E-minor7 Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 The Stones are really ROLLING in this clip. Here is a fairly new shot of Keith with a Bird, , , but he seems to have left acoustic Gibsons behind. And how about Mick – is he one size down. . . .
JuanCarlosVejar Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 loved it . Good to see Ron with that vintage Gibson . And Mick I think has one of the everly bros jumbos ? Keith probably changed to martin because it's easier on his fingers ( I'm guessing) but I think I saw a clip form 2001 or 2002 where he used a J 200 .
MissouriPicker Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 I figure if those guys keep playing together that they're probably going to be pretty good one day. .......You know, when I was a kid, I didn't like The Stones. I thought The Beatles were much better, but as time wore-on, so did The Stones. They ain't pretty and they ain't very neat, but they sure are cool. Lennon and McCartney have received most of the accolades, but I don't know that they have much on Jagger and Richards.
j45nick Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 I figure if those guys keep playing together that they're probably going to be pretty good one day. .......You know, when I was a kid, I didn't like The Stones. I thought The Beatles were much better, but as time wore-on, so did The Stones. They ain't pretty and they ain't very neat, but they sure are cool. Lennon and McCartney have received most of the accolades, but I don't know that they have much on Jagger and Richards. Yeah, I know what you mean. The Beatles were cool, but the Stones were down and dirty. I was torn between the "good cop" Beatles and the "bad cop" Stones. I was so much older then: I'm younger than that now. Still love both of them.
EuroAussie Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 Keith really does look like the Grimreaper in this pic ...dont let you kids see this pic folks ! The Stones are really ROLLING in this clip. Here is a fairly new shot of Keith with a Bird, , , but he seems to have left acoustic Gibsons behind. And how about Mick – is he one size down. . . .
ParlourMan Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 The Stones were cool in their day, I'm a big fan of the heyday stuff around the 'In the park' time, What's remarkable is just how loose, dishevelled and disorganised it all seems to be, there were sections of that clip that were 'classic' stones, ie, everybody playing at once and it sounding like it's the jam that would inevitably lead to a song somewhere down the line one day... I'd imagine the producers role in a stones record is more about taking stuff away than having to add more stuff in.
BT Bob Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 Love it when the Stones pick up the acoustics and let rip. One of my fave's:
zombywoof Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 I love the Stones and first saw them in 1965. Lots of folks forget that Brian Jones was one of the first guys across the Big Pond to grab a bottleneck and pick up a guitar. I enjoyed Mick's harp playing (always wish he would do more with the Stones)on the video. Not near as taken with the guitars though which seem to have trouble even keeping the rhythm flowing. Surprising since I know Keef can play the heck out of an acoustic.
E-minor7 Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 10 years ago a younger woman at a party asked me. "Is Keith Richards good ?" Had to smile – I mean, what do you reply. . . I told her he was very good at being Keith Richards. Just like Stones (who I had a love-affair with all my life) are very good at being Stones – take it to the max and almost never miss a beat. The long trail of roll rock rave rage and rebellion actually continues in some senior way and the planet wouldn't wanna miss it. But let's get 1 thing clear – on the musical level, they didn't/don't/couldn't/can't compete with The Fab-4 at all. And they know it. At the other hand, that comparison is not what the act or the situation is about, which again is the whole point. Beatles and Stones are kind of complementary and that means full horizon - give me one good reason why one shouldn't dig both. ----------------------------------------------------
j45nick Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 Beatles and Stones are kind of complementary and that means full horizon - give me one good reason why one shouldn't dig both. Absolutely correct. It's been a love-love relationship in my book, going back 47 years. I was 17 when both the Beatles and the Stones broke on the scene in a big way in the US in 1964. To say they blew this teenager's mind would be an understatement. Combine that with my introduction the previous year to Dylan's music by a very hip high school teacher (thanks, Phil Deppe), and you can see how your world could be turned upside down in a matter of months. I'll bet there are a lot of folks my age on this forum who went through a similar experience about the same time. What a great period for blues, rock, and folk! And except for those we lost along the way, they're still going strong. Just like we are.
E-minor7 Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 Yeah I'm right with you Nick – glad you brought Bob in, I thought of the same, but didn't wanna complicate. Add Hendrix and we have the highest lounge right there. The Pure Fantasia - The Rough Rebellion - The Savage Sage - The Electric Cozmo -
G McBride Posted November 27, 2011 Posted November 27, 2011 I have always liked the Stones. Sometimes I don't like the music they are doing at one stage or another but I still liked their talent. Many people try to compare the Stones and the Beatles, that is like comparing apples and oranges. Both of these bands had immense talent and experimented with different styles along the way. Both of these bands had some bad music and some good music, but those of us that grew up listening to all of this emerging talent were so blessed to have grown up in that time frame. My grandson always asks me what kind of music I like best. I always tell him that I like a little of everything because I was exposed to that growing up. Is it any wonder that the youth today still listen to and like the same music we grew up with and still love today.
nodehopper Posted November 27, 2011 Posted November 27, 2011 Both the Stones and the Beatles started out with a love of the blues, but the Stones ended up staying truer to their roots. (Obviously there were a few times when making pop hits ended up making them look lame) Agree or disagree with the premise of the book, but if you love music history like I do then it is a great read to make you think a little differently about what we call Rock and Roll.
j45nick Posted November 27, 2011 Posted November 27, 2011 I was reading in Rolling Stone today (where else would you read this?) that Keef and Mick are trying to make a decision on whether or not to do a 50th anniversary tour next year. Fifty years is a long time to be making rock 'n roll music, but I'll be the first in line if they do. There was speculation that if they do another tour, it would probably break records for the amount earned in a single tour, ever. I'm ready to contribute to that record. There will probably be geezers my age dropping in the aisles while dancing to "Satisfaction" 48 years after we did it the first time. Can you say "This Could be the Last Time"?
E-minor7 Posted November 27, 2011 Posted November 27, 2011 We have Yer Blues and maybe the soft roller For You Blue. Besides there is a pretty tame 12-bar thing from around the Rubber Soul sessions (just jam - never released). Of course there are other sub-traces here and there, but apart from the above, Beatles kinda left the blues alone. Remind me if I forgot anything. . . Regarding Stones taking an extra round, I'll be there like a Jumping Jack. It would be my 10th show or something, but hearing them do Midnite Rambler some years ago, makes me wanna click in – Severe rock in every bar - blue'n'golden sparks - the whole concert tremendous.
BT Bob Posted November 27, 2011 Posted November 27, 2011 Oh boy - I'd loveto see them again. I'm a bit of a lightweight - only seen them twice: once in '83 (Still Life tour, I think), then again a couple to years ago on the Biggest Bang tour. Both were incredible. The BB tour was a bit scary as I paid £150 each for the tickets - worth EVERY penny tho.....
BluesKing777 Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 Both the Stones and the Beatles started out with a love of the blues, but the Stones ended up staying truer to their roots. (Obviously there were a few times when making pop hits ended up making them look lame) Agree or disagree with the premise of the book, but if you love music history like I do then it is a great read to make you think a little differently about what we call Rock and Roll. I read the Elijah Wald's 'Robert Johnson', 'The Blues'. and Dave van Ronk's autobiography, but have got stuck (put down) on this book. I will return to it, but it is a bit of a thesis. I just received and watched the Martin Scorcese film about George Harrison. Very good. I find it hard to get a handle on George's guitar style - very elusive, but the Fabs would have been a very different band without the first 'Lead Guitarist' that the world saw at the same time.... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1113829/ BluesKing777.
Denis57 Posted November 30, 2011 Author Posted November 30, 2011 I have always liked the Stones. Sometimes I don't like the music they are doing at one stage or another but I still liked their talent. Many people try to compare the Stones and the Beatles, that is like comparing apples and oranges. Both of these bands had immense talent and experimented with different styles along the way. Both of these bands had some bad music and some good music, but those of us that grew up listening to all of this emerging talent were so blessed to have grown up in that time frame. My grandson always asks me what kind of music I like best. I always tell him that I like a little of everything because I was exposed to that growing up. Is it any wonder that the youth today still listen to and like the same music we grew up with and still love today. Yeap, tow hugely influencial bands for sure, in their own way that is. The Beatles had a knack for melody with great vocal harmonies and were more pop oriented while the Stones were down and dirty blues boys with more intricate guitar parts. The Beatles had normally simpler song structure than the Stones. For a beginner The Beatles are a nice way to start playing guitar; The Stones are more for intermediary players.
Lotus Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 We have Yer Blues... Stones... Beatles... hmmm Maybe this helps http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpI3I1th2BE
E-minor7 Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 The Dirty Mac Yer Blues clip got blocked by the film company. A shame. It's from the Rolling Stones project Rock And Roll Circus shot in December 1968. Stones didn't like it and the film was never released, , , , until 1996, where it came as video, which is a must for fans of the period. I wont go in detail, just provide the Wiki-link. Those who don't know it will be surprised. The J-200 involved unfortunately doesn't show here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rolling_Stones_Rock_and_Roll_Circus
Lotus Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Is the video not visible..?! I can view it :huh:
j45nick Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 I had to go on Youtube to view it, but it was with the trip. Opens with Jagger and Lennon doing their little verbal riff, then moves on to the music. Clapton on his red ES 335, Lennon on the Epi, and Keef on Fender bass. Pretty good stuff!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.