Wow, just gave Adrenalize a first listen in years and I'm surprised at
finding myself liking it so much, in hindsight it certainly didn't
deserve the panning it got...what with being released at the height of
grunge...To us fans it was also the first album without Steamin'.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Keith <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
Wow, just gave Adrenalize a first listen in years and I'm surprised at
finding myself liking it so much, in hindsight it certainly didn't
deserve the panning it got...what with being released at the height of
grunge...To us fans it was also the first album without Steamin'.

To be honest, I really liked this album as well, especially
because of grunge! It came out just before it, and because of so, sold
rather well at least in the US. No, it didn't come near Hysteria,

I do have a question that I hope everyone out there can help me
with. A friend of mine had mentioned to me back in '92 that Tear it
Down was a B-side to Hysteria

(which I don't doubt; I have Steve's last
live performance on tape.. MTV VMAs, 1989, and that was the song they
played). What I always questioned was that when Phil re-recorded all of
Steve's parts on Adrenalize, my friend had said that he did it all
except the last 7 notes of Tear it Down, and that that part was the
only part left of Steve, outside of whatever was on Retroactive. Is
this true?

Hysteria has some clunkers, Excitable, Run Riot for instance and that
other one I've forgotten about (got it Don't Shoot Shotgun), never
really like Sugar either. The sound is also a bit too polished, too
"poppy", Adrenalize is rawer,

Wow, not dissing your opinion but in the sixteen years since Adrenalize
came out that is the first time I've ever heard anyone say Adrenalize
sounded raw. The popular opinion which I certainly agree with is that
Adrenalize was polished to death.

I had it played at my wedding too (met the Wife on this very ng).

Mognfox <mognfoxAT at (no spam) iolDOT.ie> wrote:

I had it played at my wedding too (met the Wife on this very ng).

That's pretty cool especially considering how this group has never really
been very busy.

Never been busy? There was a lot more traffic around it in 99 when I
first met my now wife. And prior to that the 'Sav lovers' were all over
this group.

I guess it rather depends on your definition of busy. Compared to the
Red Sox and Springsteen newsgroups I will agree with you. And especially
since the new album has come out and no one has offered an opinion on it
(till tonight anyway). A troll kind of killed this place.

Never been busy? There was a lot more traffic around it in 99 when I
first met my now wife. And prior to that the 'Sav lovers' were all over
this group.

I guess it rather depends on your definition of busy. Compared to the
Red Sox and Springsteen newsgroups I will agree with you. And especially
since the new album has come out and no one has offered an opinion on it
(till tonight anyway). A troll kind of killed this place.

Shame.

Mike

steves67754 at (no spam) hotmail.com wrote:
Mognfox <mognfoxAT at (no spam) iolDOT.ie> wrote:

I had it played at my wedding too (met the Wife on this very ng).

That's pretty cool especially considering how this group has never really
been very busy.

Yeah, I've been reading this group since '94 and I can't remember ever not
being able to read a days posts here within a few minutes. I also post in
the forum on their official website, but I still prefer usenet mostly
because of the constant crying of the moderators there though in the past
few weeks they have gone missing without explanation. I think I'm one of
the few people there that was good with that.