The Rolling Stones

jack white · Post by **jack white** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 3:07 pm

going to see them for the second time in the next few weeks and i'm actually getting quite excited.
i find this surprising because normally i'd have an aversion to big, stadium-esque show. i know some might scoff at the pretentiousness of that, but for me intimacy is a factor. secondly is the fact that it's guys nearing 70 prancing and cavorting like teenagers (if only teenagers did cavort and carryon like that mind, eh?)

but i my fears are pretty easily dispelled when it comes to the stones: for simply, i love them. the catalogue is surpassed only by bob, i find; and even though i'll only be getting "the hits" the stones have more, and better, hits than anyone else.
about the second point is that, why not? why shouldn't they be allowed to be as seemingly undignified as they want? don't they have a right to make the rules and tour at their whim? is it even that? who said you had to retire from rock n roll? the only ones that shouldn't have retired, died.

twentysixdollars · Post by **twentysixdollars** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 3:34 pm

I don't have any problem with them (there are some devout fans here), but they certainly don't excite me. Sticky Fingers is the one album of theirs that I return to on an occasional basis. Their catalogue is big and amazingly consistent and they've earned their right to rock out well into the twenty-second century.

Shaun · Post by **Shaun** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 3:44 pm

Mid to late 80's onwards what hits have there been ? It seems there's been more Greatest Hits albums than actually any genuine hits. I saw them on the Urban Jungle or Steel Wheels tour, a long time ago anyway. I'm not even sure if Bill had already packed it in by then. It was at Wembley and as a day out it was very good, but now for how much a ticket would cost per whatever stadium, I can't see any value in buying a ticket. I think there's very few bands I would go and see at a big stadium now, and even less at a venue like the NEC. Last time for either was Roger Waters at Hyde Park and same man at Earls Court. Those places (and the same can be said for The Stones I guess) have long lost any appeal IMO, just wish i was born 20 years earlier. But have a great gig anyway.

Now at a push I might be tempted to see G 'n' R at a stadium but without Slash ?? I'd avoid them in an arena.

On a side note........I've heard the ZEP might be reforming to tour soon. I'd buy into that anywhere, I would with the Floyd too.

Post by **spzretent** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 4:19 pm

Jack:
Their shows are always good. And they do really care about pleasing the stadium show goers. Especially if you aren't fussed about going to a stadium gig.
As I have said before, they may have released some real crap records post Black & Blue or even Tattoo You but the balance of their catalog is really quite amazing.
But if an artist's creative juices are still flowing and they want to write new songs and I think the Stones have earned that right. Even if I dont like 90% of the records from the 80's to present.
So yeah, I love em!

alan_cohaul · Post by **alan_cohaul** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:04 am

Mick Taylor era Stones is just deadly. "Exile On Main Street" is my obvious favorite (quite cliche by now, but it really is their best....). "Sticky Fingers", had it been a double album and maintained it's consistency through rock, blues, folk, country and gospel (making it, much like "Exile..." a multifaceted album that they haven't equalled since), would be my favorite, and pound for pound, I think that "Sticky Fingers" might be my favorite rock n' roll album of all time. Mick Taylor's solo on "Sway" is fucking mindblowing, the technique and control. Together, the Mick Taylor era Stones form, I think, the best rock n' roll ever.--I don't know if I really go on an album by album basis, more like the whole era. Plus, they sound like they're gonna fall apart at any given time...the songs are really loose, plus the infighting and drug busts are kinda hard to re-create.

I just read a cool article on the Muscle Shoals guys that recorded three of those "Sticky Fingers" tracks--"You Gotta Move", "Brown Sugar", and "Wild Horses". Apparently, the Stones never paid to record there! They didn't use any compression on the Muscle Shoals songs....because there was no compressor in the building, and they used a minimal setup on the drums, it was 3 mics on Charlie's drums. So sometimes less= more.....alot of engineers and bands forget that the simplicity and organic nature of those recordings was because they did things pared down, from mic setups, to everything.

http://www.prosoundweb.com/recording/br ... ugar.shtml

IMHO, "Black And Blue" started the string of shitty albums....and IMHO, Keith Richards on his own, isn't as good as the Stones' legend might suggest. And i'm a HUGE Keith fan....but without the multitasking, versatility, prettiness and meticulousness that Brian Jones added, and with the great soloing and brilliant guitar playing capability of Mick Taylor and his often uncredited roles in writing songs, it's evident that Keith taking on the lion's share of guitars is not the greatest idea. He played most of "Black And Blue", Ronnie joined after they started I believe, and only played on a couple of tracks, and it was the first non-Mick Taylor album of that time, and "Let It Bleed" is mostly Keith, with the best moment coming from Mick Taylor with the leads on "Gimme Shelter". That being said, "Black And Blue" does have a few good moments.

Post by **spzretent** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 5:13 am

I disagree about Black & Blue. I find that record pretty amazing. And brother do I know I am in the minority w/that opinion. Its diverse. its funk-ay! C'mon...Hand Of Fate?
Its Only R&R was pretty crap but even that has its moments ie; Short & Curlies.
I'd say the crap era started w/Tattoo You. I still dislike that record to this day.

Post by **runcible** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:31 pm

Personally I find the sequence of Beggars Banquet through Exile to be sort of the most perfect series of albums ever made. It still stands out as potentially the most consistent period of quality of any great recording artist. All 4 albums are outstanding with endless classic songs, inspired playing and a focused direction that still floors me with every listen. So many of the songs that don't get as much attention as others ('Parachute Woman', 'Jigsaw Puzzle', 'Dead Flowers') are amazing.

Worth tracking down is the 'Alternative Sticky Fingers' that has been doing the rounds for a while. There are lots of great moments there, particularly a stripped down version of 'All Down The Line' which just oozes charm and warmth.

Last word is for 'Satanic Majesty's Request' which features a few fantastic tracks - '2000 Man', '2000 Light Years From Home' and 'Lantern', plus what is easily my favourite Stones song, 'She's A Rainbow', which never fails to make me smile.

alan_cohaul · Post by **alan_cohaul** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:51 am

runcible wrote:
Worth tracking down is the 'Alternative Sticky Fingers' that has been doing the rounds for a while. There are lots of great moments there, particularly a stripped down version of 'All Down The Line' which just oozes charm and warmth.

Was "All Down The Line" supposed to be on Sticky Fingers? That was otherwise from "Exile". I've downloaded the Alternative Sticky Fingers, but haven't listened to much of it yet.

jack white · Post by **jack white** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:20 am

runcible wrote:'She's A Rainbow', which never fails to make me smile.

She's A Rainbow > loves She Comes In Colors

never really could get on board with satanic majesties. it's often a lovely, fun and touching record (and a million miles better than the po-faced, humourless Sgt. Pepper's) but it just doesn't reach the depth, with the power of the big four (and even a handful of their other records).

Black & Blue maybe gets unfair stick, certainly being sandwiched between It's Only Rock N' Roll (itself overrated and overshadowed by the title track) and Some Girls maybe doesn't help. i'd put it on the lower end of the stones' more average records, but there is still one or two pretty fine numbers. i think by that time though, what i ascertain to be micks influence coming on to be the main voice. there seems to be a peroid post-Exile where Keith drifts to the background creatively and mick is steering the ship. it's not a stones-era i'm particularly devoted to, but certainly Black & Blue has enough tricks up its sleeve to hold it's own against the lesser stones records.

the king though is Let It Bleed (and You Got The Silver). i think i'm finally settled into my second favourite record ever (after Appetite) with it.

Post by **runcible** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:34 pm

jack white wrote: She's A Rainbow > loves She Comes In Colors

never really could get on board with satanic majesties. it's often a lovely, fun and touching record (and a million miles better than the po-faced, humourless Sgt. Pepper's)

I'll stick up for Sgt Pepper here. I've had a huge Beatles phase for about 8 months. Despite having loved them since I was a kid I love them even more now. I rediscovered Pepper this year after regarding it as one of those records you've heard way too often and therefore can't really play again. It's a really incredible album without a single dull moment. The song-writing is extraordinary, the breadth of styles astonishing. I don't find it po-faced in the slightest; instead I feel warmth, sunshine, hippy-ness and a genuinely rounded feel. The title track, When I'm 64, With A Little Help From My Friends... all feel positive, yet they contrast with the tragedy of She's Leaving Home brilliantly.

Seriously, it's one of those albums I can't fault. Not too many of those. I mentioned a few in the Nevermind (which is one of them) thread - Perfect Prescription, LGM, Revolver, Heart of the Congos. I'm sure a few shouts of Pet Sounds will be heard now too.

mojo filters · Post by **mojo filters** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:05 pm

I agree 'She Comes in Colours' is a far superior song, and a very good pointer as to the direction and development that 'Forever Changes' took, whilst retaining some of that punkier Love sound from Da Capo.

As a Beatles fan since a small kid I've never rated Pepper above either 'Revolver' or the mighty swansong that is 'Abbey Road' (my personal favourite).

But I totally agree with your remarks about the juxtaposition of the cheery tracks playlisted next to gems like 'She's Leaving Home' and the timeless 'A Day in The Life', though I'd be tempted to suggest the less impressive (relatively speaking) tunes, specifically 'When I'm 64', serve as comparative adjuncts to highlight the better tracks on that album.

What is frustrating when evaluating Pepper is the knowlege of the recording timeline of the tracks that made up the re-released 'Magical Mystery Tour' EP due to the convention of not putting singles on albums then. Personally I think had they been ignored, an album truly worthy of the acclaim it's received could have been produced. The flip side of that POV is we might never have got to hear as many officially released tracks as we have.

As for The Stones, Mick Taylor's contribution deserves far more public recognition, and in my opinion contributed to their finest work.

Post by **runcible** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:30 pm

Well that's fair enough, but I still rate every track, including When I'm 64. Sure its one of those more obvious Beatles songs (I heard them described as 'Granny tracks' by someone I know), but then they did a few of those: Hello Goodbye (which is brilliant), Ob-La-Di (which I have grown to love), Bungalo Bill... Not to mention the out and out kids songs like Yellow Submarine and Octopus' Garden.

The 2nd side of Abbey Road is something I have only really started to marvel at. It's truly fantastic and has a flow that takes some beating. Side 1 sort of reduces the album's overall value for me though.

mojo filters wrote:
As for The Stones, Mick Taylor's contribution deserves far more public recognition, and in my opinion contributed to their finest work.

That sums up the Stones golden era as far as I'm concerned. Can't be a coincidence that he's on all my favourite Stones albums really - the ones I mentioned earlier as the best sequence of music by any of the great bands. Spot on Mojo dude.

Shaun · Post by **Shaun** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:20 pm

and "Let It Bleed" is mostly Keith, with the best moment coming from Mick Taylor with the leads on "Gimme Shelter".

A fantastic track that 'Gimme Shelter' is. One of the best moments (well one of my favourite bits) is Merry Clayton singing. Who's heard the Ruth Copeland cover ?? Now she does fantastically well and doesn't disappoint but don't match Merry Clayton's power. On the same cover Eddie Hazel is on lead, now he does match Mick Taylor and then some.

a beautiful noise · Post by **a beautiful noise** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:45 pm

how the hell did we get on the topic of the beatles?? mojo, runci, jiggy, i'm looking at all of you!

now back on the topic of how the rolling stones are the greatest band of all time!

continue....

edit!

except for the velvet underground, who, as you all know are the absolute BESTEST.

carry on...

Shaun · Post by **Shaun** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:57 pm

Guilty by association.....

mojo filters · Post by **mojo filters** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:06 pm

Guilty by...err..contribution

Post by **BzaInSpace** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 4:29 pm

Hey jack i hope you enjoy it, always one of these bands I would want too see once. I really, really hope they play 'Rocks off'! I saw footage of them from a recent tour doing this and while it was slick, professional and sung clearly [everything the original Exile track wasn't] it was still amazing.

Shaun · Post by **Shaun** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:48 pm

What do they actually sound like in concert now ? Those tracks, you know the ones that were down right dirty, filthily and to the point where they were way too hot and sexy, what do they sound like now ? It's easy to picture Mick running across a huge stage at Twickenham, Millennium or some other huge stadium, but that alone can't make me want to buy into that, it doesn't convince me anymore. I always get the impression that there is some huge and spectacular stage show to kind of mask what i dread, and that is it's not actually all that good anymore.

But then are the Stones a victim of their own huge success ?? I think they played Brixton Academy last year (or the year before) and how do you get a ticket for a show like that !! Four thousand tickets available there, as opposed to sixty or seventy thousand in a huge stadium, but the stadium tickets you'd have a better percentage of getting a ticket. And is there the 'Gold Enclosure' tickets up the front ? So what do you end up with if there is, a glimpse of Mick running across the stage but a great view of a stage spectacular !!

What i'm trying to say, i guess, is; Do they still make those dirty tunes sound that sexy some thirty odd years later ? I'd be camping outside the stadium the night before if they did.

(i know i was born twenty years too late)

MUFCSPACEMAN · Post by **MUFCSPACEMAN** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 2:13 pm

twentysixdollars · Post by **twentysixdollars** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 3:05 pm

MUFCSPACEMAN wrote:The 'wow, a blood transfusion' Gillespie-endorsed mythology that makes everyone believe this band are in any way the 'epitome of rock' or 'a walk on the dark side' is a crock of shit. They don't rock that hard or sexily. Never did, never will.

Agree so far...

Here's a clue, if you are over 20 and own a Wii, please don't talk about what constitutes rock.

Oooh, snap!

please don't even bring Love into this, another band who need a complete and total year zero re-evaluation to extricate the music from all the accepted same-old same-old opinions that surround it.

There's no way I'm letting you suck my beloved Arthurly into your sick, twisted revisionist apparatus. There's just no fucking way. So what if he only released 1 1/2 masterpieces? That's still more than 1.

MUFCSPACEMAN · Post by **MUFCSPACEMAN** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 3:06 pm

Shaun · Post by **Shaun** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 3:22 pm

Step around that and pay no mind.

Already have and think i will.....

jack white · Post by **jack white** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 7:52 pm

i'm a little embarrassed for them, that the two more verbose members of the board fail to appreciate the similar magic of the Wii as that found in Rock n' Roll. and particularly for them to try and use it as some sort of weapon... i'm disappointed actually. oh well.

the who? gimme a break. alright for a bit of macho flexing, but did they ever hit the nerve as often as the stones? outside their first two singles?
did they ever hit the nerve as deep as the stones? most definitely not. where's the who's Sweet Virginia?

again, while Zeppelin were locked into a more similar trip as peak-Stones they never possessed the subtlety to fully master it. (and maybe by the time that came round they'd hit a relatively different road.

the Love reference was a innocent gesture to the brilliance of She's A Rainbow.
the denominator between the two numbers is that Arthur has reportedly (i believe this is in the liner notes of the reissue?) said the stones wrote their number based on his. fair play for a comparison on a relatively solid link i'd say.

the stooges? unimpeachable (well not really), but the stones are all that. were all that. whatever.
slane tomorrow, will just have started actually. looks like rain...

Shaun · Post by **Shaun** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:19 pm

jack white wrote:
again, while Zeppelin were locked into a more similar trip as peak-Stones they never possessed the subtlety to fully master it. (and maybe by the time that came round they'd hit a relatively different road.

Filp that around and you'll hear they probably never even wanted, or needed, to find that subtlety. Yeah they were on a different road, perhaps.

looks like rain...

Oh dear, drink loads and you won't notice it....

MUFCSPACEMAN · Post by **MUFCSPACEMAN** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:30 pm

Post by **runcible** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:03 pm

MUFCSPACEMAN wrote: Prime Who also = a million times better a live band than the Stones ever will be. Or Led fucking Zeppelin.

Personally I think The Who are possibly the most over rated 'great' band I can think of. (awaits $26 trying to trump me with The Doors)

Better than Led Zep? Not a chance.

Anyway, this is all down to opinions, same as the rest of our debates.

alan_cohaul · Post by **alan_cohaul** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:00 am

MUFCSPACEMAN wrote:This thread drives me crackers on about 8 different levels.

Here's what I think. The Rolling Stones are just a good rock n roll band who made a few great records. The 'wow, a blood transfusion' Gillespie-endorsed mythology that makes everyone believe this band are in any way the 'epitome of rock' or 'a walk on the dark side' is a crock of shit. They don't rock that hard or sexily. Never did, never will.

I agree that the Stones released some duds. I can't listen to most of "Between The Buttons"....i'm just not really sure what they were trying to do with that album. Keith is repeatedly "off" at many times on Stones albums, Mick is often out of his vocal range or style. "Sticky Fingers" sounds like it's gonna fall apart at any given moment (that's what I love).

BUT....and a big but....the difference between the Stones and all the other bands that you mention as being better down below in your argument, is that I don't think that any of them took as many musical risks (aside from Zeppelin, who, I think, took the most musical risks as a band in music history, style-wise) as the Stones did. "Their Satanic Majesties Request" was their stab at psychedelia--not their greatest moment, but it shows a different side of them. "Beggar's Banquet" saw them honing their chops to the rootsy rock n' roll of the Mick Taylor era; "Let It Bleed" would arguably be considered a country album nowadays, and "Sticky Fingers" and "Exile On Main St." combine so many styles through killer rock, blues, folk, country, gospel, Americana, glam (check out how glam Mick and Keith were circa "Exile...") and 50's influenced rock---and probably a few other things. And even "Black And Blue" offends some fans because it's their stab at funk and reggae, for a good portion of it.

Throw that in with their earlier, garagier Chuck Berry infused rock, and you've got a pretty diverse palette there.

Whether the Stones were just trying to emulate the cool musical American styles of the day remains to really be seen; the pinnacle of the argument is that they actually changed up their style alot more than people actually give them credit for.

At least The Stooges justify that talk, the Stones don't. Never did, never will.

Huge Stooges fan here (i'm not sure how many more versions on top of the million that i've already got of "I Got A Right" that I need to hear though, hah hah hah). Not the same bands; different eras, different mandates. The Stooges were out for nihilism for nihilism's sake and they often went looking for it through their music--which was what I loved--whereas the Stones did what they did and that nihilism followed them around whether they created it or not (ie: Altamont riots---great book, BTW, Keith booting someone in the head, Brian Jones dying, etc). Iggy was also a big Jagger fan (probably moreso of Morrison), but Jagger inspired Iggy because Ig said something like "here you have this monotone guy, but he makes it work for himself in a rock context, he's got a good style" or something like that.

Go buy "The Who Sell Out". Prime Who also = a million times better a live band than the Stones ever will be.

I love the Who too, but for a different reason--they were more mod, more
powerpop (or what became to be known as powerpop), sort of in between the Beatles and the Stones, IMHO. Apples and oranges. And the Who never got as diverse as the Stones, nor as crafted as the Beatles, but they did rock hard, and did what they did very well and I like them in their own category because of that. No band ever made a "Who's Next" before or after--not even the Who.

I've often heard people say that Daltrey is the "poor man's Plant" or a monotone singer. ???? And the Who were never vying for the same territory as Zeppelin; Townshend didn't really like doing solos, whereas Zeppelin was all about the solos and showmanship.

Or Led fucking Zeppelin. Why are people still comparing "She Comes In Colors" and "She's A Rainbow"? They have four words in common, both songs feature ornate keyboard playing, nothing else.

Led Zeppelin= entirely different beast. I just finished reading the official "Stairway To Heaven" bio, and what people don't realize is that Led Zeppelin had to tour consistently, and they worked very hard for what they did. Another band that's in another category of their own, and sometimes their reach exceeded their grasp, style-wise, but I admire them for being able to experiment and try different styles.

Very underrated in the scheme of Led Zep's history--Page's ability as a producer (he produced the albums, getting that huge drum sound on tape often only with two or three mics), and JPJ's organ/ piano ability. There's a very strong sense of DIY-ness, in that Page would helm the recording sessions. In the case of John Paul Jones, he'd often play the bass parts live with Fender bass pedals, and play organ or piano at the same time. I talked to Terry Manning (he mixed "3"), and on "Since I've Been Loving You", John Paul Jones is fucking playing the bass parts with his feet, as well as the organ parts. Simultaneously. There's no actual bass on that track, it's foot pedals. The coordination of those two parts is....well, you'd need two musicians to normally do that. Plus, Terry said that Page pretty much improvised all the solos on "Since I've Been Loving You"...amazing, because it means that it wasn't laboured.

Plus, if you listen to Zep records closer, there's out of tune playing and errors all over the place. I love the fact that they were never afraid to leave in a bum note or two--the misconception is that they were perfectionists; to a certain degree, yes. But obviously not when you hear little things like Bonham's kick pedal squeaking, that they could have redone, and redone until those little flaws were out of the recordings.

twentysixdollars · Post by **twentysixdollars** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 2:48 am

runcible wrote: Personally I think The Who are possibly the most over rated 'great' band I can think of. (awaits $26 trying to trump me with The Doors)

Well at least both the Who and the Stones have some merit - that's more than can be said for the Doors!

Who v. Stones? I dunno. Much as I'd like to go along with MUFCSPACEMAN's sympathy for the underdog, I just can't mustre up a lot of excitement about this debate. The Stones clearly have the richer catalogue, although I prefer The Who Sings My Generation to any Stones album. It's Daltrey mostly that gets on my nerves, but also the lyrics. Mick doesn't get on my nerves, although the Stones' lyrics are often odious.

Shaun · Post by **Shaun** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 9:38 am

alan_cohaul wrote: I talked to Terry Manning (he mixed "3"), and on "Since I've Been Loving You", John Paul Jones is fucking playing the bass parts with his feet, as well as the organ parts. Simultaneously. There's no actual bass on that track, it's foot pedals.

Never realised that. No actual bass, that's mad.

alan_cohaul · Post by **alan_cohaul** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:25 pm

The Jig wrote:
alan_cohaul wrote: I talked to Terry Manning (he mixed "3"), and on "Since I've Been Loving You", John Paul Jones is fucking playing the bass parts with his feet, as well as the organ parts. Simultaneously. There's no actual bass on that track, it's foot pedals.

Never realised that. No actual bass, that's mad.

No kidding, eh? I was really confounded by that. JPJ really never got the credit that he deserved for that piano/ organ/ mellotron genius, just as Brian Jones never really got the credit for being the guy who was playing all the weird instruments in the Stones.

Sort of getting back to what one person was saying, at this point in the Stones' career, i'm pretty sure that I wouldn't pay the prices that they're charging for tickets, because the new versions of the old songs just don't tend to have the authenticity and fire that they originally did. But then again, that happens when you've played 'em a million times before. And they only play the same songs.....i'd love to hear "Sway", and tons of others, but they only play the obvious hits.

Important to note, though, even as late as '69, the Stones, in Keith's own words "weren't making money"....they were assets rich and everything and owned nice cars and houses, but they were still in debt from the cost of putting on shows, the limos, entourage, supporting drug habits, the cost of making albums, (fathering various children and having to pay expensive alimony, hahaaa) etc. So when they did the whole "branding thing" with the tongue/ lips, shirts, the merch explosion, that's only really when they started making big coin. They also played something insane, like, 350 shows in a year in the early days.

Shaun · Post by **Shaun** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:31 pm

They don't rock that hard or sexily. Never did, never will. At least The Stooges justify that talk, the Stones don't. Never did, never will..

They might not rock that hard but 'Gimme Shelter' is sexy and that's thanks to Merry Clayton. That's how i hear it. That's what that song gives out to me.

Shaun · Post by **Shaun** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:36 pm

JPJ really never got the credit that he deserved for that piano/ organ/ mellotron genius.

Knowing that now i agree with you. It also happens to be my favourite LZ track.

alan_cohaul · Post by **alan_cohaul** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:38 pm

I think that most people could probably agree that "Gimme Shelter" has a spooky, desolate vibe of despair that could scare most people shitless. I love how serious that song sounds. I love the Stones now, but even when I didn't like them, I had to admit that was a killer song. And I bet that's another one that Mick Taylor had an uncredited hand in writing. One gripe that I have with the Stones is Mick and Keith's propensity for not giving the proper writing credits throughout the years. Wyman was apparently furious over not getting credit for writing the main riff in either "Satisfaction" or "Jumpin' Jack Flash" (can't remember which, but I think it was one of those two).

Post by **BzaInSpace** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:55 pm

I think it was Jumping Jack Flash as I heard Keith dreamt the riff for Satisfaction. He dreamt it...

MUFCSPACEMAN · Post by **MUFCSPACEMAN** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 9:55 pm

twentysixdollars · Post by **twentysixdollars** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 1:23 am

OK, MUFCSPACEMAN, you like The Who. Point made. And you don't like the Stones. Point double-made.

But your primary basis for tarring the Stones is subjective (i.e., the "experience" of their music is lesser or "superficial"). Surely you realize that and realize that's not a legitimate (as we say in academia)gravamen for anything but personal listening habits. And, keeping that in mind, I don't think there's any call for being so strident. Your post doesn't seem to make any attempt to compare the two groups on any objective (or even pseudo-objective) level - nothing like "the Stones' albums are inconsistent" &c., just "the Stones are a lesser emotional experience than the Who". And, you know what, as someone who doesn't feel strongly either way, I disagree.

And bringing up a bunch of 70s exploitation pictures doesn't exactly strengthen your argument - although Driller Killer does have its moments. Remember, Last House was itself a distasteful ripoff of The Virgin Spring. RIP Bergman and all that.

In terms of musical invention I put the Who and the Stones about equal - maybe the Who get the nod, but it seems to me their inventions amount to exactly two that cancel each other out in terms of artistic merit (feedback? Thumbs up. Rock opera? Less so). There are many legitimate reasons for hating the Stones (misogyny, ubiquity, canonicity, etc.) but I don't think "worse than The Who" (or worse than anybody for that matter) counts.

You know all about me and The Byrds, but let's not give Gram more credit than he deserves. Remember, Keith was Gram's idol, not the reverse. They did influence one another a great deal, probably Gram influencing Keith more than the reverse, I'll admit. But there's no need for hyperbole.

Fuzzhead · Post by **Fuzzhead** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 1:41 am

MUFCSPACEMAN wrote: The rest of us men do know better. We already looked the devil in the eyes, already recognized the truth in Driller Killer, The Last House On The Left, The House On The Edge Of The Park. You think "Wild Horses" is some great emotional catharsis, but we KNOW "Now You're All Alone" is the real deal. There may be more of you, but we have a weapon on our side that you don't have, the truth. Build bridges and get over it, there's nothing personal here - just men and boys, baby, men and boys.

alan_cohaul · Post by **alan_cohaul** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 2:43 am

MUFCSPACEMAN wrote: What do you qualify as a musical risk? This just comes off like jargon, especially when you apply it to a catalogue as ultimately safe as the Stones' is.

Safe? You forget that they had to fight their way onto the charts in the early 60's--the musical cognizenti did not like them and their rough and ready stance--people routinely hated them--they caught on because they caught on with the fans because they busted their ass and played nearly every night in the early days. What part of that is safe? They played many nights to people throwing stuff, plus they got mobbed nearly every time they got off the stage by women who had scissors waiting to cut off their hair and tear off their clothes.

Do your musical research and read up on these bands before you start telling me that you think you know what's what. If they were "safe" after that, it's because they finally had the proper security and maybe they didn't have to play every night. They earned that right to play it safe.

But Alan, rootsy rock n' roll was always an essential part of the Stones make-up.

Not for "Between The Buttons" and your despised "Satanic Majesties' Request". If you slam them for deviating as with SMR, you can't go back and recant it with the fact that they've always been playing rootsy rock n' roll.

Again, the country trip, in a subliminal, uneducated kind of way (ie. they didn't know shit from shinola about country, Nashville from Bakersfield), was always a part of what the Stones were. But I'll concede, because that album does constitute an overt lean in a direction they hadn't conciously shown interest in before.
Again, though, patter aside, when you actually listen to it, it doesn't sound like that big a risk (Gram Parsons deserves a writing credit for his contributions to that lp, btw..big factor).

You forget that rock bands weren't really crossing over to the country side of things, where audiences of both genres would hate them for it (ie: Gram Parsons, while great, never rocked as hard, nor did Buffalo Springfield...and bands like the Eagles' idea of "rock" were quite soft). I'm saying that the country songs that the Stones did (ie: "Country Honk", "Sweet Virginia", "Dead Flowers") were not ironic stabs at Americana, they were the real deal. But they also had rock n' roll songs that would be to the dislike of the true "Nashville" scene.

Them not being from Nashville has no effect--Americans have wanted to be British ever since 1961 or '62, and Brits have wanted to be American ever since Elvis hit. Does that make their music less relevant? You could easily discard half of the classic bands out there if that would discredit their music, simply because they were not from that area.

What the hell is 'killer rock'?

"Bitch", "Turd On The Run", "All Down The Line", "Brown Sugar", "Shake Your Hips", "Sway", "Satisfaction", "Jumpin' Jack Flash", etc. Few bands in my collection have rocked harder. Not YOUR collection, MY collection. If that stuff doesn't make you move; fine. It always excites me, and whatever excites someone, to them is fine by me. It's not my forum to tell them what moves them.

I get the feeling that the Stones had already played quite a lot of 'killer rock' up to that point, and so shouldn't be congratulated further on it.

Chuck Berry ripped off his own songs ever since "Maybelline". Should we then discredit "Bye Bye Johnny" or "No Particular Place To Go"? Same song, same killer rock, different years.

'Rock', 'blues', 'folk', 'country' 'gospel', again, you could argue that they (and others, to better effect) had already been combining those for years - those forms are, and always were, their primary influences.

Few bands did it better than the Stones on Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street. Hell, the Stones haven't even done it since....

The more obliquely manifesting Gospel influence in their earlier work counts less than when they decided to go full hog and rent a black choir? To sound 'black'?

How many other rock bands wanted to sound "black"? Should we discredit them too? Let's just erase the history books because someone was influenced by something that wasn't their time, place, scene or era. We should most certainly scold Sam Phillips with this mentality.....

How is this especially germane to your point about risk-taking? Keith started painting his nails? Did they really break any new ground here, either by their own narrow standards or by any broader ones? No, it's pretty unvarying and trad, all told. The 'glam' thing is a pretty tenuous point.

Who said that the Stones were original? I'm saying that their combination of what they did was one of the biggest stylistic risks out there, and that the way that they combined it was original. The individual sources weren't, but the overall presentation, I think, was. I haven't heard albums that sound exactly like that, before, or after.

And boy, for all the variety and diversity you're attempting to credit them for, those 10 albums are uniformly boring to sit through if you're not in the mood for that particular stripe of hammy escapism.

Who said you had to sit through 10 albums? That's your own fault if you didn't shut them off after song two or whatever. I'm trying to figure out what your point is and who told you that you had to listen to that much Stones, dude. You're arguing only with yourself on this one, because no one else brought that up here.

So the Stones went a teensy bit 'reggae' on one record. Come on, a portion of every band's hardcore fanbase whines when their beloved heroes deviate even slightly from the formula, that's just the norm, has nothing to do with the wider issue.
Which is that none of this equals the level of caution-to-the-wind musical daring-do you're hinting at. A 'risk' isn't just leaning your sound slightly more in the direction of a new or different influence with every album you make. Break it down, and tell me how "No Expectations" or "Parachute Woman" are ultimately any kind of "musical risk". Then ask yourself if "I Can See For Miles" or anything off "Tommy" constitutes a risk. Even if you didn't like those records, you can't deny they add up to massive singleminded risks, and actually proved themselves as such.

Well, for starters, The Who are much, much better musicians than the Stones. In some ways, the Stones are the ultimate garage band, because they never really strayed that far from those primitive roots. What I like about the Stones is that they're daring because they're a bunch of wasted fuckups who try to branch out and step outside of what they did, because if you say that the stuff on "Out Of Their Heads" would fit on something like "Sticky Fingers", that would be inaccurate. It's more like i'm amazed that they'd attempt all that stuff, seeing as they weren't that skilled of musicians. They at least tried to step out of those boundaries of comfort, and whether they did that well or not depends on who you talk to.

I'm not even gonna go into The Who or the Stones comparisons; you seem to like to deride bands because they're not another band. Who said the Who and the Stones were even competing for the same territory in anything but your argument? I enjoy them for completely different reasons, and i'm not saying one band is more "radical" than the other, I just like the fact that the Stones are always those bunch of fucked up hoodlums.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv5oR-sv1tY

That's what happens when you mess with Keith.

"Tommy" is a bona-fide leap of artistic daring, whichever way you look at it, whether you actually dig the record or not (my opinion is that it smokes "Beggar's Banquet" and "Let It Bleed"). The Stones never came near anything like that.

Again, who said that the Stones were trying to be the Who? If "Tommy" is much more ambitious to you, fine. I'm not debating that it's ambitious--it's a great record. But i'm not comparing the two bands. You're debating a void argument here, because i'm not even arguing who's better and who's not. If I wanted the Who V.2, i'd ask for it. You should be happy enough that the Who released that stuff, let alone compare it to what other bands have done.

So the only real way of measuring daring and innovation with this type of band is to look at how far they actually stretch themselves within their little sphere of rock artistry, how much they dare to try and express, how ambitious they have the balls to be.

Again, see my point of the Stones largely not being very good musicians, and continuing to branch out when they could just be playing rehashed riffs of "Play With Fire" or something. Again, nothing off of something like "Out Of Their Heads" would remotely fit in on "Sticky Fingers"....pretty much an entirely different band.

The Who win on all those fronts, hands down.

Again, WHO said that the Stones were the fucking Who in this argument, dude? Only you are. I don't devalue other bands because they're not the other band.

In between The Beatles and The Stones? Please. The Who are not just 'mod' or 'power pop'. They're the greatest, most individualistic, stubborn, brave and brilliant rock n roll band Britain had in the 60's and 70's. More important than The Beatles, wayyyyyyy more important than The Stones. The Who aren't 'between' anyone, in any sense.

How many times are you gonna bring this non-argument up?

In between your Stones bashing, you forget the point that the Who have their critics too. It's not like they've escaped the critical knife that you're lambasting the Stones with in this thread. Someone out there, somewhere will hate what a band has done. I admire the Stones for having the smarts to last this long, and putting out some of what I consider to be the best rock n' roll ever. If you don't like them, fine, but that won't change my stance on them, nor others, nor will the Stones stop doing what they're doing any time soon regardless of what anyone says, good or bad.

At this point, my contention with you is that you're long on personal taste, and short on actual fact (like the fact that the Stones' later "safe" lifestyle and musical output never was, say, due to the fact that they were hated early on and had to tour in a crappy van, pissing out the window vents, and enduring psychotic mobs of women, all the while not making very much money).

but was the Stones musicality ever boundless and supple (or subtle) enough to incorporate any such influence into their fake-macho schtick? Nope. But The Who's was. That's just one tiny example.

Fake macho schtick? What's fake about going to jail and getting busted for drugs and getting blood transfusions? What's fake about Brian dying in a pool? Look at Keith---he's the walking epitome of a really rough life. He's earned those facial creases. Most other people would be dead, living the lifestyle that he has. He's probably done more drugs and deprived more sleep and got into more backstage craziness than any other musician out there. That shit catches up with you fast--look at Syd Barrett, he dropped some acid and did drugs and only lasted a few years doing it. Guys like Lemmy, Keith Richards, and Iggy Pop are the exception to the rule.

And if you think longevity in a band doesn't mean much as in the Stones', you've clearly never been in one, never seen the infighting, drugs and other things that take a toll on a band. Look at the Ramones--all the infighting and the stress from infighting and drugs and hard lifestyle caught up with them. What about all the STD's with groupies? The overdoses? How much more of that have the Stones lived with through the years?

Yeah, that doesn't account for anything. But I will give the Stones one thing; they're not "dangerous" as much as smart about being dangerous. They're still alive through all that shit. Some might have been more "dangerous", but they're six feet under. All the Bon Scott's, Hendrix's, Morrison's, Cobain's, Joplin's, they realized early on that living through the rock n' roll lifestyle and the toll that it takes, is harder than it looks.

No, the Stones liked to pretend that they didn't bow to any mandate, when they blatantly did. The Stooges literally had NO MANDATE BUT BULLSHIT, PARTY AND DESTRUCTION. And it shows in the music. Different era? Um, no, actually, same era. But who gives a fuck, wasn't my point. My point was, I AM SICK TO THE BACK TEETH OF HEARING HOW DANGEROUS AND BAD THE STONES ARE. HOW MUCH THEIR MUSIC CONSTITUTES SOME KIND OF MUSICAL BLACK MAGIC TRIP. THEY ARE NOT DANGEROUS AND BAD, THEY ARE FUCKING STUPID CRICKET PLAYING SIMPS WHOSE MUSIC IS BARELY MORE BADASS THAN AN INXS RECORD. FACT.

Be sick of it, that won't change the fact that the Stones have lived hard lives; but the harder part was being smart about things and getting a blood transfusion or something, rather than dying. And when they step on a stage, i'm glad for them; because that's their life. They may be making money from it, but to want to play songs that they've played ten zillion times before, still takes alot of jam, enthusiasm, and in the end, sheer will and fortitude. They don't need the money, man--they're up there because they love to do what they do.

At no point did you acknowledge that their continued existence is just because they're a bunch of dudes who got together in the early 60's who wanted to bash out some rock n' roll, which is what makes them continue to do that to this day. Like Mick says, "it's only rock n' roll, but I like it". If your complaints are with those that say that the Stones are the greatest band ever, whatever. It's not brain surgery, it's just rock n' roll. Relax. The Stones, themselves, would never say that they're the greatest rock n' roll band ever, so if you're mad at the fans for overrating the Stones', get mad at the fans, not the band. They just put the music out there.

And what gets me through the Stones' weaker moments (nowhere did you address the fact that I admitted that they're not always the untouchable mighty band that some make them out to be or my "Keith Richards= not as good on his own argument), is the fact that I like their style, and attitude.

The later Stones' success was a result of them playing night after night, driving around in crappy vans, being hated by critics and alot of people, and having to fight their way out of gigs of crazy fans. As well as fighting through that indifference. If you aren't aware of that struggle, you clearly need to do your homework before you think that the Stones ever had it "easy", "safe" or "not dangerous and bad". They repeatedly got their asses kicked because their hair was too long. You can't honestly tell anyone that the band didn't go through that, and that their later lives and output never hinged on any of that early struggle. I'm not into re-writing the history on a band like you, just because of what ensued later on.

Survival, man--the Stones know it in spades. It's not always about being the best, it's just about continuing to do what you're doing, whether it's right or wrong. There's a reason why they're still doing what they're doing. Survival ain't "dangerous"? Well, I must have lived this long because this world is a kind, proper place. The Stones have been a band and doing all their drugs and groupies and other shit that would get most of us killed, longer as a band than we've been alive as a person.

The Stooges were great, but they burned themselves out. Iggy had to go to the mental hospital in between sessions for recording "Kill City". That's glamourous or great, to you? Ron Asheton got sick of getting beer bottles or lightbulbs thrown at his head every night. As great as the Stooges were, I can't qualify them even anywhere near what the Stones did, just because we never heard what they would have done later on--there was no chance. At this point, you're arguing that the Stones did enough things wrong to get to 10 albums. What would the Stooges have sounded like in 1982 or 1983? (which would have likely been the point that they got to 10 albums or so?). How "dangerous" would they have been? Better yet, how "dangerous" is "Brick By Brick" or "Blah Blah Blah"? You're forgetting that Iggy put out some complete embarrassments--he did this because if he continued with the Stooges' career circa 1974, he would have been dead or completely mental. How smart is that?

Do your homework before you make assumptions. I've heard every Bangs-esque dissertions on how much better the Stooges are than every other band; what they don't address is that survival in the music world is pretty dangerous, because life is a pretty dangerous place. And the music industry eats bands alive. That's pretty damn "dangerous" to me and the Stones have weathered every bullshit trend and every pretender to the throne and lived to see it on the other side and maintained their popularity, which is extremely hard to do. There's a reason why they're legends, because sometimes "legendary" means being able to talk about your own legend for once, instead of someone giving a post mortem "dissertion" on who you were or what you were to the musical community.

You want evidence of who they are or what they've done? Just ask Keith, Mick, Bill or Charlie--they're still around to give you the first hand stories of their own legend, rather than someone making money off their dead legend. For once, it's nice to hear legends talking about their own legend, rather than a glorified obituary of how someone like Bon Scott was one of the "greatest frontmen ever". Instead of people writing about how good he was, if he was still around, he could prove that just by being on a stage.

BULLSHIT. The Stones pretended to be out for nihilism for nihilism's sake, nihilism didn't follow them, they invited it to their own door then cowered when it kicked the door down (Mick's terrified, jittery glances to his right on stage at Altamont, viddying the fixed, deranged gaze of the froth-mouthed, speed-wired Angel just a few feet away).

Read the Altamont riots book, Mick was trying to calm the audience down. They didn't want to see people killed. That "terrified" look that Mick had was him being concerned for the audience's safely, as well as his own. They never pretended to be badass there; that just followed them and was the crowd's own doing.

Iggy routinely purposely baited people. Mick was doing none of the sort at Altamont. If the fans and Hell's Angels incite violence, that's not the band's doing or fault. If you're saying that, then you're saying that Mick wanted to see people hurt, which is an out and out lie.

There is nothing scary about the Stones, NOTHING. You want spooky or desolate, you can be pointed to spooky and desolate. It's there in "The House On Highland Av.", "What's Mine Is Yours", "When I Saw You", "I Want To Be Abused", "In Germany Before The War" or "Lucinda", "Mrs. Jones", it's there in "Baby One More Time" fer chrissake. It's not there in the Stones, sorry.

I wasn't even responding to you with the "Gimme Shelter" thing, that was me thinking out loud. If the Stones are scary to me, that's my right. You don't tell me, or anyone else what to like.

I mean, should I just run all my likes and dislikes through you first? Why should we even bother with an opinion? Yours seems like it's the gospel truth, after all.

I've said this a million times already. The Stones are the musical equivalent of a The Hills Have Eyes remake. Big bad scary music for people who don't know any better. Boys, in other words. The rest of us men do know better. We already looked the devil in the eyes, already recognized the truth in Driller Killer, The Last House On The Left, The House On The Edge Of The Park. You think "Wild Horses" is some great emotional catharsis, but we KNOW "Now You're All Alone" is the real deal. There may be more of you, but we have a weapon on our side that you don't have, the truth. Build bridges and get over it, there's nothing personal here - just men and boys, baby, men and boys.

Dude, we get it for the millionth time, you're just repeating a point over and over again. Lemme guess....you're about 18, 19, 20, trying to prove to us all how you know so much about music. Well, if you know so much about music, you'd do some research first and not put down some bands for some laughably ridiculous reasons, like applauding the Stooges for being so violent that they couldn't even function as a band; yet seemingly ignoring the utter shite of Ig's 80's catalog because he survival meant to him that he was still around to make albums, at all, regardless of whether they were bad or not. I mean, you didn't address the quality of the new Stooges album, did you? How much more "dangerous" is that album than, say, "A Bigger Bang"? The only thing dangerous about that is the fist fights backstage because of the inner turmoil from Ron and James, because they couldn't suck it up and put their egos aside the first time.

Staying going as a band is one of the most difficult things to do, simply because you have egos and weird politics; all of which I admire the Stones for being able to do that long. It might not be "badass" or "dangerous", but it sure as fuck is alot more respectable than Ron, Scott and Jim all agreeing that the only way they can get credibility back is to resurrect (and tarnish) the legacy of a band that dissolved a long time ago. Those guys all hated each other....if your idea of a continued existence of a band that all hates each other is a great idea, by all means, promote the fact that sometimes being "dangerous" means that you hate the members of your own band.

Read "Please Kill Me" and you'll lose a couple of points of respect for the Stooges, as you will for a few other bands. Iggy didn't even go to Dave Alexander's funeral. Does that qualify as "dangerous" to you? You seem to be on a pretty dangerous kick these days. I'm glad that being "dangerous" on recordings is a helluva lot better than the interpersonal band politics and such, such as a band even functioning after awhile.

MUFCSPACEMAN · Post by **MUFCSPACEMAN** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 11:49 am

Post by **BzaInSpace** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 12:52 pm

BzaInSpace wrote:I heard 'Start Me Up' last night.

It sounded really good.

"you make a grown man cry..."

MUFCSPACEMAN · Post by **MUFCSPACEMAN** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 1:20 pm

jack white · Post by **jack white** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 1:39 pm

The Jig wrote:What do they actually sound like in concert now ? Those tracks, you know the ones that were down right dirty, filthily and to the point where they were way too hot and sexy, what do they sound like now ?

they sound amazing. the last few outdoor concerts i'd been too the sound didn't travel very well and with conditions the way they were yesterday (though aside from the mud, the rain quelled once the stones came out, thankfully) it was another item that had lowered my expectations.

but they really did sound very, very good. i suppose they pay enough for that so i shouldn't have expected anything more and maybe it's just the magic of the players and the songs but when the Satisfaction riff was as loud and clear... it's just a special moment.
highlights were All Down The Line (when i'd finally met up with my mates after getting stuck at the bar - but needs must, unfortunately i slipped on my backside dropping two of the pints after it all!), Dead Flowers, Midnight Rambler, You Got The Silver (my most favourite stones number so that was really a nice treat) then run at the end of the concert: Satisfaction, Honky Tonk Woman, Sympathy, Paint It Black and Jumpin' Jack Flash.
holy shit. again, not to add fuel to the fire or anything(!), but i dunno anyone outside of Dylan maybe that could find that many truly golden moments out of their catalogue (and not have room in the setlist for Gimme Shelter or whatever...)
finished with a lengthy Brown Sugar which wasn't up to much to be honest.

but yea, i was impressed with their whole show. Slanes a good venue, if you don't mind the mud. it's a bit of a hike on concert days mind, but any hardships were worth it. they put on a good show. a good party.

(and yea, i realise my highlights are dated 40-odd years ago and the classic run at the end is that for another reason, but when it's that good i don't think it's fair to criticise. particularly when it isn't just the stones that get by on past glories... but that's another kettle of fish).
Miss You was good.

Zenchan · Post by **Zenchan** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 3:33 pm

My take on The Stones is that I enjoy most of the hits, but I would never sit down and put one of the studio albums on to listen the whole way through.

Post by **spzretent** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 3:46 pm

its worth the hassle just to see You Got The Silver.
I've seen the Stones at least 20 times and Keith only played that once.
Shivers down spine reaction from that song live!

Stones v Who v Beatles?

I'm sure no one would be surprised where I stand on this though I love quite a few Beatles records and hate others(White Album).

The Who? I love early who thru Tommy.
Just not as much as the Stones who came a long at a time when i was pretty musically vulnerable and they stole my heart. The whole package. The diversity of catalog(since my intro was Hot Rocks), the personalities, and for some odd reason they way they intoduced pop art into their catalog for LP covers to tour posters.

MUFCSPACEMAN · Post by **MUFCSPACEMAN** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 4:38 pm

alan_cohaul · Post by **alan_cohaul** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 6:37 pm

MUFCSPACEMAN wrote: Dude, my ma went to 4 or 5 of the Stones earliest shows. They weren't as wild as legend suggests. True story, from someone who was actually there, a paying fan, not someone with a vested interest in perpetuating a load of hokey mythology. Wow, they got mobbed, by women. Wild!

You try playing night after night in a band. That's not dangerous? You still haven't addressed the fact that you seemingly just go on a stage and everything's okay. Your "ma" was never in a band, nor did she see any of the backstage shit that goes on. You're still going on a superficial thing of what you see. That has nothing to do with what goes on behind the scenes, the fights, the overdoses, getting ripped off by promoters, managers, etc. All that stuff is "dangerous" to the ongoing continuity of a band. Maybe if the Beatles had actually owned their material due to bungled management, they would have found a reason to suck it up and put egos aside.

I'm not even talking about that crap.

Right, you're talking about shit that you don't know about being in a band or it's risk on your sanity when you play something like 360 shows in 365 days, which is what the Stones did in the early days.

I'm talking about their musical development, which is a fairly solid bell-curve.

Their musical development is subjective, as is every other bands'.

And I've done my fucking research, thanks.

Not in every way, no.

Um, several bands did it BEFORE the Stones. So I call bullshit. The Stones risked little musically, subsequent to 1967.

Who did the folk, rock n' roll, garage, country, blues thing better? I'm still waiting for you to provide examples of who did that rather than just saying other bands did that better.

You think the Stones rock balls, I think large chunks of their most famed output is comparatively milquetoast.

What are you arguing here then? I never said that some of their stuff isn't bad. My original post was not to rip on you, it was to point out a few things. If you took offense, it wasn't meant to offend.

According to you, but wasn't the point. The point was "those forms are, and always were, their primary influences." You were acting like they were breaking some new ground. I was saying that they already broke that ground (and more compellingly) 6 years previous.

I'm still waiting for you to provide an example of a band that combined rock n' roll, folk, blues, country, gospel, garage, and glam into one album, that did it better.

Wind your fucking neck in and QUIT putting words in my mouth, Cohaul. Nobody's saying we should discredit anybody, I'm saying that I personally found it funkier when those influences showed up in more oblique, less fucking corny ways.

No, you criticized them for trying to sound like an era or something that you thought they weren't. Rock n' roll has always been about being over the top--Little Richard, Elvis, Angus Young, Rick Nielsen. One person's "corny" is another person's "inspirational".

And I'm saying - no fuckin' way. That's a joke. On the one hand, you're patronizing me for supposedly being unresearched or unlistened, while I'm sat here getting the idea that your own knowledge is much thinner than you probably think it is.

Where again is your examples of the band that combined rock n' roll, blues, folk, country, garage, glam into one album. I hear alot of runaround on this....because you don't have an example, that's why.

Brought what up? Don't be a pedant for it's own sake, Cohaul, you know what I meant. Many groups unified those influences, some of them way more compellingly than The Stones imo, whose albums (any one of their best 10) make for a damn fidgety listening experience if you're not in the right mood.

No, I know what you meant, and if you "wasted" your own time listening to
ten Stones albums or whatever, then obviously they had something more compelling than you think. I don't sit through albums by bands I don't like, period.

Most of my favorite bands make for a "damn fidgety experience" if I listen to too much of them in a row, anyways. Again, if you listen to that much Stones and complain about their output, well, you'll never get that time back, will you? That's your own fault, so you should stop complaining about that because really, it just makes you look like a fool.

Utter misconception. The gulf in profiency between the Stones and other Brit groups wasn't as marked as you're making out. Again, you're giving the Stones too much credit for being underdogs.
And only one of them is a true wasted fuckup. The others were relative pros, especially Jagger.

Mick has always been a great businessman. Everyone knows that. Brian and Keith were the true fuckups. Had they not had Jagger, they would have fizzled out a long time ago. But Keith is so ridiculously in the league of wasted fuckup that it doesn't even really warrant explanation. But the difference between him and every other of the wasted fuckup scene, was that he made it to gigs the next day.

I'm saying motherfuckers like you give them way too much props for that.

Who said I said they were the most original? I never said that.

But they're not fucked up hoodlums. They're just a rock n' roll band, with a druggy guitarist.

Like you say, they're "just a rock n' roll band".

Saw it already. That's not being a hoodlum, that's called bludgeoning a stage invader with your guitar.

No, that's called "pretty good ad lib with crazed fan". You have to be able to deal with that in bands. Notice how the band didn't stop mid song? They carried on. Not bad for a bunch of hoodlums.

I also saw the pathetic scenes of Keith Richards shooting up in Cocksucker Blues. Wow, badass! He must be the real deal, man!

For someone that supposedly doesn't really like the Stones, you sure have devoted alot of your time to a band that you don't like. Amazing, ain't it?

Look Cohaul, I didn't start the Who vs. Stones argument. Jack did.

Look, MUF, I didn't start that argument then. Why the hell would you start bringing it into ours? Please keep your arguments separate.

Well who said that anyone was saying that the Stones were the fucking Who in this argument, dude? Only you are.

??? I only brought up the Who, because you were bringing in some thing that you had with Jack. Again, keep your arguments separate.

They're wrong, I'm right. End of.

You can be whatever you want to be, can't you?

I'm not talking about their lifestyles, just their output. None of their post-67 work smacks of any significant risk, which is what you claimed.

I never said that they were the riskiest band ever. If I was talking about risky bands, I would probably mention Ash Ra Tempel or MC5 with "Black To Comm" or something. The Stones always made quite accessible music, but people did hate them on both sides of the rock/ country equation, none of which you still have addressed yet.

Btw, you seem to think that this generic hard-luck-story biog of tough-sloggin' early years is kinda like some exclusive scoop, something that you're aware of and that I'm not, because you've got the 'facts' and are, like, 'researched' and shit, and that this scrap of intelligence marks the Stones out from the ullions of other bands who braved the same shitty conditions (and worse).

Yeah, because i've seen the interviews, i've read the books. This is all first hand accounts from the band, and they would know, because they were there.

And there were millions of other bands that braved the same shitty conditions....but none with the intensity and magnitude that the Stones did. Again, if your contention with them is because of the later output or lifestyle, whatever. I mean, they've been around that they've influenced 99 percent of the bands that you'd consider "dangerous" or "risky", anyways. Even the MC5 were covering Stones songs in their early days, and they were a big influence on the Stooges.

What has ANY of that got to do with it?

Lots.

None of that is proof of 'macho' credentials

Okay, what's your version of macho, then? Pete Townshend downloading child porn?

and I'm not even attempting to elevate or place any importance on those things

Right, because you have an insular mandate which is quite funny, BTW. It's kinda inadvertent comedy, because you just sort of go on and think that your opinion is godly.

They DID have a fake-macho schtick, one that they traded on wholesale.

Well, to a certain extent, Andrew Loog Oldham did create a more "dangerous" facade than the Stones may have had. This didn't mean to say that they didn't live some portion of it.

I'm not saying this should impact on or detract from your enjoyment of their records, I just don't see how you can be so aghast at my suggestion that the Stones were affecting an image that bore little or no resemblance to their reality. They blatantly were.

Who said that rock stars had to completely live up to their songs or what they portrayed? Who said that here? Johnny Cash never fucking shot a man in Reno nor did he watch him die. Get real. If you think rock music is all about reality, then you're living in your own la-la land. It's always been about part escapism, fiction, to a certain extent.

Jack was the one who brought the 'macho' thing up about The Who, which I found ironic, seeing how that stripe of posturing applied much more to the Stones.

Well bring it up with JACK, for chrissakes. That wasn't our fucking argument.

Again, I'm not saying it's cool to be a fuck-up or be dead. I'm saying, let's not pretend the Stones are a walk on the dark side. They ain't. They're a rock n' roll band who, for the vast part, didn't live it like they portrayed.

Again, see my Johnny Cash "never shot a man in reno, nor did he watch him die" thing. Didn't live it like they portrayed? They at least did to a certain extent (moreso Keith, less so Mick). Has Keith had a makeup artist make him look like he's dead for the last 25 years?

It's a hammy act, theatrical, the image and the art inseperably entangled, fun if you're in the right mood, but useless if you're looking for any kind of reality.

Dude. Rock music is supposed to be part fictional, campy, theatrical, and to a certain extent, contrived. It's not supposed to be entirely based in reality, because if it was, no one would go out and see these bands. If it was "reality", they'd go onstage and cook dinner and read the morning newspaper or whatever. Reality, in large part, is boring. Whatever image they have of "danger" is tempered with a big rock show that they go around and do and let people lose themselves in escapism, fantasy. It lets them escape the mundane-ness of their lives. I mean, Angus Young doesn't wear his schoolboy outfits around at home, nor does Alice Cooper carry around the snake at home. Know what I mean? The Stones' image of "bad boys" is, to a certain extent, escapism, as well (tempered by Keith's overdoses, transfusions, jail time, etc).

If it was true danger, they'd be dead. Like GG Allin. The Stones pale in comparison, even Iggy pales in comparison to him, because GG was the true deal, from the live thing, to overdosing. It's not pretty, but that's true danger. Had you mentioned GG earlier on in this conversation, we could have saved us all alot of needless words.

just that I want people to stop talking so much fanboy crap about them. Or, if they must talk fanboy crap, that they might make it atypical, idiosyncratic, vaguely interesting, y'know?

Who said you had to read? No one forced you to read anything here, dude. Again, that's like you sitting through "Cocksucker Blues" or 10 Stones albums.

BOO HOO! The same struggles a million other bands went through! So fucking what?

Where are these other bands that went through those same struggles for the last 45 or so years? I see alot of casualties, I don't see alot of successes in that regard.

1. I never brought their lifestyles, or the issue of dues-paying or hard-knocks, into this. You did.

I had to, because you seem to think that's not part of the industry or being in a band, or that bands just magically appear on the stage, or that they always get along, or whatever. Again, see "End Of The Century" by the Ramones and look at what the stresses of a functioning dysfunctional band will do. Three of 'em are dead---because the stress undoubtedly wore them down of touring around with people that they hated for 20 years. With the stress came the drugs and alcohol, and all of that negativity.

Fuck you, Alan, and quit putting words in my mouth. I'm no revisionist.

You sure seem like you want to be.

but now that you mention it, yes, the contrast between myth and reality is pretty stark.

Again, sometimes rock= escapism, fantasy.

Stop overstating how tough the Stones had it, because, ultimately, they didn't. They slummed it a while, and reaped the rewards.

Yes, but you forget that half of success is getting there. The other half is keeping it. That's tougher than you think, because there's always ten million more bands trying to be you and dethrone you, and the industry is always onto the next act. The Stones have always found that magic to keep fans excited, and to never let the industry forget about them. All you have to do is look at the Nuggets compilations to see how many bands were vying to be the Stones, the Beatles, or whoever else.

That's not any point that I was trying to make, but seeing as YOU keep flogging the issue to death, I'll make it anyway, just for the record.

Tell me some stories of how you've had it bad in life, how you've been in a band, etc. You've criticized me for being in some failed bands; for sure I have. Most people have. But that's all part of the package. But those of us can say that we've paid those dues, had some hard times.

No, I'm not. I'm arguing, GET SOME FUCKING PERSPECTIVE YOU LOOPY LITTLE FANBOY!

You totally ignored the Iggy parallel. I like how you just sidestep the things you know I have a good point. At this point, you can't even say that you acknowledged that, because you just ignored it. Well, if it's so easy to make great records 10 records down the road, let's see you do it. Let's see Iggy do it.

I've done my homework. And I did it without any of the freebie privileges that come with writing for some rag. So shut your patronizing mouth.

I like how you throw around insults in order to get your point across. I haven't had to do anything other than point out the truth, which is why you're getting offended. I don't need to call names in order to get my point across, because I know that I have my facts straight. At this point it's just kinda funny to see you call names, because i'm having a good "laff", as they say.

Fuck Lester Bangs. And FUCK dissertations ('dissertions' isn't a word, as far as I know). And FUCK you if you think that's my trip.

Sometimes the knife goes the deepest when you've hit someone's primary influence. The "screw the Stones, the STOOGES RULE!" thing is a page right out of Bangs' playbook. It's nothing that I haven't seen various people like yourself tout to death over the years.

Yawn. I've heard all the oral 'evidence', and I'm not impressed. Sorry. I want to hear 'legends' (loathsome word, moreso than 'genius') talk about their lives and their art, and how one reflected, effected and affected the other. I don't give a fuck about sad old junkie tarts dribbling over their rank mythology.
Your worship and over-veneration of these leathery old tarts is becoming really fucking odious.

Well, sign me up for the odious leathery old tarts worshipping mailing list. You wouldn't happen to know of a place that they have that at, would you?

Despicable, despicable little man.

Despicable man that has had like, 20 bazillion chicks and more money than you? I'm sure that he really pays attention to your meaningless posts on a messageboard, while he's spending some hard earned cash right now. Hell, he's probably standing in stacks of money right now! Me, i'll never get to that point, but I admire the people that do. All hail that despicable little man.

That terrified look is concern for his own safety, mid-way through a song, still performing, scared shitless by the deranged gaze-haze of the Angel staring fixedly at him to his right.

I'd be scared shitless too, as would most people. I'm still trying to wrap me brain around how you have all this time to devote to a band that you just don't really like for the most part. Wow!

He/they invited trouble to his door. Doesn't matter if he didn't go on radio, Ig style, and invite a whole chapter out for a fight at that night's show, it was an idiotic, asking-for-it thing to do.

Well, admittedly, it wasn't that great of a thing to do, but hey, mistakes are made.

What I'm saying is, Mick has had some amazing out and out twat

Now you're talking!

I'm also more researched than a dumb hack like you ever will be.

You can believe whatever you want to believe in your own world.

Never said anything about the utter shite of Ig's OR The Stones' respective 80's catalogues.

Yes, but Ig at ten albums (i'm not even really counting anymore), would have been in the late 80's or so. And that's some pretty terrible terrain. If it was so easy to find inspiration 10 albums in anyways, then we wouldn't have so many bombs from bands or artists thinking that they're still relevant.

Listen to yourself! "Oh, man, it's so tough, being in a band, I know, I've been there, living on porridge, being trapped in a van with the fat drummer's flatulence, 'artistic differences', having your songs rejected as 'not Megadeth enough' by the veto-happy lead guitarist..."
DUDE. I DON'T CARE HOW MANY OF YOUR WHINY FUCKING BANDS FAILED. YOU AND HOW MANY OTHERS? BOOO FUCKIN HOOOOO.

I can say that because i've seen it. It's pretty easy to criticize when you just idolize the musical experience and never try to add anything of your own. You already told me that you liked my music in another thread; well, that's a result of years and years of research and doing various things. I've been at this since 1994. I don't proclaim it to be the greatest thing ever, but what you're hearing is someone surviving to let their vision through. I commend anyone who considers themselves a survivor in the industry--especially today. Even independent record labels like SFTRI are up for sale, and studios are shutting down, etc, due to downloads and MP3's, or just a lack of sales.

When has Mick ever tried to disguise the fact that he's a cricket-lovin' papa's little womaniser who never lived a truly hard day in his life? Frequently!

Who ever said that Mick said that he was the badass? I don't even think Mick said that. I think what i'm referring to was Keith and Brian, and we know what happened to Brian. Charlie, Bill, Mick Taylor--those were all not very dangerous people.....but I like the myth and the escapism that the Stones represent, whether that sometimes be true--or not. Sometimes it's true, sometimes it's not. It's not like they never had it tough, nor never had it easy.

I'm not saying that any of this should stop anyone enjoying the records or the shows, or even that the Stones are alone in that kind of posturing (if definitely among the most overhyped).
I'd just like to see people treat the mythology and accepted wisdom with the antipathy it deserves. I actually like The Rolling Stones, rock n roll band. They're pretty darn good.

Finally, some wisdom! Admittedly, yes, I too like the Rolling Stones, rock n' roll band, as opposed to the diverse Stones sometimes....but it takes some balls to go from two rockers that open up "Sticky Fingers", right into "Wild Horses". They were never afraid to let that mellow, tender side through.

Meanwhile, quit assuming I've read less than you, or that the only people who know worth a shit are former scribes like yourself.
Reading is all well and good, but if you read too much, you turn into Alan Cohaul. Someone who buys the big book of rock, hook line and sinker. Your last post was a bolus of tetchy caca, and consisted largely of attacks on statements I didn't even make. Get some self-awareness. This is graffiti for fucks sake, not academia. The real art is on the platter, not in the words of you, me, twentysixdollars, Lester fucking Bangs or anyone else.

Well yeah--I mean, i'm not trying to turn this into some big competition--but i've got alot of experience. More than I care to get into here, because I love music and i've always been involved in some capacity, whether that be in bands, rock journo, radio, going out to shows, buying records, putting out records, whatever. That doesn't make me some god or better than anyone; but i've seen alot. I'd talk to the Stones, themselves at a show, but we all know how difficult that is. So I have to read about it or watch the movies. So I go to shows in clubs and talk to the people in the bands and hang out. Really, that's what music is about, hanging out and enjoying the atmosphere and everything like that.

I already proved it, a million times over, against sharper more knowledgeable minds than yours.

No do tell. I'm curious. Let's play devil's advocate here.

As far as this forum goes, look around, you'll find a reasonable mass of original thought with my name on it.

I don't doubt it.

You took a little ribbing and general lamenting, and now you're making it kinda personal. That's cool, I can do personal. You're a clueless fucking ass, nowhere near as well-equipped knowledge-wise as you obviously think you are. My fuckin' toenail knows more than you, without trying or even boasting about it.

I'm sure that you think you do. In our own minds, we can be whatever we want, can't we? I'd actually take offense to your words if you were someone I respected; however, I just use that old saying, "consider the source". Meaningless words from some meaningless person on the internet.

No biggie, man, I still dig you, and [aquickone]YOU ARE FORGIVEN[/aquickone] for impugning my whatever and blah blah blah ZZZZZZZZ.

Look, I don't have the time to read or respond to your next message. Go ahead and write whatever you want, i've wasted too much time on this already.

MUFCSPACEMAN · Post by **MUFCSPACEMAN** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 6:42 pm

Shaun · Post by **Shaun** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:05 pm

The Jig wrote:What do they actually sound like in concert now ? Those tracks, you know the ones that were down right dirty, filthily and to the point where they were way too hot and sexy, what do they sound like now ?

alan_cohaul wrote: Sort of getting back to what one person was saying, at this point in the Stones' career, i'm pretty sure that I wouldn't pay the prices that they're charging for tickets, because the new versions of the old songs just don't tend to have the authenticity and fire that they originally did.

That might have been me. Jack, that's what i was trying say in a round-a-bout way. These days any big gig should sound good, but that's never always the way. But the new versions of old songs, do they really play them like they did all those years ago or are they played now to go with the stage ? And dare i say it, does it all come across as, well, quite stage managed now ? I hope not but years ago at Wembley, to me that is what it was like. Kind of put me off paying out a lot of money to see them since.

You had a good day though, despite mud and dropping beers. And they put on a good show for you, cool.

MUFCSPACEMAN · Post by **MUFCSPACEMAN** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:10 pm

MUFCSPACEMAN · Post by **MUFCSPACEMAN** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:17 pm

Shaun · Post by **Shaun** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:20 pm

Okay, what's your version of macho, then? Pete Townshend downloading.

Ouch.

MUFCSPACEMAN · Post by **MUFCSPACEMAN** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:21 pm

MUFCSPACEMAN · Post by **MUFCSPACEMAN** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:29 pm

MUFCSPACEMAN · Post by **MUFCSPACEMAN** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:41 pm

MUFCSPACEMAN · Post by **MUFCSPACEMAN** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 8:43 pm

twentysixdollars · Post by **twentysixdollars** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 2:46 am

(waves white flag, throws it down to mop up pissing contest)

We're not even talking about music anymore.

And the only Stones song I'm convinced Gram Parsons made substantial contributions to is "Dead Flowers".

MUFCSPACEMAN · Post by **MUFCSPACEMAN** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 1:28 pm

twentysixdollars · Post by **twentysixdollars** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:35 pm

MUFCSPACEMAN wrote: Dammit, can't speak for Cohaul, and it's not a suggestion, but - in the interest of restoring harmony, I wouldn't kick up a fuss if you pared the thread back to before I replied it (excepting unrelated msgs from Jig, Zenchan, Retent etc). I knew it was a bad idea to post..but hey, I've shown ability to spot the potential for conflict, now I can work on the learning...not...to...respond bit.

I don't think it's ever a bad idea to post, and no, come on, you know me well enough to know that I don't delete posts. This has been amusing to read if not necessarily constructive. And everybody knows that the real pedos were all in Led Zeppelin.

jack white · Post by **jack white** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:49 pm

The Jig wrote:These days any big gig should sound good, but that's never always the way.

exactly, they should but in my experiences they seem to be getting worse.
except for the stones.

i guess they play them like they're meant to sound... umm... what i mean is, the songs sound like they do (in that they don't cut them up and rejig them or whatever in the way dylan does, they play them pretty straight and similar to their originals), just louder. the sound is fit for stadiums and allows the songs to fill the space. the same songs could be played wherever, it's just the volume and clarity that also took my breath away.

Shaun · Post by **Shaun** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:59 pm

jack white wrote:
The Jig wrote:These days any big gig should sound good, but that's never always the way.
exactly, they should but in my experiences they seem to be getting worse.
except for the stones.

Well i saw today that some extra tickets have been released for gigs later on this month at the old Millenium Dome. You'd think with it being in an arena rather than a stadium (by the way, is Slane a stadium ?) the sound might come across as being slightly better. But seeing that tickets started at Â£79.00 and then add on seetickets rip off admin and postage charge, i quickly swerved around that. Had it been at the IndigO2, then definately yes.

Post by **BzaInSpace** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 11:35 am

Do you get a prize if you read all this shit?

Cause time is precious, life is short and that.

Howabout - The Stones, They are OK every now and then, that's about it. 'Have You seen you Mother Baby...', that was good.

Also, they caused 'controversy' the other night when Ronnie and Keith lit up onstage in London. Sadly it was only cigarettes.

Go you crazy rebels GO!

And Jack saw them, it was a good show. THERE. Neatly summarized. The rest is anti-music. Wankery in extremis.

Next: Dyson Vs The Hoover

MUFCSPACEMAN · Post by **MUFCSPACEMAN** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 11:39 am

Stuart X.Hunter · Post by **Stuart X.Hunter** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 12:21 pm

A band...why would anyone want to be in one of those?

Mother: what do you want to be when you're older?
Me (age 7): a hermit.

My idea of a band http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu ... f9536dd32e

scroll down to first video and hit play...

extra points for naming the props

MUFCSPACEMAN · Post by **MUFCSPACEMAN** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:33 pm

jack white · Post by **jack white** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:03 pm

MUFCSPACEMAN wrote: Whatevz - I'll take the rap (with Jack) for inadvertently sowing the seed of Who vs. Stones dischord, but I haven't a clue how the issue of the Stones' longevity came up, since their longevity wasn't pilloried or even raised before Cohaul started banging on it.

nah it's cool. wherever the thread goes once it's created... it's all gravy, to use the parlance of our times.

i do think however the comparison (who vs. stones) is a slightly convoluted one (which echoes the issue of Love, i know), though again it is entirely harmless (and fun, which is the whole point). it's not that i don't believe the comparison to be without merit, it's just that both the who and the stones are big enough to be judged within their own worlds and contexts.

but again, i suppose it is an interesting battle. and certainly if you were to throw the beatles into the mix (and maybe even the kinks) i'd be singing the praises of the who... but the stones i find too lovable to discredit using the who.

Post by **BzaInSpace** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:31 pm

jack white wrote:
nah it's cool. wherever the thread goes once it's created... it's all gravy, to use the parlance of our times.

Ah ha...

White Russian please.

Spiritualized

The Rolling Stones

What do you think about them?

The Rolling Stones