It's probably worth trying the superglue in a  out of sight place, but I think once you've scaled up the effect of how that looks over the whole body, it'll probably detract overall.

So, in short, guess I'll live with it.

Yeah, I've heard of people using super glue to fill those sort of cracks before; but it only fills the cracks and doesn't make the finish look original again and depending on how much of the finish is affected by the 'crazing' you could be sitting there, sniffing glue, for a long time!

The other thing is that sometimes, in very rare cases' Nitrocellulose lacquer can react with whatever your applying to it. The finish might start clouding or the cracks could open up even more. I've seen both of these things after repair shop assholes didn't bother to see how the finish would react.

Exactly. The album rock era really reigned in an age of rock and roll bloat, I.E. Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Blah Blah Blah. It seems like once bands could slap together a full length they didn't have to do shit again for a while; where in the singles days they were constantly working in order to not be entirely forgotten. Which I happen to appreciate. 

Old School Hero said:

That's why 45rpms were a staple in the 50's up until the mid 60's I think. When the late 60's came songs got longer and there was really no better way to do it than to go with full albums.

Catfish Jones said:

Singles were the bread and butter for those 60's bands, so when they'd throw an album together a shit load of the stuff WAS actually filler. I think the earlier singles are my favorites, but of course the full lengths hit their peak in the early/mid 70's.

As a total fanatic I would say everything between the first album and Goats Head Soup is classic. My real favourites though are the first 2 albums, plus early bootlegs like the Chess Sessions and Camden 1964. If you have those recording the first Ramones album, I`m Stranded, Louie Louie and the Best of Bo Diddley you have everything you need to know about rock n roll :)

Hmmmm...really not my favorite side of the Stones.

But, once again, if I find the "Satanic Majesties..." lp quite indigestible, I really enjoy "2000 light years from home" too.

Old School Hero said:

By the way, am I alone in liking their psychedelic efforts? I know it's weird for a bluesy band like them to do that kind of music but I really enjoy ''2000 Light Years From Home''.

By the way, am I alone in liking their psychedelic efforts? I know it's weird for a bluesy band like them to do that kind of music but I really enjoy ''2000 Light Years From Home''.

That's why 45rpms were a staple in the 50's up until the mid 60's I think. When the late 60's came songs got longer and there was really no better way to do it than to go with full albums.

Catfish Jones said:

Singles were the bread and butter for those 60's bands, so when they'd throw an album together a shit load of the stuff WAS actually filler. I think the earlier singles are my favorites, but of course the full lengths hit their peak in the early/mid 70's.

I'd go with the brilliant early singles too.

As for lps, I'd go with the outstanding "Beggars Banquet".

You can throw stones at me (ahah), but I've never really liked "Exile on Main St" (except maybe "Ventilator Blues")

...and I don't even mention the following rolling turds...

My favorite always has been Let it Bleed, with Exiles a close second. (If "Sweet Virginia" convinced just one person to scrape the shit off their shoes, it was worth it.)

For years I've thought their most under-rated album was Undercover, an early 80s effort. mainly because I like the title song so much,

I would have to agree that the period with Mck Taylor were the best.  however, I did dig The Bigger Bang, a lot.  It was the first record since Black and Blue that Keith and Mick wrote songs together and it tells.  Although, there are good cuts on about every album since Mick Taylor left, just not whole albums of great songwritng and playing.  They were definitely in the zone, so too speak during the Taylor years. 

Singles were the bread and butter for those 60's bands, so when they'd throw an album together a shit load of the stuff WAS actually filler. I think the earlier singles are my favorites, but of course the full lengths hit their peak in the early/mid 70's.

if it's stereo that is.

Phillip Jaggar said:

glad to be of assistance. Though I do play alot of stereo records for DJing, most early to mid 60's stuff has odd mixing to it.

Marty Shane, Pacifiction Records said:

I put this question in the DJ group forum and this is the kind of input I was looking for, much thanks!

Phillip Jaggar said:

Mono for DJing, Stereo for home listening. Having to hear a shitty 60's stereo recording in a club sucks, especially bands like Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels, and a few Beatles songs are horrid when played in a club. But I do agree stereo did do wonders for some psychedelia.

glad to be of assistance. Though I do play alot of stereo records for DJing, most early to mid 60's stuff has odd mixing to it.

Marty Shane, Pacifiction Records said:

I put this question in the DJ group forum and this is the kind of input I was looking for, much thanks!

Phillip Jaggar said:

Mono for DJing, Stereo for home listening. Having to hear a shitty 60's stereo recording in a club sucks, especially bands like Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels, and a few Beatles songs are horrid when played in a club. But I do agree stereo did do wonders for some psychedelia.

Don't care either way as long as it sounds good.

There's good and bad mono records and there's good and bad stereo records so the issue is really all about whether the producer/engineer knew what they were doing.

Monoreo ???

Max Reverb said:

2 mono's are better than one!

Lord Muck!! said:

Does mono sound better in stereo...??

2 mono's are better than one!

Lord Muck!! said:

Does mono sound better in stereo...??

MONO PLEASE most of the time for old stuff

essential for great 60s bands like the 13th floor Elevators because they didnt know much about stereo then and did horrible terrible cheap whack jobs muddying up the mix.

heres a compare of the track fire engine by the elevators

stereo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkEd9_EDy1w

mono

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EadJKDz_PIg

I put this question in the DJ group forum and this is the kind of input I was looking for, much thanks!

Phillip Jaggar said:

Mono for DJing, Stereo for home listening. Having to hear a shitty 60's stereo recording in a club sucks, especially bands like Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels, and a few Beatles songs are horrid when played in a club. But I do agree stereo did do wonders for some psychedelia.

You mean your GREAT 45 !

I remember that "contest". I should have participated coz years have passed and I still haven't that 45 in my collection !

The Jinxes said:

We like Matt because he gave out our 45 as a prize!

We like Matt because he gave out our 45 as a prize!

That website requires Microsoft Silverlight to work. If yer using Windoze then its a simple install and run scenario if yer using a Mac then I would think yer probably screwed. Maybe a Mac user could answer that, I only dance with the devil that is Windoze...

Hi!

I´m a great fan of this fabulous radio program, by the way it has been an inspiration to my radio program...:)

http://www.upv.es/pls/oreg/rtv_web.ProgRadioFicha?p_id=1694&p_idioma=c

I can´t listen to this episode neither download it...I apreciate so much if anyone can help me, thanks a lot.