earthlingfred93
|
Re: Oooo! Stones fight!
Dec 08, 2006, 07:46
|
Keef's riffing, Mick's cockney drawl, their combined songwriting, to name a few things that make up their identity. And ultimately they ended up with a sound of their own, a sound that is as unique as Chuck or Bo's. Whether anyone likes it of course is another entirely.
So did the Pretty things. They shouldnt be forgotten and in my mind are musically,artistically and more dangerous than the Stones.
More rawer in the early 60's, more psychedelic in the late 60's and more rockier in the 70's
But Exile on main street IS a classic
|
riotmaster
|
Re: Oooo! Stones fight!
Dec 08, 2006, 10:07
|
|
earthlingfred93 wrote:
So did the Pretty things. They shouldnt be forgotten and in my mind are musically,artistically and more dangerous than the Stones. More rawer in the early 60's, more psychedelic in the late 60's and more rockier in the 70's
but what does that all mean ??? what's being musically and artistically 'dangerous' got to do with the price of bacon ? i don't want artistic or dangerous. i just want good music. what i don't want is music that someones sat down and thought 'i know what'd make this more far out, lets add a backward tape of a llama stamping on a bucket to it'
but i'm not sure what all this being something 'other' than just rock n roll is all about. isn't just being rock n roll enough ?
the only time the Stones went a bit shit was when they tried to be psychedelic (IMHO). when they stick to what they're good at, eg: RNR/Blues. its then that they're absolutely peerless
aftermath, beggars, let it bleed, exile, sticky fingers, ya ya's. goats head soup blah blah blah
all complete rip offs obviously ;o)
Chuck actually wrote the opening riff to Gimme Shelter too
|
bubblehead2
|
|
FWIW I'm with Keith and Andy and Riotmaster on this one. Oh and Satanic Majesties is by far and away my least favourite Stones album between 66 and 76 full stop and I'm normally more than up for a bit of acid fried psychedelia.
The love and peace vibe didn't sit well with them at all and they knew it too and quickly dropped it like a, er, stone. Didn't that video performance of Jumpin' Jack Flash come next ? Now that really is the 'nads.
|
bolox
|
Re: Their Satanic Majesties
Dec 08, 2006, 11:55
|
|
Glam Descendant wrote: The PERFORMANCE version is the version on THE LONDON YEARS (the singles collection).
Sadly it's not on my vinyl version. 'Brown Sugar' & 'Wild Horses' seem to have been left off it as well - although they do appear listed on a single sheet of paper included in the box. They're not on the tracklist on the back of the box or in the booklet (or on the LPs) - what happened there do you imagine? Perhaps they weren't on London Records? But then they are on the CD version. Oh well, I'll have to live without them.
|
sakedelic
|
Re: Oooo! Stones fight!
Dec 08, 2006, 13:58
|
|
i just meant something other than a blues cover band; i.e a rock band. it's fine with me.
|
riotmaster
|
Re: Oooo! Stones fight!
Dec 08, 2006, 14:20
|
|
sorry mate. i was on a rant ;o)
|
Chaosmonger
|
Re: Oooo! Stones fight!
Dec 08, 2006, 14:36
|
See also: the current Steven Seagal thread. Go to his myspace site and note that he is pictured on the cover of his CD (entitled "Mojo Priest"!)-- PLAYING GITAR ON THE PORCH OF A SHARECROPPER'S SHACK! Now that's some authentic blues! Fnaaar!! >>
Haha, my brother went to see Seagal (as a joke, of course). He said it was hilarious. Apparently, he opened with his monster smash hit 'Talk To My Ass.' Out for Justice. BLUES Justice.
Mike
|
Chaosmonger
|
Re: Oooo! Stones fight!
Dec 08, 2006, 14:41
|
But Exile on main street IS a classic >>
It is if you eliminate like 10 songs off it.
Mike
|
keith a
|
Re: Oooo! Stones fight!
Dec 08, 2006, 17:10
|
> So did the Pretty things. They shouldnt be forgotten and in my mind are musically,artistically and more dangerous than the Stones.
I saw The Pretty Things supporting Status Quo in the 70's. They weren't very dangerous. I was 14, a stranger to the big city and lacking body armour. I didn't feel threatened once! ; )
(They were very good though)
|
Dog 3000
|
Re: Their Satanic Majesties
Dec 08, 2006, 22:49
|
I'd have to agree Brian Jones was the secret sauce behind their best work. I'm not so enamored of them after they decided to stick to "genre music + shock tactics" and sent him to the back of the bus (and then to the bottom of a swimming pool.)
Don't mean to sound so harsh on everybody's favorite "World's Greatest Rocknroll Band", but ya gotta take a stand somewhere! And I wasn't intending to play the race card, but I mean c'mmmmooooon it's so obvious where their inspiration comes from isn't it? My point is not "they ripped off black people" so much as "they've been stuck in an essentially retro/conservative rut since forever." Stick to the rules or grandpas taught us, they did it better back in the 50's/60's/70's!
(Beatles started out with a Buddy Holly fixation sure, but that's got little to do with their 1966-69 output, which is why they are important. When did the Stones ever surpass their starting point and create something new *musically*? Sure, give them all the "style points" you want -- the original "bad boys of rock", imitated by GNR and so many other party bands! That's just not a big deal to me, in fact say that's really passe.)
Anyway, I could go on. Bottom line is I heard all those Stones classics a million times by the time I was 22, and today it's just boring to me (except their bonkers acid period.)
Though the bands I'm in usually wind up covering or jamming on one of those classics (which is fun, sure) . . . and Charlie Watts always impresses me when a tune passes my ear (he shoulda got the knighthood, not Mick!)
|
