so, the stones: brash, brassy rock gods or bloated, pathetic blues thieves?
― fred solinger, Thursday, 22 March 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink
― Tom, Thursday, 22 March 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink
I like albums that it seems other people don't think about much, like Emotional Rescue, Aftermath, It's Only Rock N' Roll, Tattoo You.
It seems like people get hung up on the "classics" they made, most of which appear on Hot Rocks 1 + 2, I guess. But, I almost shun all that stuff in favor of the laid back good-time blues riffing stuff. I've noticed most of the Hot Rocks stuff is kind of angry or emotional. There's plenty of Stones that sounds nothing like that stuff. I like it all, though.
― , Thursday, 22 March 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink
― Patrick, Thursday, 22 March 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink
Better to burn out than to fade away, as it goes...
― Ally, Thursday, 22 March 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink
They never released an album that was the equivalent of masturbation, as many bands do after a while. I can't think of one self-indulgent turd amongst the whole lot of 'em. They're a good, consistent rock band. Seems kind of ludicrous to deny that.
to me, they're classic enough that they've yet to expend all of their credit. i give them 'til 2010 before i may have to call them a dud.
― Dan Perry, Thursday, 22 March 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink
― Kris, Thursday, 22 March 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink
I'll have to echo neuromancer's disregard for charges that the Stones "ripped off" the blues. Sure, they utilized the blues, played with it, turned it over under sideways down, and made it unspeakably boring as well, but they never made false claims to its invention -- except perhaps when the stole "The Last Time" from the Staple Singers and credited "Love In Vain" to "Woody Payne" instead of Robert Johnson.
― Michael Daddino, Thursday, 22 March 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink
when you factor in all of the contributors, with the obvious exception of party-pooper ned raggett, freaky trigger becomes THE pop site. we write about madonna and destiny's child and janet jackson, which allows tom to pen lengthy examinations of mazarin and charlemagne palestine. (which i prefer, actually, because when he goes straight pop, we get *shudder* that jessica simpson "interview," post-modernism that'd make eggers proud.) he'll struggle to find the pop in these artists, but will ignore the far more obvious pop in artists like the stones because they're "classic rock" and are white boys playin' the blues.
I dont like rock and roll as an attitude much - it seems played out, of its time, interesting for sure but as inspirational and relevant to me as flappers are, or young edwardians, or any other historical cultural movement.
― Omar, Thursday, 22 March 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink
― dom quinn, Thursday, 22 March 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink
Simon Reynolds once wrote that, for him, there's something resolutely unlovable about The Who; I feel that way about the Stones, but even stronger.
― Robin Carmody, Thursday, 22 March 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink
Anyway I suspect that if you cross-reference the outcome of this thread with The Smiths thread you'll very likely find out that you either like The Stones or The Smiths (who indeed seem like the perfect anti-thesis of The Stones: weak, safe, effeminate, boring, etc.)
I think after 30 years it's hard to imagine anything safer than the Stones, too. Of course they were 'dangerous' in their time, but this is what I mean by the historical interest of rock and roll. (I'd hardly claim any different for the Smiths, at least musically.)
Patrick - almost everyone in the focus group gives a 9 or 10 to two or three pop tunes. It's just the marks then drop because of the averaged-out nature of things. And R&B and Hip-Hop do well, which pretty much define the pop charts now in the way that - as you rightly say - the Stones did 30 years ago. (I think "Satisfaction" is a genius pop single.) But by all means, everyone on this forum join in next time, please. The more the merrier.
Jagger's Voice? It's a question of mannerisms. Some mannerisms I like - some I don't like. Jagger's, in general, I don't.
omar: well, i love both the stones and the smiths. ;) however, i reckon that if i got into the latter before the former, that might not be the case: if my teen years were soundtracked by the smiths, i imagine my tastes might be quite different.
i don't think it's possible to love the stones and not, at the very least, *like* jagger's voice. it's very non-threatening: you can shout along with the music and never have to worry about sounding worse than him. he's one of those singers i wish would always shout because they're voices are really awful when they sing, though he wasn't totally without his charms as a singer.
Dan, the original question was: "brash, brassy rock gods or bloated, pathetic blues thieves?" and... Ally said they'd turned into duds merely by sticking around so long. So, I was just addressing two ideas at once. (First of all, how could they be bloated? They're all scrawny mofos!) As far as the self-indulgent speil, what I meant was that they stayed true to their formula, making decent blues rock music. Yes, I know the whole rebellious schtick is self-indulgent, being that they do what they wanna do, etc., but I meant, they never produced some barely-even- music artistic piece of crap halfassedly, like so many other bands. Sure, you could say "Their Satanic Majesties Request" is a self- indulgent piece of crap, but I happen to like it quite a bit and it's not too different from their other stuff. "2000 Man" is a great tune off "Satanic", covered decently by a punk band called the Groovie Ghoulies and "Summer Romance" off the 1981 "Emotional Rescue" is a great tune covered by another punk band called New Bomb Turks. If you listen to both cover tunes, without any prior knowledge of the Rolling Stones, you'd swear they were from the same album, probably made in the late '70's. And yet, those two songs span almost 20 years. Point being, their "artsy-fartsy" stuff *and* their later "dud" material are still, basically, the same great kind of rock and roll as ever. Now, THAT was a tangent, Dan!― , Thursday, 22 March 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink
and...
Ally said they'd turned into duds merely by sticking around so long.
So, I was just addressing two ideas at once. (First of all, how could they be bloated? They're all scrawny mofos!)
As far as the self-indulgent speil, what I meant was that they stayed true to their formula, making decent blues rock music. Yes, I know the whole rebellious schtick is self-indulgent, being that they do what they wanna do, etc., but I meant, they never produced some barely-even- music artistic piece of crap halfassedly, like so many other bands.
Sure, you could say "Their Satanic Majesties Request" is a self- indulgent piece of crap, but I happen to like it quite a bit and it's not too different from their other stuff.
"2000 Man" is a great tune off "Satanic", covered decently by a punk band called the Groovie Ghoulies and "Summer Romance" off the 1981 "Emotional Rescue" is a great tune covered by another punk band called New Bomb Turks. If you listen to both cover tunes, without any prior knowledge of the Rolling Stones, you'd swear they were from the same album, probably made in the late '70's. And yet, those two songs span almost 20 years.
Point being, their "artsy-fartsy" stuff *and* their later "dud" material are still, basically, the same great kind of rock and roll as ever.
Now, THAT was a tangent, Dan!
ANYHOW, lots of replies. First of, I think it's "ludicrious" to claim that anyone who thinks that the Stones AREN'T consistent is wrong. You like them. I generally do not. End of story. It's like me telling the entirety of the Manics thread that they are idiots because several of them preferred EMG to THB. I mean, clearly I disagree so vehemently that I could spit blood out my mouth thinking about it, but they aren't being ludicrious or stupid. It's just what they think.
The Stones to me are a great singles band when they were good, but their albums tended to bore me. And yes, Kris has a great point: they were designed to be indulgent masturbatory rock. You could make a case that all rock is meant to do that - I mean, can someone please explain to me what albums are if NOT indulgent? You aren't exactly curing cancer if you're doing music, despite loads of artists' insistance that if you sing about changing the world, it is the same as doing something about it... ;)
And no, it did not take the Stones, for me, 20 albums to wear out their welcome. They wear it out, for me, about halfway through Hot Rocks. If the dadrock band is not called "MANICS" or "WHO", I am not interested, to give full disclosure. I only like the Stones in theory, because Mick Jagger is such a talentless, ugly man that it's fascinating - it's the ultimate triumph of someone who just really WANTED to be famous tricking the world into making him famous, based solely on personality. That's a kick ass thing, and he's great and fabulous for it; if he wasn't a "singer" he'd have been a tv presenter or actor, just because he really wanted to be a star. It of course works both ways - Mick might be ugly and unable to hit a note with a hammer, but the rest of the band are so dull that no one would've bought them without Mick.
As for FT: what are you talking about, "when you factor in all the contributors..."? As far as I can tell, 90% of any activity on this site comes from Tom. What, because you, Solinger, posted a Destiny's Child piece (which, I might add, is like the 5th piece on that song on NYLPM - can we give it a rest people? At least review a DIFFERENT DC song, look for their album on Napster or something), suddenly it's all pop and sunshine and glory? Tom does post a lot about pop music because there is a lot about pop music on this site and the contributors here are LAZY SODS, including myself, who don't write anything a good portion of the time. I mean, what is Pop Eye if not about Pop? Poor Tom, getting maligned on being a wuss rocker when he does so much work. :)
And where do I fit in, not really liking the Stones and REALLY hating the Smiths? :)
as far as the albums go, i was trying to be fair to both the manics and the stones. clearly you could give or take albums, depending on your particular opinion!
the stones have accumulated a great "legend" over the years and, going back to the weezer thread, very little of it fuels my interest in the group. besides jagger and everything surrounding him, who is a source of personal inspiration.
my comments about f.t. were meant to be taken as tongue-in-cheek. clearly none of us would be here, that is to say in this forum, if it weren't for tom and his ideas about pop.
and you fit in as that very rare hybrid, the manics-who worshipper. ;)
As for me being a party-pooper -- hm, you mean my disdain for singles last year, or my disdain in general? ;-)
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 22 March 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink
Woops, was that fontswitch my fault? I forgot to close the endtag. I just thought it screwed up my message, but it appears to be screwing up everyones?? I just ended the tag, so maybe it'll look normal again?
A long time ago, galaxies away, I went through a brief period of trying to like them, but everything about them rubbed me the wrong way: voice, style, lyrics, attitude, general crankiness. I just couldn't stand them -- they always sounded like a glorified dumb bar- band. I gave up, and then I realized that it's okay to dislike bands that rock critics think are classic.
And I like the Smiths, so I guess that makes me a pussy.
― Ian White, Friday, 23 March 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink
Some further thoughts: for me The Stones are year zero, i don't care about Elvis or any other blues guys they ripped off. and with year zero's you just need a lot of mythology, I would say mythology + intensity + riffs = rock 'n roll. Now regardless of The Stones becoming old farts, I immediatly forget when I put on "Beggar's Banquet" or "Let it "Bleed", for that moment you live in that record and what you get is: psychotic cops cracking skulls, cities burning, lots of knife-pulling, mountains of drugs, under-age girls, armies of rapists flooding the streets, the danger of getting hit by a stray bullit at any moment. Now, in real life I'm a very sweet, liberal, no- violent guy, but this shit excites me. :) Anyone remember the way Guy Pellaert drew them in "Rock Dreams"? A bunch of English dandy's dressed up in SS uniforms drinking tea with naked little girls on their laps. So you see why I don't really find The Smiths very interesting ;)
― Omar, Friday, 23 March 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink
With the Stones though, the cult of Mick n' Keef is far more important than the actual music. The court cases, publicity stunts, Brian Jones' death, Altamont etc all loom large over the music. The press seem to perpetuate this to such a ridiculous level - I mean who wants to hear about Altamont again and again? If you strip all this away and get back to the music it's pretty obvious that Jagger is a fairly average singer and that a lot of their material lacks the kind of excitement that you might expect it would have if you'd read about it first.
― Dr. C, Friday, 23 March 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink
― Patrick, Friday, 23 March 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink
Also I was talking more about the mythology in the music itself, the images of the lyrics (although eventually the spilled out into the real world). All those tales of debauchery eventually become stale, though Nick Kent's 'Twilight Babylon'(in The Dark Stuff) is a great read about the Stones in the 70s, very sick and amusing. Also some brilliant characterizations esp. of Mick 'n Bianca Jagger (man, did he see through them :)
As for Rock Dreams, it's a great book but the whole Godstar decadence trip on the Stones didn't wash with me. It would have worked better for Led Zep I think. Generally though it makes the best case for classic rock and pop of any book out there - some of the images are just magnificent, capturing everything you need to know about a star in one image (the Brian Wilson one stands out).
― Tom, Friday, 23 March 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink
aside from the odd single ("under my thumb" may be my favourite), a ho-hum dud i wouldn't bother thinking about if they weren't so acclaimed. stiff and wooden rhythm section, mechanical faux-blues vocals. give me the stooges any day. "hand in glove," "handsome devil," or "what she said" are infinitely heavier, more biting, harder rocking, and more dangerous (since when is macho more threatening than effeminate?). in fact, the idea of the stones, an institution as thoroughly mainstream as kellogg's corn flakes, being threatening at all is positively hilarious.
ah well. better get back to stephin merritt and iancu dumitrescu.
― sundar subramanian, Friday, 23 March 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink
I'm prepared to throw my theory out, although since i was re-reading The Dark Stuff I noticed how Kent was fascinated by Mozzer's fear for thugs, crowds and rude violent behaviour (I put 2 and 2 together and built myself a hypothesis, nothing to serious, so I'll take those comments on the wooden rhythm section & the heavyosity of The Smiths with a pinch of salt).
― the pinefox, Friday, 23 March 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink
― Mike Bourke, Friday, 23 March 2001 01:00 (12 years ago) Permalink
― Roger Fascist, Friday, 26 July 2002 00:00 (10 years ago) Permalink
― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 13:02 (10 years ago) Permalink
― alex in mainhattan (alex63), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 13:41 (10 years ago) Permalink
― Mike (mratford), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 14:13 (10 years ago) Permalink
― Ben Williams, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 14:46 (10 years ago) Permalink
― wl, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 15:34 (10 years ago) Permalink
"Oh, I bet they'd be billionaire marrionette ghouls by now..."
― g.cannon (gcannon), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 15:50 (10 years ago) Permalink
― Yancey (ystrickler), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 16:16 (10 years ago) Permalink
― Jody Beth Rosen, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 17:02 (10 years ago) Permalink
plus, coming right after one of my favorite albums, Hard Promises, it really kinda suffers in comparison.
― scott seward, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 13:54 (3 months ago) Permalink
least essential petty album? if you had to choose. i really do think those first two songs make the album and everything else on it is just okay.
― scott seward, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 13:55 (3 months ago) Permalink
He's not fond of it either.
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 13 February 2013 14:08 (3 months ago) Permalink
This seems as good a thread as any to make fun of the band for pricing its tickets so high that apparently sales are lagging (relatively speaking). A lot of spin going on, so hard to get the full story, but it seems sort of a fiasco all around, though I'm sure the band is still getting paid.
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 15 May 2013 02:08 (1 week ago) Permalink
My understanding is that a lot of it can be put down to Watts. He despises touring, so he ups his price ridiculously every time they're about to go out, thinking no way will management be able to swing that. Problem is, the management/promoters keep meeting his price, necessitating higher ticket prices.
― Tarfumes The Escape Goat, Wednesday, 15 May 2013 02:18 (1 week ago) Permalink
I just read the Stanley Booth book for the first time. An out and masterpiece. Seeing these ticket stories reminds me of Jagger telling Booth that he wanted to do the whole '69 tour for free, but logistics ruled it out. "You think you're rich, but then you try to buy a table or something, and yer accountants all 'oh no!'".
― Sheela-Tubb-Mann, You Real Know-It-All (C. Grisso/McCain), Wednesday, 15 May 2013 03:38 (1 week ago) Permalink
lol
― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Wednesday, 15 May 2013 03:59 (1 week ago) Permalink
i want them to make an electronic dance album where mick plays up his creepy old man schtick, whispering unspeakable things over a minimalist groove. it's the only way forward. this is my favorite band, probably, and they are too good for this retro "play the classics" touring shit they've been doing for the past 95 years or whatever
― Treeship, Wednesday, 15 May 2013 04:12 (1 week ago) Permalink
i think the reason they are still alive is because the universe wants them to make one more great album. i think this will happen, but i don't think it will sound like anything they've done before.
― Treeship, Wednesday, 15 May 2013 04:13 (1 week ago) Permalink
I think the reason they are still alive is because they collectively have a 10% share in the universe.
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 15 May 2013 14:01 (1 week ago) Permalink
http://dangerousminds.net/comments/what_a_drag_it_is_getting_old_the_rolling_stones_then_and_now
This time, before there could be any serious preparations for a 50th anniversary tour – something Richards wanted to see happen – Jagger made it plain that there would have to be some sort of reckoning. The details of whatever transpired between the two men remain private, but as Wood commented, things were “tense and awkward.” There was even a rumor that Richards’ position as the Rolling Stones’ rhythm guitarist might be in peril. Some thought he was having trouble playing – that perhaps his hands were growing afflicted with arthritis or that his steady intake of alcohol affected his musical agility
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 15 May 2013 15:19 (1 week ago) Permalink
was talking to a friend of mine last weekend who was taken along to their show in Oakland - he got in for free, tix were $600 and they weren't even on ground level/floor. insane.
― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 15 May 2013 15:39 (1 week ago) Permalink
i want them to make an electronic dance album where mick plays up his creepy old man schtick, whispering unspeakable things over a minimalist groove.
Mick beat you to it, bro
― A deeper shade of lol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 15 May 2013 15:42 (1 week ago) Permalink
Yeah I've noticed keiths playing recently in clips
Shine a Light was the first time I really noticed how bad they were
― jay-z's ansari (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 15 May 2013 19:13 (1 week ago) Permalink
can we talk about the eternal lol that is the Bridges to Babylon cover
― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 15 May 2013 19:24 (1 week ago) Permalink
ok, that top video in the dangerousminds link above is truly...awful
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lLRD1R8GNgY#t=85s
― your holiness, we have an official energy drink (Z S), Wednesday, 15 May 2013 21:10 (1 week ago) Permalink
1:25 in. ouch.
and that's an official rolling stones promotional video! they put that in there on purpose! to highlight it!!
― your holiness, we have an official energy drink (Z S), Wednesday, 15 May 2013 21:11 (1 week ago) Permalink
good lord that part where gwen stefani is barely able to sing wild horses while the rolling stones are barely able to play wild horses is BRUTAL
― jay-z's ansari (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 15 May 2013 21:47 (1 week ago) Permalink
jenifer divine 7 hours ago
YOU- ROLLING STONES- YOU ARE JUST GOING THROUGH THE MOTIONS- Keith can't even play his guitar with any proficiency whatsoever- and Mick is so horribly off-key its pathetic-
the ROLLING CLONES SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES!!!
i've heard better from cheesy lounge bands playing in crappy off-Strip Vegas casinos
― A deeper shade of lol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 15 May 2013 21:48 (1 week ago) Permalink
Keith looks deeply bored/catatonic. Mick trying hard but he is basically a grandma.
― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 15 May 2013 21:55 (1 week ago) Permalink
seriously, i was barely able to watch! i stopped the video 10 seconds in, linked to it here, and closed the entire browser just to make sure
― your holiness, we have an official energy drink (Z S), Wednesday, 15 May 2013 21:56 (1 week ago) Permalink
I would pay more to see Watts playing solo than to see him with the Stones at this point.
― Tarfumes The Escape Goat, Wednesday, 15 May 2013 22:02 (1 week ago) Permalink
yeah that's painful to see, close your eyes and apart from mick's voice there's nothing to indicate you're not listening to some shitty anonymous bar band. not that i blame them too much for not giving much of a fuck after like six decades but it seems cruel to charge innocent ppl $600 for this.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Wednesday, 15 May 2013 22:05 (1 week ago) Permalink
I actually think this performance from a few years ago is quite good
― A deeper shade of lol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 15 May 2013 22:06 (1 week ago) Permalink
I've seen the band be good and the band be bad, which is a sign to me that the band at least knows the difference between being good and being bad. One bad show I saw, Ron Wood's guitar pooped out, and mid song he simply strolled to the tech and struck up a conversation while the guitar was looked at, then slung the replacement over his should and walked back to his spot. Walked. This was mid-song. (After the tour Wood would return to rehab.) Another not so awesome show of theirs, a writer next to me who was covering for MOJO was apparently left a message by Mick Jagger himself that the band would be better the next night. And apparently the band was better!
The story I'd heard is that Keith suffers from arthritis in his hands, and that getting his playing in shape was the number reason they did not tour last year. But I guess there's only so much you can do.
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 15 May 2013 22:13 (1 week ago) Permalink
I feel bad kinda, the Stones were sort of uniquely ill suited to old age, they rely on that energy, whereas like Neil and Dylan were kinda already old weirdos....and like McCartney ultimately can rely on such sturdy classic pop tunes that don't really require athleticism.....probably amazing the stones persisted as long as they did....I guess The Who is in the same boat
― jay-z's ansari (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Thursday, 16 May 2013 01:01 (1 week ago) Permalink
there are some interview clips w/ keith on youtube where he's answering ppl's questions (i'm guessing they were little promotional spots for his biography) and you can very clearly see the arthritis in his fingers - big swollen joints, and not the smoking kind
― Ward Fowler, Thursday, 16 May 2013 07:44 (1 week ago) Permalink
Glastonbury should be interesting. its going to be live on TV over here too. live! on the tv! all 2 hours of it...
― piscesx, Thursday, 16 May 2013 10:09 (1 week ago) Permalink
also Macca having a young band every time out helps.
― piscesx, Thursday, 16 May 2013 10:10 (1 week ago) Permalink
plus, the recent cover story in rolling stone suggests, there may be affects from the medication keith still takes because of his "fall from a tree" (something neurological?). whatever, keith obviously lacks dexterity. but maybe there's too much of a microscope on him, people calibrating what he can do now vs what he could do then. because as i witnessed recently in newark -- from $150 seats, not $600 -- is that the push and pull of their rhythm remains unparalleled. that's why i keep going. love this band.
― Thus Sang Freud, Thursday, 16 May 2013 11:06 (1 week ago) Permalink
effects. jeez.
― Thus Sang Freud, Thursday, 16 May 2013 11:31 (1 week ago) Permalink
Keith hasn't exactly ever been the most nimble of guitarists. That's been a lot of his charm. Charlie is always solid, Ron is up and down as support, Mick is in remarkable shape, bassist has the easiest job in the world (story goes he was hired because he was the least familiar with the catalog; also, supposedly he plays most of the parts with just his thumb, to keep his fusion chops in check). The only reasons I can think for the band sucking, or at least being really erratic, are a) have't practiced enough b) arrogant enough to think they're good enough and c) don't really give a shit. Or all three.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 16 May 2013 11:51 (1 week ago) Permalink
regarding c), When was the last time they did?
― Mark G, Thursday, 16 May 2013 11:57 (1 week ago) Permalink
Well, per my anecdote just above, they do try harder some nights than others. But there's a cool, sloppy "don't give a shit" and then there's a mercenary "really don't give a shit."
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 16 May 2013 11:59 (1 week ago) Permalink
See, there's been a whole bunch about how the tickets haven't sold hugely..
I remember about 15 years ago, a colleague had bought 2 full-price tickts for Wembley Arena (fairly sure it was there), come the day another lad in the office went up on the off-chance and got 2 tickets from a tout, and ended up with better seats. Also, they were within view of the colleague who was sat further up, behind.
― Mark G, Thursday, 16 May 2013 12:00 (1 week ago) Permalink
There's only been a modest blurt about it, I thought, about a week ago, with massive spin from the RS camp re: how soft sales have actually been. I do know the last time they played here, and end of the season football stadium date where the temp. dropped down to the low 50s, maybe lower, the stadium was supposedly half full.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 16 May 2013 12:03 (1 week ago) Permalink
also wonder if mick taylor isn't along mostly as insurance, in case keith doesn't feel up to finishing a particular gig.
― Thus Sang Freud, Thursday, 16 May 2013 12:48 (1 week ago) Permalink
(story goes he was hired because he was the least familiar with the catalog; also, supposedly he plays most of the parts with just his thumb, to keep his fusion chops in check)
Hadn't heard that about Jones' lack of familiarity with the catalog, but the choice of bassist was left completely up to Watts.
― Tarfumes The Escape Goat, Thursday, 16 May 2013 13:27 (1 week ago) Permalink
So are you guys buying Mikal Gilmore's story that Keith's drinking and/or arthritis have taken a toll on his ability to play?
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 16 May 2013 13:59 (1 week ago) Permalink
How did you research for the audition?I didn't research much. Basically, I got a few of their "best of" records and listened and played along. Instead of learning Bill Wyman's parts verbatim and then trying to sound like him, I learned the form of the songs and the general shape of the bass lines, and then I added my own interpretations. I felt it was important to play in my own style so they would be hiring me for me. On certain songs, however, I play the lines note-for- note because they're essential parts--like in "Start Me Up" and "Satisfaction."
I didn't research much. Basically, I got a few of their "best of" records and listened and played along. Instead of learning Bill Wyman's parts verbatim and then trying to sound like him, I learned the form of the songs and the general shape of the bass lines, and then I added my own interpretations. I felt it was important to play in my own style so they would be hiring me for me. On certain songs, however, I play the lines note-for- note because they're essential parts--like in "Start Me Up" and "Satisfaction."
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 16 May 2013 14:02 (1 week ago) Permalink
it's been a long run for keith though, all things considered xpost.
bob dylan said that the rolling stones ceased being "the rolling stones" once bill left, and that they are now a "second rate funk band" or something like that. this was in an interview.
― Treeship, Thursday, 16 May 2013 14:06 (1 week ago) Permalink
Interesting re: Jones quote.
― Tarfumes The Escape Goat, Thursday, 16 May 2013 14:07 (1 week ago) Permalink
Maybe a combination of the two, but certainly the latter. I'd been hearing that from people who would know for a couple of years.
Man, I've got a couple of awesome Keith drinking stories. The first was told to me by Taylor Hackford, who directed "Hail! Hail! Rock n Roll." He had visited Keith's house, and of course, the drinking began early. But just when Hackford was ready to call it a day (morning?) Keith decided to go horse riding, and Hackford sensibly bowed out and watched rather than, you know, die. He (like others) determined that what kills so many, like Gram Parsons, is trying to keep up with Keith when you should really know when the quit.
The other was this video director, or producer?, who wanted to use a Stones video in one of those Director's Series DVD collections. He shows up to Keith's house in Connecticut, and is surprised at the lack of security or anything. In fact, Keith answered the door himself and invited him in. I guess someone had given him a new satellite radio system, and he was fascinated with it, so he and this producer whose name I forget spent a few hours drinking and playing with the new toy. Then, after all that time had passed, Keith turns to him and asks, politely: "So, who are you, and what can I do for you?"
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 16 May 2013 14:07 (1 week ago) Permalink
Bob Dylan has said he thinks The Rolling Stones aren't "real" enough without original bassist Bill Wyman in the band.
In an interview with MTV producer Bill Flanagan to promote his new album 'Together Through Life', Dylan said he regards The Rolling Stones as a mere "funk band" without Wyman on board.
The bassist quit the band in 1990, after nearly three decades service.
"I'm not saying they don't keep going, but they need Bill," he said. "Without him they're a funk band. They'll be the real Rolling Stones when they get Bill back."
Earlier in the interview, Dylan said he thinks The Rolling Stones are "pretty much finished," reports Bobdylan.com.
Flanagan then accused Dylan of being stuck in the '80s, before asking him if he really thinks The Rolling Stones are finished as a band.
"Of course not, they're far from finished," Dylan replied. "The Rolling Stones are truly the greatest rock and roll band in the world and always will be. The last too.
"Everything that came after them, metal, rap, punk, new wave, pop-rock, you name it...you can trace it all back to The Rolling Stones. They were the first and the last and no one's ever done it better."
― waterface, Thursday, 16 May 2013 14:07 (1 week ago) Permalink
quite generous, I reckons... (re: Dylan Quote)
― Mark G, Thursday, 16 May 2013 14:08 (1 week ago) Permalink
xpost I think if you're coming off of Miles Davis, you don't need to put a lot of thought into the Stones.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 16 May 2013 14:08 (1 week ago) Permalink
his forefinger and middle finger look pretty fucked up, and this is from 9 years ago
― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 16 May 2013 17:49 (1 week ago) Permalink
smoking & drinking a lot is obv not going to do much good for an inflammatory disease
― jay-z's ansari (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Thursday, 16 May 2013 17:54 (1 week ago) Permalink
I remember talking with people about Richards in the Scorsese "Blues" series on PBS (from a couple years after that clip) and how none of us could get past how warped his hands were. Can't find any clips on youtube (other than one w/Clapton).
― Sheela-Tubb-Mann, You Real Know-It-All (C. Grisso/McCain), Thursday, 16 May 2013 18:51 (1 week ago) Permalink