Tick Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 well from what i remember about that show goobs , the crowd was really into quiet riot , and sabbath was a let down . it was juat a going through the motions performance. gillen just didnt work with sabbath. the album was bad , the tour was worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 QUOTE (tick @ Mar 14 2006, 05:30 AM) well from what i remember about that show goobs , the crowd was really into quiet riot , and sabbath was a let down . it was juat a going through the motions performance. gillen just didnt work with sabbath. the album was bad , the tour was worse. oh well, our memories differ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scheamer Dreamer Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 QUOTE (clearingsky @ Mar 1 2006, 07:07 PM) So a friend borrows me a new release from Sabbath guitarist Tony Iommi and Deep Purple vocalist Glenn Hughes and after a couple of listens I'm pretty impressed.A great hard/heavy rockin'sound,unmistakeable Iommi guitar and Hughes does a nice job with the vocals.It's unlikely that I'll buy this CD and so I'll never really get to know it and maybe love it.Do we really give a fair chance to new releases from classic groups from the past?With little or no fanfare these releases go unrecognized to the bins of the superstores Recognize and buy. The fact that I see something in the bargain bin makes me snatch it up that much quicker. I get your point though. Quality in music is simply an opinion. The unlikelihood that you wouldn't buy it means you simply didn't want it bad enough. Great post clearing sky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scheamer Dreamer Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 13 2006, 12:30 PM) QUOTE (clearingsky @ Mar 1 2006, 04:07 PM) So a friend borrows me a new release from Sabbath guitarist Tony Iommi and Deep Purple vocalist Glenn Hughes and after a couple of listens I'm pretty impressed.A great hard/heavy rockin'sound,unmistakeable Iommi guitar and Hughes does a nice job with the vocals.It's unlikely that I'll buy this CD and so I'll never really get to know it and maybe love it.Do we really give a fair chance to new releases from classic groups from the past?With little or no fanfare these releases go unrecognized to the bins of the superstores i know this opinion may likely be unpopular, but here's my take. most "new releases from classic groups from the past" belong in the bins. i find generally that groups i love have, if they're REALLY good, a 5-10 year window MAX where they are putting out great material. any group that's still putting out material 10 years after their 1st album that is as good or better than their earlier works is for me a rarity. i can think of several examples of artist/groups that have made high quality material 10+ years after they started, but it's not a huge list, and the more years you add on to that, the more the number of groups who can pull it off goes down. i don't know what it is, but i've always been curious. maybe the groups were just hungrier in the beginning and wanted/needed to prove themselves. maybe after a couple/handful of albums they've really said all that they have to say and have exhausted their true creativity, and everything else after that is a recycled attempt to match past glories? the worst thing for me is when a group does a reunion album. this is usually for a long standing group that hasn't made an album together in 5, 10, even 20 or more years. usually these are awful. in fact, i can't think of one reunion album by any group that is anywhere near the quality of their original material from their glory days. maybe they can still perform their older material in concert to great effect, but in terms of coming up with fresh and exciting original material, it doesn't seem to happen. anyway, just my two cents. there isn't one rock group out there who've been around for 20-30 years or more where i have any interest in anything they might put out today, save for one obvious notable exception that i don't think i need to mention here... The fact that their original work inspired you so does NOT change the content of that material. The artist evolve and grow into what they believe in. With maturity comes wisdom and to toss it aside is a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 QUOTE (Scheamer Dreamer @ Mar 17 2006, 09:16 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 13 2006, 12:30 PM) QUOTE (clearingsky @ Mar 1 2006, 04:07 PM) So a friend borrows me a new release from Sabbath guitarist Tony Iommi and Deep Purple vocalist Glenn Hughes and after a couple of listens I'm pretty impressed.A great hard/heavy rockin'sound,unmistakeable Iommi guitar and Hughes does a nice job with the vocals.It's unlikely that I'll buy this CD and so I'll never really get to know it and maybe love it.Do we really give a fair chance to new releases from classic groups from the past?With little or no fanfare these releases go unrecognized to the bins of the superstores i know this opinion may likely be unpopular, but here's my take. most "new releases from classic groups from the past" belong in the bins. i find generally that groups i love have, if they're REALLY good, a 5-10 year window MAX where they are putting out great material. any group that's still putting out material 10 years after their 1st album that is as good or better than their earlier works is for me a rarity. i can think of several examples of artist/groups that have made high quality material 10+ years after they started, but it's not a huge list, and the more years you add on to that, the more the number of groups who can pull it off goes down. i don't know what it is, but i've always been curious. maybe the groups were just hungrier in the beginning and wanted/needed to prove themselves. maybe after a couple/handful of albums they've really said all that they have to say and have exhausted their true creativity, and everything else after that is a recycled attempt to match past glories? the worst thing for me is when a group does a reunion album. this is usually for a long standing group that hasn't made an album together in 5, 10, even 20 or more years. usually these are awful. in fact, i can't think of one reunion album by any group that is anywhere near the quality of their original material from their glory days. maybe they can still perform their older material in concert to great effect, but in terms of coming up with fresh and exciting original material, it doesn't seem to happen. anyway, just my two cents. there isn't one rock group out there who've been around for 20-30 years or more where i have any interest in anything they might put out today, save for one obvious notable exception that i don't think i need to mention here... The fact that their original work inspired you so does NOT change the content of that material. The artist evolve and grow into what they believe in. With maturity comes wisdom and to toss it aside is a mistake. They may evolve and grow, but I almost never like what they evolve and grow into anywhere near as much as their earlier material with some rare exceptions. This is not stuff I casually toss aside, this is after years of experience of hearing later works by long standing bands and solo artists and almost never liking their later material anywhere near as much. If I read a review that says it's absolutely essential, I might still check it out, but it's not an avenue I usually find very rewarding. If others do, that's cool... It could be that these albums end up quickly in the bargain bins because they're ignored, but could it also often be the case that they also just aren't that good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 17 2006, 12:30 PM) QUOTE (Scheamer Dreamer @ Mar 17 2006, 09:16 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 13 2006, 12:30 PM) QUOTE (clearingsky @ Mar 1 2006, 04:07 PM) So a friend borrows me a new release from Sabbath guitarist Tony Iommi and Deep Purple vocalist Glenn Hughes and after a couple of listens I'm pretty impressed.A great hard/heavy rockin'sound,unmistakeable Iommi guitar and Hughes does a nice job with the vocals.It's unlikely that I'll buy this CD and so I'll never really get to know it and maybe love it.Do we really give a fair chance to new releases from classic groups from the past?With little or no fanfare these releases go unrecognized to the bins of the superstores i know this opinion may likely be unpopular, but here's my take. most "new releases from classic groups from the past" belong in the bins. i find generally that groups i love have, if they're REALLY good, a 5-10 year window MAX where they are putting out great material. any group that's still putting out material 10 years after their 1st album that is as good or better than their earlier works is for me a rarity. i can think of several examples of artist/groups that have made high quality material 10+ years after they started, but it's not a huge list, and the more years you add on to that, the more the number of groups who can pull it off goes down. i don't know what it is, but i've always been curious. maybe the groups were just hungrier in the beginning and wanted/needed to prove themselves. maybe after a couple/handful of albums they've really said all that they have to say and have exhausted their true creativity, and everything else after that is a recycled attempt to match past glories? the worst thing for me is when a group does a reunion album. this is usually for a long standing group that hasn't made an album together in 5, 10, even 20 or more years. usually these are awful. in fact, i can't think of one reunion album by any group that is anywhere near the quality of their original material from their glory days. maybe they can still perform their older material in concert to great effect, but in terms of coming up with fresh and exciting original material, it doesn't seem to happen. anyway, just my two cents. there isn't one rock group out there who've been around for 20-30 years or more where i have any interest in anything they might put out today, save for one obvious notable exception that i don't think i need to mention here... The fact that their original work inspired you so does NOT change the content of that material. The artist evolve and grow into what they believe in. With maturity comes wisdom and to toss it aside is a mistake. They may evolve and grow, but I almost never like what they evolve and grow into anywhere near as much as their earlier material with some rare exceptions. This is not stuff I casually toss aside, this is after years of experience of hearing later works by long standing bands and solo artists and almost never liking their later material anywhere near as much. If I read a review that says it's absolutely essential, I might still check it out, but it's not an avenue I usually find very rewarding. If others do, that's cool... It could be that these albums end up quickly in the bargain bins because they're ignored, but could it also often be the case that they also just aren't that good? ok heres my take on it. bands that have been around awile and want to keep evolving usually wind up in the bargain because the stupid pinheads from record companys usually dont give the artist any backing promotionally or finantially . without the record company pushing there stuff its hard for them to succeed. like it or not thats the bottom line. these companys only concern is making money , not promoting good music. which isnt to say that all of it is good , but half the good stuff being made we never here. if its not the flavor of the month , like some hip hop bullshit or 10,000 greenday sound alikes chances are we dont hear about it. there is much great music being made by new and classic artists you just dont hear about cause those dickhead suit and ties deem them unworthy.by the way this is not just my opinion , its a fact. music is a buisness to these guys ,not an art form . dont get me started ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 QUOTE (tick @ Mar 17 2006, 10:09 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 17 2006, 12:30 PM) QUOTE (Scheamer Dreamer @ Mar 17 2006, 09:16 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 13 2006, 12:30 PM) QUOTE (clearingsky @ Mar 1 2006, 04:07 PM) So a friend borrows me a new release from Sabbath guitarist Tony Iommi and Deep Purple vocalist Glenn Hughes and after a couple of listens I'm pretty impressed.A great hard/heavy rockin'sound,unmistakeable Iommi guitar and Hughes does a nice job with the vocals.It's unlikely that I'll buy this CD and so I'll never really get to know it and maybe love it.Do we really give a fair chance to new releases from classic groups from the past?With little or no fanfare these releases go unrecognized to the bins of the superstores i know this opinion may likely be unpopular, but here's my take. most "new releases from classic groups from the past" belong in the bins. i find generally that groups i love have, if they're REALLY good, a 5-10 year window MAX where they are putting out great material. any group that's still putting out material 10 years after their 1st album that is as good or better than their earlier works is for me a rarity. i can think of several examples of artist/groups that have made high quality material 10+ years after they started, but it's not a huge list, and the more years you add on to that, the more the number of groups who can pull it off goes down. i don't know what it is, but i've always been curious. maybe the groups were just hungrier in the beginning and wanted/needed to prove themselves. maybe after a couple/handful of albums they've really said all that they have to say and have exhausted their true creativity, and everything else after that is a recycled attempt to match past glories? the worst thing for me is when a group does a reunion album. this is usually for a long standing group that hasn't made an album together in 5, 10, even 20 or more years. usually these are awful. in fact, i can't think of one reunion album by any group that is anywhere near the quality of their original material from their glory days. maybe they can still perform their older material in concert to great effect, but in terms of coming up with fresh and exciting original material, it doesn't seem to happen. anyway, just my two cents. there isn't one rock group out there who've been around for 20-30 years or more where i have any interest in anything they might put out today, save for one obvious notable exception that i don't think i need to mention here... The fact that their original work inspired you so does NOT change the content of that material. The artist evolve and grow into what they believe in. With maturity comes wisdom and to toss it aside is a mistake. They may evolve and grow, but I almost never like what they evolve and grow into anywhere near as much as their earlier material with some rare exceptions. This is not stuff I casually toss aside, this is after years of experience of hearing later works by long standing bands and solo artists and almost never liking their later material anywhere near as much. If I read a review that says it's absolutely essential, I might still check it out, but it's not an avenue I usually find very rewarding. If others do, that's cool... It could be that these albums end up quickly in the bargain bins because they're ignored, but could it also often be the case that they also just aren't that good? ok heres my take on it. bands that have been around awile and want to keep evolving usually wind up in the bargain because the stupid pinheads from record companys usually dont give the artist any backing promotionally or finantially . without the record company pushing there stuff its hard for them to succeed. like it or not thats the bottom line. these companys only concern is making money , not promoting good music. which isnt to say that all of it is good , but half the good stuff being made we never here. if its not the flavor of the month , like some hip hop bullshit or 10,000 greenday sound alikes chances are we dont hear about it. there is much great music being made by new and classic artists you just dont hear about cause those dickhead suit and ties deem them unworthy.by the way this is not just my opinion , its a fact. music is a buisness to these guys ,not an art form . dont get me started ! Ok, that may all very well be true, and i'll assume with you being a musician that you know a lot more about it than i do. The fact still remains (for me anyway) is that at least 95% of the time I don't care for later material by a band or solo artist that's been around for many years. Also, and I can't speak for what most people do, but if there's a band or artist I really love, I will ALWAYS research them on the internet and find their complete discography, so even if their later material was discarded by the record company, I'll know about it, and if it looks interesting, I'll check it out. Often I don't because I'm usually disappointed by this material when compared to their earlier prime period material, but I'll also look for reviews, maybe sound clips, etc. If people really love a band and they don't know that they made their last 3 albums because they weren't in their local record stores or on MTV, it's probably because they don't care enough to do any research. I'm not saying that the record companies aren't doing a horrible job of promoting people who are no longer the flavor of the month, but as a true fan, it's up to us to do a little legwork to seek out what any given band/artist has been up to as well. Just my opinion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 17 2006, 04:04 PM) QUOTE (tick @ Mar 17 2006, 10:09 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 17 2006, 12:30 PM) QUOTE (Scheamer Dreamer @ Mar 17 2006, 09:16 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 13 2006, 12:30 PM) QUOTE (clearingsky @ Mar 1 2006, 04:07 PM) So a friend borrows me a new release from Sabbath guitarist Tony Iommi and Deep Purple vocalist Glenn Hughes and after a couple of listens I'm pretty impressed.A great hard/heavy rockin'sound,unmistakeable Iommi guitar and Hughes does a nice job with the vocals.It's unlikely that I'll buy this CD and so I'll never really get to know it and maybe love it.Do we really give a fair chance to new releases from classic groups from the past?With little or no fanfare these releases go unrecognized to the bins of the superstores i know this opinion may likely be unpopular, but here's my take. most "new releases from classic groups from the past" belong in the bins. i find generally that groups i love have, if they're REALLY good, a 5-10 year window MAX where they are putting out great material. any group that's still putting out material 10 years after their 1st album that is as good or better than their earlier works is for me a rarity. i can think of several examples of artist/groups that have made high quality material 10+ years after they started, but it's not a huge list, and the more years you add on to that, the more the number of groups who can pull it off goes down. i don't know what it is, but i've always been curious. maybe the groups were just hungrier in the beginning and wanted/needed to prove themselves. maybe after a couple/handful of albums they've really said all that they have to say and have exhausted their true creativity, and everything else after that is a recycled attempt to match past glories? the worst thing for me is when a group does a reunion album. this is usually for a long standing group that hasn't made an album together in 5, 10, even 20 or more years. usually these are awful. in fact, i can't think of one reunion album by any group that is anywhere near the quality of their original material from their glory days. maybe they can still perform their older material in concert to great effect, but in terms of coming up with fresh and exciting original material, it doesn't seem to happen. anyway, just my two cents. there isn't one rock group out there who've been around for 20-30 years or more where i have any interest in anything they might put out today, save for one obvious notable exception that i don't think i need to mention here... The fact that their original work inspired you so does NOT change the content of that material. The artist evolve and grow into what they believe in. With maturity comes wisdom and to toss it aside is a mistake. They may evolve and grow, but I almost never like what they evolve and grow into anywhere near as much as their earlier material with some rare exceptions. This is not stuff I casually toss aside, this is after years of experience of hearing later works by long standing bands and solo artists and almost never liking their later material anywhere near as much. If I read a review that says it's absolutely essential, I might still check it out, but it's not an avenue I usually find very rewarding. If others do, that's cool... It could be that these albums end up quickly in the bargain bins because they're ignored, but could it also often be the case that they also just aren't that good? ok heres my take on it. bands that have been around awile and want to keep evolving usually wind up in the bargain because the stupid pinheads from record companys usually dont give the artist any backing promotionally or finantially . without the record company pushing there stuff its hard for them to succeed. like it or not thats the bottom line. these companys only concern is making money , not promoting good music. which isnt to say that all of it is good , but half the good stuff being made we never here. if its not the flavor of the month , like some hip hop bullshit or 10,000 greenday sound alikes chances are we dont hear about it. there is much great music being made by new and classic artists you just dont hear about cause those dickhead suit and ties deem them unworthy.by the way this is not just my opinion , its a fact. music is a buisness to these guys ,not an art form . dont get me started ! Ok, that may all very well be true, and i'll assume with you being a musician that you know a lot more about it than i do. The fact still remains (for me anyway) is that at least 95% of the time I don't care for later material by a band or solo artist that's been around for many years. Also, and I can't speak for what most people do, but if there's a band or artist I really love, I will ALWAYS research them on the internet and find their complete discography, so even if their later material was discarded by the record company, I'll know about it, and if it looks interesting, I'll check it out. Often I don't because I'm usually disappointed by this material when compared to their earlier prime period material, but I'll also look for reviews, maybe sound clips, etc. If people really love a band and they don't know that they made their last 3 albums because they weren't in their local record stores or on MTV, it's probably because they don't care enough to do any research. I'm not saying that the record companies aren't doing a horrible job of promoting people who are no longer the flavor of the month, but as a true fan, it's up to us to do a little legwork to seek out what any given band/artist has been up to as well. Just my opinion... you just said what im saying , unless "you" make the effort personally , you wont hear this stuff . i do make the effort , but what about the guy who misses out on great stuff cause he doesnt even know it exists . thats where the industry just sucks eggs ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weakly Criminal Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 QUOTE (tick @ Mar 17 2006, 04:01 PM)QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 17 2006, 04:04 PM) QUOTE (tick @ Mar 17 2006, 10:09 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 17 2006, 12:30 PM) QUOTE (Scheamer Dreamer @ Mar 17 2006, 09:16 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Mar 13 2006, 12:30 PM) QUOTE (clearingsky @ Mar 1 2006, 04:07 PM) So a friend borrows me a new release from Sabbath guitarist Tony Iommi and Deep Purple vocalist Glenn Hughes and after a couple of listens I'm pretty impressed.A great hard/heavy rockin'sound,unmistakeable Iommi guitar and Hughes does a nice job with the vocals.It's unlikely that I'll buy this CD and so I'll never really get to know it and maybe love it.Do we really give a fair chance to new releases from classic groups from the past?With little or no fanfare these releases go unrecognized to the bins of the superstores i know this opinion may likely be unpopular, but here's my take. most "new releases from classic groups from the past" belong in the bins. i find generally that groups i love have, if they're REALLY good, a 5-10 year window MAX where they are putting out great material. any group that's still putting out material 10 years after their 1st album that is as good or better than their earlier works is for me a rarity. i can think of several examples of artist/groups that have made high quality material 10+ years after they started, but it's not a huge list, and the more years you add on to that, the more the number of groups who can pull it off goes down. i don't know what it is, but i've always been curious. maybe the groups were just hungrier in the beginning and wanted/needed to prove themselves. maybe after a couple/handful of albums they've really said all that they have to say and have exhausted their true creativity, and everything else after that is a recycled attempt to match past glories? the worst thing for me is when a group does a reunion album. this is usually for a long standing group that hasn't made an album together in 5, 10, even 20 or more years. usually these are awful. in fact, i can't think of one reunion album by any group that is anywhere near the quality of their original material from their glory days. maybe they can still perform their older material in concert to great effect, but in terms of coming up with fresh and exciting original material, it doesn't seem to happen. anyway, just my two cents. there isn't one rock group out there who've been around for 20-30 years or more where i have any interest in anything they might put out today, save for one obvious notable exception that i don't think i need to mention here... The fact that their original work inspired you so does NOT change the content of that material. The artist evolve and grow into what they believe in. With maturity comes wisdom and to toss it aside is a mistake. They may evolve and grow, but I almost never like what they evolve and grow into anywhere near as much as their earlier material with some rare exceptions. This is not stuff I casually toss aside, this is after years of experience of hearing later works by long standing bands and solo artists and almost never liking their later material anywhere near as much. If I read a review that says it's absolutely essential, I might still check it out, but it's not an avenue I usually find very rewarding. If others do, that's cool... It could be that these albums end up quickly in the bargain bins because they're ignored, but could it also often be the case that they also just aren't that good? ok heres my take on it. bands that have been around awile and want to keep evolving usually wind up in the bargain because the stupid pinheads from record companys usually dont give the artist any backing promotionally or finantially . without the record company pushing there stuff its hard for them to succeed. like it or not thats the bottom line. these companys only concern is making money , not promoting good music. which isnt to say that all of it is good , but half the good stuff being made we never here. if its not the flavor of the month , like some hip hop bullshit or 10,000 greenday sound alikes chances are we dont hear about it. there is much great music being made by new and classic artists you just dont hear about cause those dickhead suit and ties deem them unworthy.by the way this is not just my opinion , its a fact. music is a buisness to these guys ,not an art form . dont get me started ! Ok, that may all very well be true, and i'll assume with you being a musician that you know a lot more about it than i do. The fact still remains (for me anyway) is that at least 95% of the time I don't care for later material by a band or solo artist that's been around for many years. Also, and I can't speak for what most people do, but if there's a band or artist I really love, I will ALWAYS research them on the internet and find their complete discography, so even if their later material was discarded by the record company, I'll know about it, and if it looks interesting, I'll check it out. Often I don't because I'm usually disappointed by this material when compared to their earlier prime period material, but I'll also look for reviews, maybe sound clips, etc. If people really love a band and they don't know that they made their last 3 albums because they weren't in their local record stores or on MTV, it's probably because they don't care enough to do any research. I'm not saying that the record companies aren't doing a horrible job of promoting people who are no longer the flavor of the month, but as a true fan, it's up to us to do a little legwork to seek out what any given band/artist has been up to as well. Just my opinion... you just said what im saying , unless "you" make the effort personally , you wont hear this stuff . i do make the effort , but what about the guy who misses out on great stuff cause he doesnt even know it exists . thats where the industry just sucks eggs ! The key word here is 'industry'. It's there to make money and not to enlighten you, inspire you or supply you with the very best music that exists. It's our job as music lovers to search out that which speaks to us and those artists who actually express themselves as opposed to the commercial crap. Of course it's all subjective and has as much to do with what we bring to the music as it does the music itself. There are some bands who's best work came later IMO. Pink Floyd, The Who, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Tom Petty, David Bowie, Led Zep, Tod Rundgren, and of course Zappa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the masked drummer Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Mar 1 2006, 07:29 PM) One of my favorite Black Sabbath albums is "Born Again" that has Ian Gillan from Deep Purple as the vocalist. I saw that tour in the 80's. That was pretty cool. Ian Gillan is pretty awesome. I did, however, like DP better('98), also Sabbath with Dio better('82). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barchetta90480 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 QUOTE (Weakly Criminal @ Mar 19 2006, 03:53 AM) There are some bands who's best work came later IMO. Pink Floyd, The Who, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Tom Petty, David Bowie, Led Zep, Tod Rundgren, and of course Zappa. I agree with you on Zappa, Petty or - partly - the Stones, but not so much on the Beatles or Zep (both were around for ten years or less if you regard their first and last LPs, so there's no "coming of age" catalogue by them). What you forgot is Deep Purple,Mark 7 & 8. The Steve Morse era - especially "Purpendicular" and, to a lesser extent, their new albums, equals much of their older work apart from Fireball or In Rock and is IMHO by far superior to the first era, the Coverdale/ Hughes output and the Blackmore stuff from 84-93. While the hype is gone, their creativity still flows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.