Jump to content

What Are You Listening To?


mtutiger

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, oblong said:

I just see her as a modern David Bowie... appearance is part of the art form. Not everyone has to like the expression.  In terms of pure music she has talent and chops.  She wears costumes.  

I think I had said this before that it is sad that a talented singer needs to resort to that to get attention, but ever since 1981 it's the way of the world.

I remember, way back when, thinking how ridiculous Motley Crue and Twisted Sister were with their makeup and clothes but they used it to their advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last Beatles song arrives on Thursday November 2nd.    Re-constructed using the same audio technology from Peter Jackson's "Get Back".   They've had the song for years, tried to clean up a cassette with a bunch of ambient room noise but never could get it cleaned up enough.   George Harrison played guitar along to the song but was the one to veto it's release, not because he didn't like the song, but because he thought the quality of John's voice was not good enough.  So they were able to use AI to clarify John's voice, but not add anything to it........they had George's guitar attempt from the 90s and new material added by Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr.  They took some harmony vocals from previous outtakes when John was alive ('Because' is one of the songs). Produced by George Martin's son Giles with help from Jeff Lynne.      Very interested to hear what they have done with "Now And Then".    I know the song pretty well because amateurs have tried to reconstruct it.    The tribute band Apple Jam has their vision of it....

Sounds more like solo John than a true Beatles song (the way Apple Jam plays it).   I hope Paul, Giles and Jeff  "Beatle'd it up a bit"

 

 

Edited by Motor City Sonics
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Motor City Sonics said:

The last Beatles song arrives on Thursday November 2nd.    Re-constructed using the same audio technology from Peter Jackson's "Get Back".   They've had the song for years, tried to clean up a cassette with a bunch of ambient room noise but never could get it cleaned up enough.   George Harrison played guitar along to the song but was the one to veto it's release, not because he didn't like the song, but because he thought the quality of John's voice was not good enough.  So they were able to use AI to clarify John's voice, but not add anything to it........they had George's guitar attempt from the 90s and new material added by Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr.  They took some harmony vocals from previous outtakes when John was alive ('Because' is one of the songs). Produced by George Martin's son Giles with help from Jeff Lynne.      Very interested to hear what they have done with "Now And Then".    I know the song pretty well because amateurs have tried to reconstruct it.    The tribute band Apple Jam has their vision of it....

Sounds more like solo John than a true Beatles song (the way Apple Jam plays it).   I hope Paul, Giles and Jeff  "Beatle'd it up a bit"

 

 

I read that they added strings. Phil Spector is looking up and laughing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I read that they added strings. Phil Spector is looking up and laughing. 

So Ben Folds has this song called "Landed" and he really wanted a string part in it and he really wanted the guy who did strings on Elton John's records, but he was super expensive..........but Ben persisted until the record label decided to pay and then when the album came out he didn't use the strings.   LOL 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Motor City Sonics said:

So Ben Folds has this song called "Landed" and he really wanted a string part in it and he really wanted the guy who did strings on Elton John's records, but he was super expensive..........but Ben persisted until the record label decided to pay and then when the album came out he didn't use the strings.   LOL 

That song would have sucked ass has he used strings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, chasfh said:

That song would have sucked ass has he used strings. 

That version has been released on a compilation  (it's more subtle than you think).    Folds said he should have put that one on the album.   Ben just basically keeps pissing off the label.  

Edited by Motor City Sonics
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/28/2023 at 9:28 PM, Motor City Sonics said:

So Ben Folds has this song called "Landed" and he really wanted a string part in it and he really wanted the guy who did strings on Elton John's records, but he was super expensive..........but Ben persisted until the record label decided to pay and then when the album came out he didn't use the strings.   LOL 

Ben Folds and Sufjan Stevens are two guys who I should listen to much more than the stuff my youtube algorithm says I should. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/10/2023 at 8:10 AM, Motor City Sonics said:

This week's Under The Radar Radio will focus on the new album from Jenny Lewis "Joy'all"    We'll play 4 tracks from that album, along with new music from Jason Isbell & The 400 Unit,  Andy Frasco & The U.N.,  Son Volt, Geese (not Goose), Margaret Glaspy, and the new project from ex-Replacement Tommy Stinson.   Older faves from Jayhawks,  Plains, Kurt vile, Rhett Miller and the Lone Justice song that's been stuck in my head for 2 weeks.    Sunday - 7 on   annarbors107one.com and thisisqmusic.com

I searched for Lone Justice to make sure I hadn't posted something from them before and saw this.  I have to ask, you remember what Lone Justice song that was stuck in your head back in June?

This is one of my favorites from them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2023 at 10:35 AM, ewsieg said:

I searched for Lone Justice to make sure I hadn't posted something from them before and saw this.  I have to ask, you remember what Lone Justice song that was stuck in your head back in June?

This is one of my favorites from them.

 

♫  Let me be your shelter, shelter, from the storm outside. ♫

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Motor City Sonics said:

Just some random day on a street comer in Boston.

 

 

By the way........they are doing a gather around one mic show at masonic temple next friday.  should be fantastic.     band should be bigger than they are.........they just need that one breakthrough song. 

@IdahoBerti was just telling you about them. 
 

agree. They are good. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might have to surprise my wife with that show.  We saw them at the Magic Bag probably 5-6 years ago, maybe longer.  Soon after I saw them on a TV show or something and figured they were about to be big.  My wife is still a huge fan.  They were great live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MIguy said:

I just wish it had been a better song.  

I agree, but it's still cool to have it. 

The Beatles split up at the right time.   60s were over.  70's were schmaltzy and tacky, but one wonders, with the influence the Beatles had, would they have pointed 70s culture in a different direction?  or would they have kind of sounded like this?    How many barriers were left for them to break?     All they did, recording-wise, was only in 7 years basically.  That's incredible.    The Clash did what they did in only about 5 (we'll forget 'Cut The Crap').    Some bands burn bright and burn out.   The Beatles WERE the 60s,  they couldn't pull that off in the 70s.   What they did in the 60s fried them.    There was no 'Beatles'-like band in the 70's,   The 80s had Prince.  These things are rare.  

 

Edited by Motor City Sonics
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Motor City Sonics said:

I agree, but it's still cool to have it. 

The Beatles split up at the right time.   60s were over.  70's were schmaltzy and tacky, but one wonders, with the influence the Beatles had, would they have pointed 70s culture in a different direction?  or would they have kind of sounded like this?    How many barriers were left for them to break?     All they did, recording-wise, was only in 7 years basically.  That's incredible.    The Clash did what they did in only about 5 (we'll forget 'Cut The Crap').    Some bands burn bright and burn out.   The Beatles WERE the 60s,  they couldn't pull that off in the 70s.       There was no Beatles in the 70's,   The 80s had Prince.  These things are rare.  

 

what bands from the 60's did survive? The Stones and the Who? The Who had unique musicians and Townsend had more than average compositional talent. The Stones I never got in the 1st place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

what bands from the 60's did survive? The Stones and the Who? The Who had unique musicians and Townsend had more than average compositional talent. The Stones I never got in the 1st place.

Stones just kept going because when they tried solo they didn't do very well, so they just decided to deal with each other and make a bunch of money.    They're a rock band pretending to be a blues band and blues-oriented music is kind of timeless to a degree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Motor City Sonics said:

I agree, but it's still cool to have it. 

The Beatles split up at the right time.   60s were over.  70's were schmaltzy and tacky, but one wonders, with the influence the Beatles had, would they have pointed 70s culture in a different direction?  or would they have kind of sounded like this?    How many barriers were left for them to break?     All they did, recording-wise, was only in 7 years basically.  That's incredible.    The Clash did what they did in only about 5 (we'll forget 'Cut The Crap').    Some bands burn bright and burn out.   The Beatles WERE the 60s,  they couldn't pull that off in the 70s.   What they did in the 60s fried them.    There was no 'Beatles'-like band in the 70's,   The 80s had Prince.  These things are rare.  

 

I'm sure you considered these when you made the highlighted statement, but I feel like Led Zep and Pink Floyd and to a slightly lesser extend David Bowie (if he counts as a band)  probably the closest to being a "Beatles"-like band in the 70s and I'm interested in hearing why you do not consider them as such. 

At a slightly lower tier even though I hate them I'd have to mention the Eagles.   Maybe Aerosmith? 

Next level lower, CSNY?

Edited by pfife
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...