Synthesizer Patel

i hate that man. he's a penis.

the link still works, i just listened to it. really interesting show actually, although not really anything to do with wilco - other than the fact that they used some of the transmissions from the conet project on yhf. thanks again, really enjoyed it.

Harry & Nilsson Sings Newman - which you can get on a 2 for 1 cd (which is probably where you got all those other albums from, i know i did) - are my favourite albums of his. you should try and get them as soon as you can.

apparently the drumming difficulty levels go something like this: Ringo | Novice | Paul how is this even being thought about when they're pissing about with releasing reasonable quality versions of the actual albums? i blame paul - it must be him, look at his soddin' hair man, for one!

i really wish they'd stop overlooking the period from 1967 to 1974. there are absolutely hundreds of songs they could make a brilliant compilation out of (the dylan album, new morning sessions, johnny cash session, the george harrison session, the basement tapes etc....) also, a song like Money Blues from the desire period is far more interesting to hear than alt takes from Blood On The Tracks. we should only start having to buy alt takes of everything after he's put out all his unreleased songs first, surely.

i've not no never had the urge to hear that, cos the person i least like, from the byrds, and then in csn-csn&y, was always crosby. what's it like? is it standard crosby, or something else?

definately better than deja vu. i don't know . . . i just don't like that album so much - there's something quite annoying about it, that i can't put my finger on. i'd be willing to say maybe not as good as 'crosby, stills & nash', though - depending on what mood i'm in.

it's dvd audio, not a dvd film. i don't think you'll get a copy of the album without being remastered - unless people are selling off their old versions, because up until it was remastered it was reasonably hard to find a copy on cd. the remaster is much much better in sound than the old cd version. i'd say definately pay a bit extra for it, if you ask me.

If you like I Used To Be A King, then you'd like the album - that's on songs for beginners. Now, I wouldn't say any of his other albums are that great, maybe Wild Tales is good too, but songs for beginners really is a brilliant album. honestly. that boxset is too expensive to be worth getting, especially when his other albums aren't as worth having.

it's a brilliant album. better than anything CSN&Y have done, and whilst not as good as Neil Young - it's better than all the others put together. plus Neil Young plays piano on it. plus this song is on it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Ku6LqFrio plus ... oh just get it and have a listen. (it's been remastered recently)

i think people were complaining more about the old animal collective, rather than the new album, most people seemed to have warmed to them more now. i'd recommend 'Feels' too, by the way (probably still my favourite album of theirs)

has your version got the guy talking all the way through it? or is there another version out. i've got to review this thing, and it's almost impossible to come to a conclusion about whether it's any good or not with someone stopping the songs every minute and saying "you're listening to the new bonnie prince billy album". so if there's a clean copy i'd like to hear it, otherwise i think this is going to get a shit review from me too.

nope. sorry, i've made my mind up already and it's not going to change. Nothing wrong with it. I thought Sky Blue Sky was good and a few of the songs were great, but the 2 albums before are a couple of my favourites of all time, so I'd much rather it was as good as them instead.

I wish I'd never read that Rolling Stones pap. It's made me think this is just going to end up being Sky Blue Sky Pt. II If all they can say about it is that they've gone in a 'new direction', that's virtually a signed declaration from the ink shites at Rolling Stone that they haven't got a blind bollock what's different about this new album and the one that went before. Never mind, I'm young, I've still got time for them to get better again.

it doesn't sound like a "mash up" at all. the first part has a mellotron (a string/violin sound) that i'm pretty sure isn't in the mono version, and also (although i could be wrong cos i haven't checked closely) there is no euphonium bass line, which you get on the official take. and there are probably a million other things that i can't think about now. but, what i'm saying is, "i don't think so"

Absolutely not! Well, unless you are talking about post-Saturday Night Fever. But then, nobody would call The Rolling Stones a guilty pleasure even though they've been crap for many years.

looks like nobody has any interest in this. but, just in case, for the next 21 days the band are streaming footage from the studio in little clips that they change each day. so far the first clip is pretty boring - just people turning up and stuff, but they promise that there'll be music in future clips. you can stream it here: http://www.superfurry.com/ it'll change each day, and this is the first clip. so you've not missed anything yet!

That is so much better than the 2 songs split. I can't even begin to think why they ended up doing it the way they did. The "Dada, Mama" bit is great. It also shows how totally gypped we were with the scraps they put on the anthology series.

the new album is. although it's more synthetic sounding musically, but the vocals are very similar. the other albums are all great too, but you'd do best to listen to the new one first and then work backwards, because the older albums are slightly less accessible at first.

can people stop calling it a rearrangement there was nothing "arranged" about it.

but icky thump not only had appallingly bad songs, it also had probably the worst production i've ever heard on something this side of u2. the raconteurs album was no better. do you really think they sound/write songs/arrange like they used to do?