| re: Boston Herald Meat Review | |
|
Posted by: |
Leesa (gallytrotter@mchsi.com) 12:41 pm UTC 08/28/07 |
| In reply to: | re: Boston Herald Meat Review - AndrewG 12:23 pm UTC 08/28/07 |
| The point I make about John Deacon is that, passive bass player or not, he was a member of one of the greatest bands in the world and just recognised that that chapter in his life ended. It takes a helluva lot to just move on. To a large extent, I think Meat is the worse for wear for not seeing that his time has most likely arrived. The odd good show might not justify the ones where people leave shaking their heads. That said, Deacy most likely could have played shows like Charlie Watts still does and been fine--the style of performances Meat was always known for takes an awful lot. Physically, it's not something I think he's still up to doing and doing his legacy (or Jim's) justice. Leesa J > I agree to a certain extent though I don't think it's all > doom and gloom. > Meat still sounded amazing on Bat 3 I think regardless of > how it was puzzled together. > Also Meat sounded pretty damn good during Anything for > Love at the second MSG show. Apparently those shows were > really good going by the ones I know had went. > > While you might be right about John Deacon and understand > what you mean I hardly think you can compare a very > passive looking/acting Bass player to Meat Loaf. > > Meat should simply not tour so intesively I believe. A few > shows here and there (what he originally said the Bat 3 > tour was gonna be) would probably have been fine. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Boston Herald Meat Review - RadioMaster 03:50 pm UTC 08/28/07 |
| Next: | re: Boston Herald Meat Review - daveake 12:26 pm UTC 08/28/07 |
| Thread: | |