicians and backup singers. I would think, with some advertising and recruitment, you could assemble some fine supporting bands. There's always going to be excellent musicians who would WANT to travel the country/world, play with their musical heroes, play great music, play to adoring audiences, maybe pad their resumes, and just be working musicians. The money would be secondary to them. They would be doing it for the love of what they are doing. For the concerts I'm talking about, the band would simply have to consist of lead guitar, rhythm guitar, keyboards (one person), bass, and drums. Singing background vocals is mandatory. I could be wrong on this, but I think they book arenas where they can use the building's sound system and some of their audio techs. This would cut down considerably on overhead.
Obviously, the artists who would agree to this kind of set up are ones who WANT to to do it. Not need to do it but WANT to do it. And they're out there. There are several artists (who would have to be singers and/or prominent guitar/keyboard players) who don't want to spend their 50s, 60s, and 70s sitting at home. They still have the itch to perform. They love it - the music, the audience, touring. They never got tired of it, physically or emotionally. Money isn't their main motivation. They want to be productive. They love to create. It gives them a high. Hey, it's better than sitting at home on Facebook, listening to their old records, reliving old memories. They're making new ones. I've seen a few of these shows and I truly believe the artists want to be there. I don't think they're faking it.
Again, I can't speak about the financial aspect. I'm not talking about booking bands, though. You're booking individuals. Most of the artists were previously lead singers or lead guitarists. They don't need their old band (though it might be possible to do a three or four band show depending on the bands/ticket prices/sales), so that cuts down the overhead. Gary Puckett (without The Union Gap). Mark Lindsay (without Paul Revere & The Raiders). Chuck Negron (without Three Dog Night). Howard Kaylan and Mark Volman (without The Turtles). The Cowsills are now comprised of three members, not the previous seven. Same with The Association. And on and on. Anybody wanna see David Johansen performing a New York Dolls' set of 5-6 classics? I do. How about seeing Robby Krieger (with his son, Waylon, on vocals) playing a few Doors' songs? Wanna see Ace Frehley sing/play "Rocket Ride", "Back In The New York Groove", "Shock Me" and a few others? Yes, those acts are dinosaurs, and their days of touring are winding down. But, there are several artists from the 80s, 90s, and 00s who will be looking for work ("Hey, remember me from MTV?"). Call a couple of agents. Call Eddie Trunk!
|
|