|
Post by Cat on Jan 22, 2008 10:55:33 GMT -5
Not sure how many have their CDs yet, but I heard the full album preview on the MaxTv site...
|
|
|
Post by joshrichy on Jan 24, 2008 9:48:12 GMT -5
I pre-ordered a signed copy from JB hi-fi it came yesterday and ive listened to the cd - and i actually really like it - i was sceptical - i mean how good can a mellow accoustic rock album of re-do's be? I didnt really like Bon Jovi's reinterpretations -- but i must admit i was pleased with how the tracks came out - i think my fav thing about it is they didnt just do accoustic versions - they re-interpreted them and added a kinda cool jazzy vocal style that i think suits what they seem to be trying to do previously skeptical - but glad to say im converted after a few listens - that being said - please let baby animals write rock for any new stuff - australia has enough mellow music there are no old school rock bands with balls these days... no offence Suze
|
|
pia
One Word
Posts: 13
|
Post by pia on Jan 26, 2008 5:59:40 GMT -5
Just a beautiful album, all so well done - playing, recording, production - everything!
Sure I love the rockin' BA's as much as the next fan, but heck, for a lazy afternoon's listening pleasure... this album is a dead set winner!
*double thumbs up*
|
|
|
Post by jawsfan on Feb 2, 2008 6:41:37 GMT -5
Much better than I thought it might be. Not just acoustic, but somewhat orchestral and with a mish-mash of styles too. "Acoustic" isn't a very apt description because that is just the starting point. There is so much more to it than that.
|
|
|
Post by marcos on Feb 24, 2008 2:10:36 GMT -5
Ok, like all who heard it, I first thought most of it kinda shocking because of all the differences. But after a few listens you get more used to it. The new formats work better for me on Rush you on Working for the enemy, but all are very well recorded. Funnily enough, I thought the Suze songs (Satellite and Submarine) were the least affected rhythm-wise by the changes. Oh well, and I like the new ones too!
Take care...
|
|
|
Post by rockchick on Jul 31, 2008 1:45:36 GMT -5
No debate that the acoustic production is excellent. But I prefer plugged. Most mates at uni are a generation younger than me and when we chat music I'm usually blown away by the breadth of their music appreciation. At the same ages, it would have been social suicide for anyone to try and steer music chat to Pop, Jazz or Blues at the bus stop! The 'non-rock' genres represented 'defeat' to us back then. Rock expressed our 'rebellion' against the desired social order, we were untamed, our music was wild and 'amplified'. You couldn't escape our statement...literally Turning the volume to max forced the entire neighbourhood to listen to Devil Gate Drive (Suzi Quatro) every weekend for a month. I gotta hand it to my Mum, so cool, instead of an argument, she just played this David Cassidy song I loathed, over and over at full tilt...and I lost the plot! Personally I think 4 days is a remarkably good effort =) As soon as headphones arrived on the scene I formed a symbiotic relationship with them...but the tape deck was not a mobile accessory. In my room, I could turn up the volume to block outside noise and drift away with the music. Of course I also couldn't hear instructions like 'For the third time, take that garbage out please.' Dad often said '...turn it down or you'll bugger you're hearing.' He was right. It took a couple of decades for some bottom end hearing loss to manifest (grrr). I love the amped vibe at a live gig with fellow fans, dancing and singing along at the top of my voice, its a shared energy thing. Acoustic is cool when I feel more discerning and prefer to sit still, listen and observe more. Acoustic is less of a shared experience for me, more an individual critique; but most mates at uni are into the acoustic gigs. I can get into acoustic when the music suits, but I'll admit once I've heard a Rock original, its hard to please me with an acoustic version. Il Grande Silenzio shows me Baby Animals can cut it both ways But...why unplug the best rythym section Oz has ever seen? myspace.com/chillshack
|
|
|
Post by thedonsway on May 10, 2009 21:35:26 GMT -5
I much prefer the original versions. They had more bite to them. For my tastes, these versions are more like a ballad. Everyone has their own taste in music, and to me, this entire album was a let down, I wish I never bought it.
|
|
|
Post by saroy123 on Oct 16, 2011 2:26:10 GMT -5
Much better than I thought it might be. Not just acoustic, but somewhat orchestral and with a mish-mash of styles too. "Acoustic" isn't a very apt description because that is just the starting point. There is so much more to it than that.
|
|
|
Post by sajid5566 on May 23, 2012 1:22:07 GMT -5
DeMarchi says it as much to do with the high level of musicianship in her old band, as it does to the life experiences they’ve all been through since the band’s slow demise. “It’s been quite a cathartic experience, particularly for Dave (Leslie, guitarist). He’s had a lot of recent life changes – his mum passed away and he went through a lot of other personal stuff - so when he played on that old stuff it was a really heartfelt performance.”
|
|