| November 10th, 2004 09:05 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
Here is available only the topless version. |
| November 10th, 2004 09:08 PM |
|
|
| Bloozehound |
i had her naked breasts in my hands
but my 3y3s are on the used bins
[Edited by Bloozehound] |
| November 10th, 2004 09:28 PM |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
The whole thought of this album is making me want to stab myself in the testicles. |
| November 10th, 2004 09:51 PM |
|
|
| gypsy |
I think you've caused enough damage lately, Maxy. |
| November 11th, 2004 02:38 AM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
Haven't bought it, but only because I haven't been anywhere that sells it yet. Maybe tomorrow or Friday.
My reasons for purchase are mostly archival in nature. But I'll listen at least once or twice. What can I say...I'm a collector, so I shall collect. I gotta have the naughty cover. Just because.
|
| November 11th, 2004 04:49 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
glencar wrote:
The topless one isn't an import here, as far as I know. One chain only sells the Moral one but amazon sells both for the same price. If Topless was an import, amazon would be trying to charge more. In fact, initially, they were charging an extra $2 for the Moral one.
then why the hell ARE there two versions? Is it in case some record stores wont stock the topless one?
As I understood it initially, the censored cover was for the US market - in case someone, in this age of enlightenment, had a conniption over a pair of tiny cartoon tits |
| November 11th, 2004 05:02 AM |
|
|
| Zeeta |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
in case someone, in this age of enlightenment, had a conniption over a pair of tiny cartoon tits
Please! I am deeply offended by your words of breasts! My life hasn't been the same since Janet Jackson flashed her boobies! |
| November 11th, 2004 05:05 AM |
|
|
| gypsy |
Gazza! That is something I can't stand about my country. We are condone violence, and we're afraid of nudity. To me, nudity is not a big deal. But all these violent video games that kids play...and all the violent movies they watch. But America freaks the fuck out over nudity.
Of course, nobody on this board is against nudity...that I know of. |
| November 11th, 2004 05:22 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
Zeeta wrote:
Please! I am deeply offended by your words of breasts
tits
hooters
jugs
diddies
knockers
boobies
gazongas
kahunas
go on Zeeta...be offended even more. I can feel your outrage from here! |
| November 11th, 2004 05:24 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
gypsy wrote:
Of course, nobody on this board is against nudity...that I know of.
depends who it is. I know I'd rather see a nude pic of many of the females than one of Josh or Joey |
| November 11th, 2004 05:51 AM |
|
|
| Zeeta |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
tits
hooters
jugs
diddies
knockers
boobies
gazongas
kahunas
go on Zeeta...be offended even more. I can feel your outrage from here!
Fucking discusting!! |
| November 11th, 2004 06:36 PM |
|
|
| Snappy McJack |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
then why the hell ARE there two versions? Is it in case some record stores wont stock the topless one?
As I understood it initially, the censored cover was for the US market - in case someone, in this age of enlightenment, had a conniption over a pair of tiny cartoon tits
But there's also the issue of whether or not someone really needs this stupid cover. Tell you the truth, the nudity doesn't bother me; what bothers me is that someone feels that they really need the topless version. Shit, I mean, what was the point of it anyway? To stir up controversy? I haven't seen any news articles about it, so I guess that theory would be shot down in flames.
Does some guy need it because he wants to whack off to cartoon knockers? Again, the cover only bothers me in that it just doesn't make any sense! I also find it utterly creepy that someone would want the album and pass on it because the "topless version" wasn't at the store, so they drove off to search for the cartoon boobies at another store. I know that they had the video of it playing on the screen, but I don't see an point in releasing a "bra version" and a "topless version". If you want tits, buy a Playboy, rent a dirty movie, or go to a strip club. Shit, at least those are real (wait, in some cases they might not be!). |
| November 11th, 2004 06:49 PM |
|
|
| Some Guy |
Still have not bought it. |
| November 11th, 2004 06:56 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
Snappy McJack wrote:
But there's also the issue of whether or not someone really needs this stupid cover. Tell you the truth, the nudity doesn't bother me; what bothers me is that someone feels that they really need the topless version. Shit, I mean, what was the point of it anyway? To stir up controversy? I haven't seen any news articles about it, so I guess that theory would be shot down in flames.
Does some guy need it because he wants to whack off to cartoon knockers? Again, the cover only bothers me in that it just doesn't make any sense! I also find it utterly creepy that someone would want the album and pass on it because the "topless version" wasn't at the store, so they drove off to search for the cartoon boobies at another store. I know that they had the video of it playing on the screen, but I don't see an point in releasing a "bra version" and a "topless version". If you want tits, buy a Playboy, rent a dirty movie, or go to a strip club. Shit, at least those are real (wait, in some cases they might not be!).
Snappy...I know the cover wouldnt bother you, anyone here or any sane individual anywhere.
Just wondering did someone actually say to them "you'll have trouble with that as some of the more puritanically minded stores wont stock it" and they decided to release an alternative cover.
Lets face it,as far as controversial covers go its nothing. I dont think anyone here would have even mentioned the cartoon figure was topless (well, maybe Joey) if there hadnt been the absurd decision to release two different versions of the cover.
however there are several people who will buy every version of every album, even with the tiniest differences in sleeve design, JUST because they exist. Its not that uncommon. |
| November 11th, 2004 11:01 PM |
|
|
| Angiegirl |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
Lets face it,as far as controversial covers go its nothing. I dont think anyone here would have even mentioned the cartoon figure was topless (well, maybe Joey) if there hadnt been the absurd decision to release two different versions of the cover.
Well, it's a way of getting attention on a crowded music market (US) isn't it? Maybe that's (part of) why they decided on the topless lady, because they knew the US market (not the buyers per se) would want a covered up version. Just getting the attention to their release. Let's face it, they need the attention most on a market like the US as there are big spenders usually there. Compare to higher ticket prices in US compared to Europe for instance.
I didn't buy it, I didn't hear it. I walked past a record store the other day, a few days after its release, and I saw the cd presented up front near the entrance, otherwise I wouldn't even had thought of it. I picked up a copy, but put it down quickly, disgusted by the poor quality of the artwork, colors and typography used... Ew!
This inferior product won't disgrace my collection any time soon... |
| November 12th, 2004 03:19 AM |
|
|
| Bloozehound |
I've been to a few brick & mortar "underground" record stores the last few days and they had both versions, the bra'd and the topless. Like gc mentioned I didn't notice the topless one labeled as an "import" and there was no price difference between the two.
As to why there are 2 versions of this album on the US market, I don't know for a fact, but I believe the answer might lie in what is refered to as the "Wal-Mart-ization of America".
For those that don't know, Wal-Mart is a major, major, major retail chain here in the US. Practically every armpit town throughout the nation with a population of 10,000 people seems to have one of these stores. The USA is a big country, it has a lot of small towns, so that adds up to A LOT of Wal-Mart stores.
As a result a fairly large percentage of all US music purchases are made through Wal-Mart stores. I don't recall the exact number, but it's a significant amount. In fact, it's become common knowledge within the music industry that if you can't get Wal-Mart to sell your album it's virually impossible for it to become a "hit" album, as far as the mainstream, commercial music scene goes. It's that important.
So record companies are forced to cater to Wal-Mart and other like minded retail store's wishes, and Wal-Mart has always prided itself as being a traditional, wholesome "family-oriented" company i.e. they don't peddle smut. I suppose Wal-Mart would have issues with topless women on album covers, cartoon or not.
I could imagine that other big retail stores that compete with Wal-Mart might share similar policies.
Don't shoot the messenger, I just report the facts. I'm not saying I like their policies, but it is what it is.
I read a great article online about this Wal-Mart & the music industry phenomena not long ago, if anyones interested I'll see if I can find it again and post it here. It's a pretty fascinating read.
|
| November 12th, 2004 04:32 AM |
|
|
| UGot2Rollme |
despite my previous post that Live Licks "bores the daylights out of me", I think I'm going to buy it..today
Reasons:
1. nicely priced here in Switzerland for ~ USD 14
2. guitars are high in mix (compared to some of my Chuck-
dominated boots)
3. saw 4 shows on the tour - probably their last global trek on such a scale - so nice "souvenir"
4. several tracks not already on 4 Flicks (?)
5. I hear it's better than No Security, which I liked...
6. It's only Rock and Roll
--------------------------------------------- |
| November 12th, 2004 07:32 AM |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
quote:
Angiegirl wrote:
I didn't buy it, I didn't hear it. I walked past a record store the other day, a few days after its release, and I saw the cd presented up front near the entrance, otherwise I wouldn't even had thought of it. I picked up a copy, but put it down quickly, disgusted by the poor quality of the artwork, colors and typography used... Ew!
This inferior product won't disgrace my collection any time soon...
I'm very proud of you Angiegirl!
Even though we are crazed enough Stones fans to spend our days posting about them on a message board, it doesn't mean we have to buy every stinking pile of dog crap they put out.
This CD is aimed at the new fan who has been paying attention since B2B. I am so much better than that and deserve more. I can understand them wanting to expand their base. It's smart business. I don't even think they expect me to buy it. I have spent enough to properly document the last tour in my collection. You won't find Macky's fingerprints on this one. Same as 40 Licks.
M! |
| November 12th, 2004 09:20 AM |
|
|
| Joey |
" You won't find Macky's fingerprints on this one. Same as 40 Licks. "
You make Joey sad .
|
| November 12th, 2004 09:54 AM |
|
|
| jb |
I listened to it again last night....Gimme Shelter should be changed to "Gimme Lisa"-she totally ruins the song again...Rocks-Off is perhaps the most repulsive butchering of a song since SFTD remix, and the rest is forgettable....the only songs that are somewhat listenable are MM and SFM....and god I love Keith, but ask yoiurself honestly, if you didn't know who was singing the three Keith selections, would you ask "What the fuck is this"? |
| November 12th, 2004 10:23 AM |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
Josh,
I have the HBO show bootleg, 4 Flicks, The Orpheum show and the Tower show.
That is more than enough.
This new "live" album has got me seriously considering swallowing diesel fuel and shoving lit roman candles up me bum.
M! |
| November 12th, 2004 10:25 AM |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
Maxlugar wrote:
Josh,
I have the HBO show bootleg, 4 Flicks, The Orpheum show and the Tower show.
That is more than enough.
This new "live" album has got me seriously considering swallowing diesel fuel and shoving lit roman candles up me bum.
M!
At least you get "Bush". |
| November 12th, 2004 06:48 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
Some versions are the best so far: SFM, MM, BOB, CYHMK... all great. |
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]