Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2    3    4    5  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: The Beatles- Revolver

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 24160
(24335 all sites)
Registered: 3/31/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/17/2012 at 08:31 AM
quote:
Rubber Soul is tops for me..

But IMHO, Revolver is flawless and has stood the test of time.

Damn young whippersnapper IP is


Agreed

 

____________________


 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8205
(8213 all sites)
Registered: 3/24/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/17/2012 at 09:49 AM
quote:


I like to stir the pot what can I say . Actually I think part of my reasoning for liking covers better is that the covers fit in were my musical taste are today that and I was raised with the idea that the Beatles were just another band and that there was nothing overly special about them and that other bands made just as good or even better music then them.


I agree you stir the pot but sometimes you bury your entire head in it. "nothing overly special about them"?!

 

____________________
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. Albert Einstein

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15854
(15858 all sites)
Registered: 9/24/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/17/2012 at 10:31 AM
To me it kinda/sorta was the begining of what was to come.

 

____________________

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6915
(6915 all sites)
Registered: 4/7/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/17/2012 at 10:41 AM
Brilliant


Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.

Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me.

 

____________________



 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20546
(20631 all sites)
Registered: 11/26/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/17/2012 at 12:42 PM
quote:
However, I have Ipowrie's back on Soulive's cover of Eleanor Rigby. Just smoking! Their covers of Come Together, Revolution and I Want You (She's So Heavy) get more airplay from me than the Beatles' originals as well.

I didn't know Soulive did an album of Beatles covers, but thanks for Rob's post, I do know. I downloaded it this morning and I'm in the middle of my first listen now. I agree the Eleanor Rigby and Come Together covers are very strong.

 

____________________
http://www.tylersmusicroom.org

 
E-Mail User

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20266
(20265 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/17/2012 at 01:12 PM
quote:
quote:
Wow, I don't believe I have ever heard anyone say that a Beatles song played by another band is better than the original performed by The Beatles. Wow, never heard that. As good as one of the other bands may play a Beatles tune, no way it sounds better than the Fab Four playing and singing it. Ratdog's version better than The Beatles? Wow.

[Edited on 2/16/2012 by Wayne]


I like to stir the pot what can I say . Actually I think part of my reasoning for liking covers better is that the covers fit in were my musical taste are today that and I was raised with the idea that the Beatles were just another band and that there was nothing overly special about them and that other bands made just as good or even better music then them.


You are a victim of false doctrine.

 

____________________

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4157
(4157 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2008
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/17/2012 at 01:25 PM
^^^
Truth

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 24518
(24529 all sites)
Registered: 8/12/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/17/2012 at 01:55 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
Wow, I don't believe I have ever heard anyone say that a Beatles song played by another band is better than the original performed by The Beatles. Wow, never heard that. As good as one of the other bands may play a Beatles tune, no way it sounds better than the Fab Four playing and singing it. Ratdog's version better than The Beatles? Wow.

[Edited on 2/16/2012 by Wayne]


I like to stir the pot what can I say . Actually I think part of my reasoning for liking covers better is that the covers fit in were my musical taste are today that and I was raised with the idea that the Beatles were just another band and that there was nothing overly special about them and that other bands made just as good or even better music then them.


You are a victim of false doctrine.


I disagree as it taught me to judge not based on what Im supposed to think but on how I hear it for myself. That is the beauty of music as it really comes down to the listener.

I like the Beatles they made some great music but I also see them as a foundation from which alot of bands took and ran with it and took it places the Beatles wouldnt have and I personally enjoy alot of that more than the Beatles

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20266
(20265 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/17/2012 at 01:59 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Wow, I don't believe I have ever heard anyone say that a Beatles song played by another band is better than the original performed by The Beatles. Wow, never heard that. As good as one of the other bands may play a Beatles tune, no way it sounds better than the Fab Four playing and singing it. Ratdog's version better than The Beatles? Wow.

[Edited on 2/16/2012 by Wayne]


I like to stir the pot what can I say . Actually I think part of my reasoning for liking covers better is that the covers fit in were my musical taste are today that and I was raised with the idea that the Beatles were just another band and that there was nothing overly special about them and that other bands made just as good or even better music then them.


You are a victim of false doctrine.


I disagree as it taught me to judge not based on what Im supposed to think but on how I hear it for myself. That is the beauty of music as it really comes down to the listener.

I like the Beatles they made some great music but I also see them as a foundation from which alot of bands took and ran with it and took it places the Beatles wouldnt have and I personally enjoy alot of that more than the Beatles


A legitimate perspective. But one who is a student of rock history cannot minimize the contribution of the Beatles nor the sheer remarkability of the Lennon-MCartney output of songs written in an 8 year period. They are not just another good band.

 

____________________

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1494
(1513 all sites)
Registered: 12/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/17/2012 at 02:07 PM
I don't believe The Beatles will ever be as relevant to those of us who were not there. I would go so far as to say many of their songs and albums have not stood the test of time. Much of their production wizardry, while remarkable at the time, sounds positively archaic.

And, of course, it's not just The Beatles.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20266
(20265 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/17/2012 at 04:58 PM
quote:
I don't believe The Beatles will ever be as relevant to those of us who were not there. I would go so far as to say many of their songs and albums have not stood the test of time. Much of their production wizardry, while remarkable at the time, sounds positively archaic.

And, of course, it's not just The Beatles.


I was not there having been born several months after the release of the album and I couldn't disagree more. The Beatles are highly relevant to me and millions upon millions of others who were born after they broke up and continue to buy their albums. Ultimately though, how you feel about the Beatle's music is a matter of taste which is purely a matter of opinion.

 

____________________

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1494
(1513 all sites)
Registered: 12/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/17/2012 at 06:07 PM
quote:


I disagree as it taught me to judge not based on what Im supposed to think but on how I hear it for myself. That is the beauty of music as it really comes down to the listener.

I like the Beatles they made some great music but I also see them as a foundation from which alot of bands took and ran with it and took it places the Beatles wouldnt have and I personally enjoy alot of that more than the Beatles



And that's the truth. Everyone hears music differently.


The Beatles obviously did nothing particularly original; they were good songwriters and reasonably good musicians. They took what they liked from the previous generations and put their own stamp on it. It was distinctive enough that it caught on, and they had a lengthy run of hits in the 60's. So did many other bands. No one could ever talk about the 60's without mentioning The Beatles, and most rock musicians since will cite them as an influence. That's a pretty good legacy, but if anyone wants to tell me that Sgt. Peppers or the rest of their latter-60's platters in any way sounds modern, organic and are not dripping with that swirly, stoned out summer of love vibe, I will wonder what planet you arrived from. Does this mean that I don't like The Beatles? No. They had some solid tracks, some really quite great. But then again, so did a lot of other bands.

To say that no cover could possibly do the original's justice is quite ludicrous.


 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3911
(3918 all sites)
Registered: 11/20/2008
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/17/2012 at 06:28 PM
I remember when I read that Michael Stipe of REM said the following (about the Beatles):
"They're elevator music to me." My thoughts were: "Well, I disagree with that statement completely, but he's just as entitled to his opinion as I am."

 

____________________


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20546
(20631 all sites)
Registered: 11/26/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/17/2012 at 06:42 PM
quote:
The Beatles obviously did nothing particularly original; they were good songwriters and reasonably good musicians. They took what they liked from the previous generations and put their own stamp on it.

I think it makes sense to talk about them in their historical context, but this is probably going a bit too far.

quote:
That's a pretty good legacy, but if anyone wants to tell me that Sgt. Peppers or the rest of their latter-60's platters in any way sounds modern, organic and are not dripping with that swirly, stoned out summer of love vibe, I will wonder what planet you arrived from.

I think maybe people are not being very precise with their wording here: saying that a piece of music reflects the time period in which it was made is not the same as saying it didn't age well. Certainly you can tell when Rubber Soul and Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's were made by the technology that was used, the themes of the lyrics, the musical style, and the overall sound of the record. All music ends up reflecting the time it's made in and the things used to make it, a least with time - we always tend to regard a particular era as neutral. I don't think there is very much on Revolver that ages poorly. Tomorrow Never Knows doesn't sound as groundbreaking if you've had decades to hear the stuff that came after it, but I think it's really amazing. I would say that Doctor Robert and And Your Bird Can Sing probably don't age well because there's not much too them other than psychedelia - The Word from Rubber Soul has the same issue. I Want To Tell You isn't the strongest song in the first place, so it doesn't hold up that well. There are some songs where John is trying very hard to be Bob Dylan and I can see the argument that those show their age because Dylan was a sensation then and isn't now. But many of those songs are absolutely great even though they wouldn't have been made at any other time. Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds is about as psychedelic as the Beatles got, but I do think that one holds up because it's just a very strong piece of writing and recording. I don't think Mr. Kite, Lovely Rita, and Good Morning Good Morning hold up that well - I think they're fairly weak songs. But I think there is always going to be a big overlap between "dated songs" and "songs you just don't like that much."




[Edited on 2/17/2012 by Marley]

 

____________________
http://www.tylersmusicroom.org

 
E-Mail User

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1494
(1513 all sites)
Registered: 12/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/17/2012 at 07:43 PM
I don't know. When I hear The Beatles on classic rock/oldies radio, they play the straight up rock tracks, hardly ever L.S.D., Strawberry Fields or anything from their psychedelic period. Those songs have not aged well; it's just to at-odds with a modern sensibility. But then of course I believe 99% of what's on the radio right now will sound impossibly dated and won't even be subject to revisionist criticism five years from now, let alone forty-five. . I'm not sure that even with a stripped down "natural" sound to them, it would make much difference as to how these songs have dated. To each their own.

By "natural" I mean how it would sound if I went to a concert hall and saw these songs performed tonight, or fifty years ago. Not a studio creation with layers upon layers of overdubs and trickery.

[Edited on 2/17/2012 by boss2005]

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4157
(4157 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2008
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/17/2012 at 07:49 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
They took what they liked from the previous generations and put their own stamp on it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
you can say that about almost every single piece of art ever created.
Musically, the Allmans and the GD took what the other generations did and added to it.

That said, the Beatles were quite original and left a much larger, greater stamp than other musicians.

Like Marley said, much of the "originality" sounds less groundbreaking 40 years later because so much has been done over and over. We take much of it for granted.
1st band with a full orchestra in the studio, 1st use of 12 string in rock and roll, the horns in Revolver (not just any horns - that was old, but the Bach trumpet and English horn - new for RnR), 1st radio single > 3 minutes. Even in the "pop" era (63-65), they threw in different chord progressions and combinations than other artists were using. That's just off the top of my head, there is plenty more.
And yes, there is some simple, "pop" music, even in the later albums.

But - there's Eleanor Rigby, Lucy in the Sky, A Day in the Life, Strawberry Fields, Revolution, Hey Jude, Something, In My Life...




[Edited on 2/17/2012 by stormyrider]

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1494
(1513 all sites)
Registered: 12/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/17/2012 at 09:11 PM
quote:


But - there's Eleanor Rigby, Lucy in the Sky, A Day in the Life, Strawberry Fields, Revolution, Hey Jude, Something, In My Life...








... none of which you could pay me to listen to.

Innovation does not equal excellence.

The Beatles are the token rock band who history chooses to remember and deify from that era. There were plenty who were just as important and innovative. The Beats just took all the credit.





[Edited on 2/18/2012 by boss2005]

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20546
(20631 all sites)
Registered: 11/26/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/17/2012 at 09:40 PM
quote:
By "natural" I mean how it would sound if I went to a concert hall and saw these songs performed tonight, or fifty years ago. Not a studio creation with layers upon layers of overdubs and trickery.

Is it "trickery" to use brushes when you paint instead of using your fingers? To wear a costume when you act? The way the Beatles used overdubs and layering was groundbreaking. Artwork is trickery anyway, but it's not cheating. Live performance is wonderful, and so is using the studio to create something new.

quote:
The Beatles are the token rock band who history chooses to remember and deify from that era.

Yeah, this is just ignorant. You don't have to be a fan, but the facts say something different.

 

____________________
http://www.tylersmusicroom.org

 
E-Mail User

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20266
(20265 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/17/2012 at 11:44 PM
quote:
quote:


I disagree as it taught me to judge not based on what Im supposed to think but on how I hear it for myself. That is the beauty of music as it really comes down to the listener.

I like the Beatles they made some great music but I also see them as a foundation from which alot of bands took and ran with it and took it places the Beatles wouldnt have and I personally enjoy alot of that more than the Beatles



And that's the truth. Everyone hears music differently.


The Beatles obviously did nothing particularly original; they were good songwriters and reasonably good musicians. They took what they liked from the previous generations and put their own stamp on it. It was distinctive enough that it caught on, and they had a lengthy run of hits in the 60's. So did many other bands. No one could ever talk about the 60's without mentioning The Beatles, and most rock musicians since will cite them as an influence. That's a pretty good legacy, but if anyone wants to tell me that Sgt. Peppers or the rest of their latter-60's platters in any way sounds modern, organic and are not dripping with that swirly, stoned out summer of love vibe, I will wonder what planet you arrived from. Does this mean that I don't like The Beatles? No. They had some solid tracks, some really quite great. But then again, so did a lot of other bands.

To say that no cover could possibly do the original's justice is quite ludicrous.




Whatever your taste and whether you like their music or not they utterly and entirely changed popular music on every conceivable level and in every conceivable way and there are few people in rock who would say otherwise. In fact I feel entirely comfortable saying that if the Beatles had not come along rock and roll would have ended up a passing fad as most expected it to be in 1960. They were far and away the most original band of all time. No one else was even close.

[Edited on 2/18/2012 by dougrhon]

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20266
(20265 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/17/2012 at 11:46 PM
quote:
I don't know. When I hear The Beatles on classic rock/oldies radio, they play the straight up rock tracks, hardly ever L.S.D., Strawberry Fields or anything from their psychedelic period. Those songs have not aged well; it's just to at-odds with a modern sensibility. But then of course I believe 99% of what's on the radio right now will sound impossibly dated and won't even be subject to revisionist criticism five years from now, let alone forty-five. . I'm not sure that even with a stripped down "natural" sound to them, it would make much difference as to how these songs have dated. To each their own.

By "natural" I mean how it would sound if I went to a concert hall and saw these songs performed tonight, or fifty years ago. Not a studio creation with layers upon layers of overdubs and trickery.

[Edited on 2/17/2012 by boss2005]


You should go to see the Fab Faux if you want to hear the later songs performed live brilliantly.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20266
(20265 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/17/2012 at 11:47 PM
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
They took what they liked from the previous generations and put their own stamp on it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
you can say that about almost every single piece of art ever created.
Musically, the Allmans and the GD took what the other generations did and added to it.

That said, the Beatles were quite original and left a much larger, greater stamp than other musicians.

Like Marley said, much of the "originality" sounds less groundbreaking 40 years later because so much has been done over and over. We take much of it for granted.
1st band with a full orchestra in the studio, 1st use of 12 string in rock and roll, the horns in Revolver (not just any horns - that was old, but the Bach trumpet and English horn - new for RnR), 1st radio single > 3 minutes. Even in the "pop" era (63-65), they threw in different chord progressions and combinations than other artists were using. That's just off the top of my head, there is plenty more.
And yes, there is some simple, "pop" music, even in the later albums.

But - there's Eleanor Rigby, Lucy in the Sky, A Day in the Life, Strawberry Fields, Revolution, Hey Jude, Something, In My Life...




[Edited on 2/17/2012 by stormyrider]


Please Please Me and She Loves You among others were incredibly ground breaking and deeply original songs that took the world by storm in 1963 and 1964. Because so much of rock and roll caught up to them we, coming from the other side, don't recognize just how groundbreaking it was today. But it certainly was.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20266
(20265 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/17/2012 at 11:48 PM
quote:
quote:


But - there's Eleanor Rigby, Lucy in the Sky, A Day in the Life, Strawberry Fields, Revolution, Hey Jude, Something, In My Life...








... none of which you could pay me to listen to.

Innovation does not equal excellence.

The Beatles are the token rock band who history chooses to remember and deify from that era. There were plenty who were just as important and innovative. The Beats just took all the credit.





[Edited on 2/18/2012 by boss2005]


Whether you like them or not this last statement is just nutso.

 

____________________

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 14231
(14231 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/17/2012 at 11:57 PM
quote:
quote:


I disagree as it taught me to judge not based on what Im supposed to think but on how I hear it for myself. That is the beauty of music as it really comes down to the listener.

I like the Beatles they made some great music but I also see them as a foundation from which alot of bands took and ran with it and took it places the Beatles wouldnt have and I personally enjoy alot of that more than the Beatles



And that's the truth. Everyone hears music differently.


The Beatles obviously did nothing particularly original; they were good songwriters and reasonably good musicians. They took what they liked from the previous generations and put their own stamp on it. It was distinctive enough that it caught on, and they had a lengthy run of hits in the 60's. So did many other bands. No one could ever talk about the 60's without mentioning The Beatles, and most rock musicians since will cite them as an influence. That's a pretty good legacy, but if anyone wants to tell me that Sgt. Peppers or the rest of their latter-60's platters in any way sounds modern, organic and are not dripping with that swirly, stoned out summer of love vibe, I will wonder what planet you arrived from. Does this mean that I don't like The Beatles? No. They had some solid tracks, some really quite great. But then again, so did a lot of other bands.

To say that no cover could possibly do the original's justice is quite ludicrous.




No band in history ever put out the amount of top quality hit music that the Beatles put out and they did it in a very short time frame and I highly doubt any other band ever will.

And to say that the Beatles did nothing original might be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard said in my life!!! Utterly ludicrous thing to say whether you like their music or not!!!!!

[Edited on 2/18/2012 by sixty8]

 

____________________
Pete


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20266
(20265 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/17/2012 at 11:59 PM
I thought some might be interested in this. Here are the first couple of paragraphs of the All Music Guide biography of the Beatles (allmusic.com)

"So much has been said and written about the Beatles -- and their story is so mythic in its sweep -- that it's difficult to summarize their career without restating clich├ęs that have already been digested by tens of millions of rock fans. To start with the obvious, they were the greatest and most influential act of the rock era, and introduced more innovations into popular music than any other rock band of the 20th century. Moreover, they were among the few artists of any discipline that were simultaneously the best at what they did and the most popular at what they did. Relentlessly imaginative and experimental, the Beatles grabbed a hold of the international mass consciousness in 1964 and never let go for the next six years, always staying ahead of the pack in terms of creativity but never losing their ability to communicate their increasingly sophisticated ideas to a mass audience. Their supremacy as rock icons remains unchallenged to this day, decades after their breakup in 1970.

Even when couching praise in specific terms, it's hard to convey the scope of the Beatles' achievements in a mere paragraph or two. They synthesized all that was good about early rock & roll, and changed it into something original and even more exciting. They established the prototype for the self-contained rock group that wrote and performed its own material. As composers, their craft and melodic inventiveness were second to none, and key to the evolution of rock from its blues/R&B-based forms into a style that was far more eclectic, but equally visceral. As singers, both John Lennon and Paul McCartney were among the best and most expressive vocalists in rock; the group's harmonies were intricate and exhilarating. As performers, they were (at least until touring had ground them down) exciting and photogenic; when they retreated into the studio, they were instrumental in pioneering advanced techniques and multi-layered arrangements. They were also the first British rock group to achieve worldwide prominence, launching a British Invasion that made rock truly an international phenomenon. "

I can't argue with a single word. If anything it understates the impact and importance of the Beatles to rock music.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20266
(20265 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/18/2012 at 12:02 AM
Here is the All Music Guide Review of Revolver which, after all, is the subject of this thread. They gave it five stars and again I agree with every word:

"All the rules fell by the wayside with Revolver, as the Beatles began exploring new sonic territory, lyrical subjects, and styles of composition. It wasn't just Lennon and McCartney, either -- Harrison staked out his own dark territory with the tightly wound, cynical rocker "Taxman"; the jaunty yet dissonant "I Want to Tell You"; and "Love You To," George's first and best foray into Indian music. Such explorations were bold, yet they were eclipsed by Lennon's trippy kaleidoscopes of sound. His most straightforward number was "Doctor Robert," an ode to his dealer, and things just got stranger from there as he buried "And Your Bird Can Sing" in a maze of multi-tracked guitars, gave Ringo a charmingly hallucinogenic slice of childhood whimsy in "Yellow Submarine," and then capped it off with a triptych of bad trips: the spiraling "She Said She Said"; the crawling, druggy "I'm Only Sleeping"; and "Tomorrow Never Knows," a pure nightmare where John sang portions of the Tibetan Book of the Dead into a suspended microphone over Ringo's thundering, menacing drumbeats and layers of overdubbed, phased guitars and tape loops. McCartney's experiments were formal, as he tried on every pop style from chamber pop to soul, and when placed alongside Lennon's and Harrison's outright experimentations, McCartney's songcraft becomes all the more impressive. The biggest miracle of Revolver may be that the Beatles covered so much new stylistic ground and executed it perfectly on one record, or it may be that all of it holds together perfectly. Either way, its daring sonic adventures and consistently stunning songcraft set the standard for what pop/rock could achieve. Even after Sgt. Pepper, Revolver stands as the ultimate modern pop album and it's still as emulated as it was upon its original release. "

 

____________________

 
<<  1    2    3    4    5  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software


Privacy | Terms of Service
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com