Spiritinthesky Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Another classic song covered by a TV talent show contestant. Which version of The Rolling Stones song Wild Horses do you prefer? And do you think TV talent shows are killing music or are good for music? If you fancy having your say vote at http://www.thisdayinmusic.com/pages/wild_horses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrisdude Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Susan Boyle. Why? She is SLIGHTLY better looking than Keith Richards, ONLY JUST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowdiddley Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Susan Boyle. Why? She is SLIGHTLY better looking than Keith Richards' date=' ONLY JUST.[/quote'] LOL Come on Chris she isn't that bad is she? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrisdude Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Oh yes she freakin IS!! Hahahahah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowdiddley Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Wufffffff! I guess you are right! Thats FUGLY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluemoon Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I like the mole above her lip. It's kind of cute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrisdude Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I like the mole above her lip. It's kind of cute. STOP RIGHT THERE!!! :-k Hahahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kolera Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 The 5 o'clock shadow's also kinda hot... :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibsonByBirth Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Another classic song covered by a TV talent show contestant. Which version of The Rolling Stones song Wild Horses do you prefer? http://www.thisdayinmusic.com/pages/wild_horses I'll vote for the stones wiyhout eveer hearing hers. Whats the point of such polls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bill Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Sh!t, I rather have Keith he's more feminine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanvillRob Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Oh man... I vote to become celibate! Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flight959 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Hippacorcapig... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaxson50 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Mick and Keith have the advantage of being introduced to us at a time when radio and vinyl was the primary tool of the music industry. No MTV, no CD's, no Youtube video, just AM radio and a turntable! When they were on TV which was rare, it was in grainy black and white. Everyone looked rather unearthly in black and white. Susan Boyle was introduced to us on color TV, she can be seen on youtube. The question is how would the Stones do if introduced today under the same circumstances? It was easy for the unattractive to become successful rock stars at one time. Now we see all these you artist today who for the most part look like supermodels, when someone shows up looking like a 60's throw back we freak out. Boyle has the challenge of being older then her competition and she have a "face made for radio". If this were 1964 this wouldn't even be a issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrisdude Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Mick and Keith have the advantage of being introduced to us at a time when radio and vinyl was the primary tool of the music industry. No MTV' date=' no CD's, no Youtube video, just AM radio and a turntable! When they were on TV which was rare, it was in grainy black and white. Everyone looked rather unearthly in black and white.Susan Boyle was introduced to us on color TV, she can be seen on youtube. The question is how would the Stones do if introduced today under the same circumstances? It was easy for the unattractive to become successful rock stars at one time. Now we see all these you artist today who for the most part look like supermodels, when someone shows up looking like a 60's throw back we freak out. Boyle has the challenge of being older then her competition and she have a "face made for radio". If this were 1964 this wouldn't even be a issue.[/quote'] Very well put. There is a show on in UK Theatres called we will rock you at the moment. An EXCELLANT show aparently. It is based around the disappearance of good live music of all genres. Simon Cowel is personally named. However, back to fun, I am just really amused at people being hot on Boyle and it is WRONG, VERY WRONG. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluemoon Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Mick and Keith have the advantage of being introduced to us at a time when radio and vinyl was the primary tool of the music industry. No MTV' date=' no CD's, no Youtube video, just AM radio and a turntable! When they were on TV which was rare, it was in grainy black and white. Everyone looked rather unearthly in black and white.Susan Boyle was introduced to us on color TV, she can be seen on youtube. The question is how would the Stones do if introduced today under the same circumstances? It was easy for the unattractive to become successful rock stars at one time. Now we see all these you artist today who for the most part look like supermodels, when someone shows up looking like a 60's throw back we freak out. Boyle has the challenge of being older then her competition and she have a "face made for radio". If this were 1964 this wouldn't even be a issue.[/quote'] Well it is an issue. Can't turn back time. I think she would be fun in bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrisdude Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 OK That's it. Lock the thread ??? PLEASE LOCK IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hahahahahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myspace.com/jessenoah Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 a long time ago................. when the rolling stones where handsome young chaps, and keith was a LP weilding bowl cut guitarist, as opposed to a coke using, tele wearing, pirate movie star [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b58aJFEbYE0[/YOUTUBE] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaxson50 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I would bet that if the Stones were unknown today and they made their debut now on America's Got Talent (or any other talent show) at their age? Ha! Can you imagine? Mick and Keith at their present age being seen for the first time on a talent show? Singing "Satisfaction?" oooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh that would be ugly.........It wouldn't matter how good they were, they may make it a few week's, but only because of the novelty of a bunch of old guys rocking out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 A cupla factors here... Although I think the girls of the 30s and 40s were far sexier than most of the stars today if you check out some of the movies and movie vids of that era, there also was a place into the 1950s for older singers and musicians to play and even to be seen. I think the "youth cult" really hit in the 1960s. Sinatra still sold, and a few others, but basically the concept of the "reeeeally good pro musician" kinda dropped dead outside country - and even that's weakening in the Web era. Kate Smith? Mama Cass? Both were ladies who were not exactly going to escape from the average jail cell by squeezing through the bars. But voices? Wow. Stars of the 60s and 70s have a harder time today, too, just like today's kid (under 30) musicians do because the cash for sales of recorded music just ain't what it was. The only way to make money now, it seems, is just pounding out show after show after show and - after a point, without "top 10" stuff, you ain't the headliner. I wouldn't know "buckethead" or so many of the young guys now if they came up and bit me - but it seems a bit sad to me that there's gotta be so much more of a "show angle" more than the music. But the, I guess I'm gettin' old. It's just a tougher market. A lotta travel doesn't always offer good cash flow and margins - as in other business. So.... stedda Susan or the Stones, I think sometimes we need to think, "how do we live in today's music world as a generally working musician." ...m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Look! Im guitarest! Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 (Edit because it has zero substance, which was its intention) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaxson50 Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 In the future only those born with a single large caterpillar like eyebrow separating their deeply furrowed forehead from their dark and beady reptilian eyes will be destined for selection as that single expression of beauty as defined by the pollywogs that rule our star machine...We will all watch spell bound as lepidopteron metamorphosis into a diamond encrusted pupa.... But maybe I'm reading to much into this. If you believe you understand what I have said perhaps I mis-spoke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundergod Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 And do you think TV talent shows are killing music or are good for music? They are killing music IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaxson50 Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 Killing it? Hell they are killing it, filleting it and serving it with cream sauce! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.