bluzhammer Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Sheesh. Haters gotta hate. It may be a greatest hits show, but it's one helluva show. And what hits! Get Yer Ya Yas Out is the whole reason I've been playing guitar for 40 years. In the endless Beatles vs. Stones debates of my youth I was always firmly and forever on the Stones side of the aisle for the dark baddass swagger, the genius riffs song after song, the bluesy core, the most tasteful and steady drumming on the planet and even their peacock of a frontman. THAT is a rock & roll group. I always admired the Beatles pop craft, but... they wanna hold your hand, if you see what I'm saying. Keef should be dead by rights. And as the years dribbled away Jagger crawled farther and farther up his own arsehole. He never could stand to be anything but the center of attention, even during someone else's solo, and he seemed sillier and sillier writing tough-guy songs about cars as a 60 year old multi-multi-millionaire. But he was still one of the best showmen in Rock, ever, running ten miles around a giant stage night after night and selling it to the folks in the back rows. Of course Keef was not always "properly medicated" or a flawless technician. Neither were half the band on some nights. But I'd rather have him than, say, The Edge (who I love too) replicating the studio versions night after night. The two times I saw the Stones - Ronnie's first tour and then the second show of the Bigger Bang tour at Fenway Park (two years before the dreadful Shine a Light film) - were two of the most magical nights of my life. By 2005, Keef had boiled down his classic Open G riffs to their barest essence, a sort of stacatto zen punchiness - all holes, elbows, kicks - that upped the ante all around, and showed you just how primal and rhythmic the best of those riffs were. And he could still rip into something as simple as Satisfaction with joy, as if he'd just discovered it that morning. All the best songs on the last five albums are "his", imho. They've been defying gravity and the odds for decades with very little incentive to risk their legacy on such a grand scale. But even I would have to pin the last great plateau back around Some Girls. Lots of folks at the time thought the Stones had gone all disco just because Jagger had, but that album sure wears well and a phase shifter never sounded better. Still, I guess I'm with the majority of guitarhounds (especially Gibson guys) who put the peak during the Mick Taylor years. It may well be "time" but in my view anyone who thinks "its ABOUT time" never liked them in the first place, hasn't seen the thousands of spectators and the band itself having a joyful blast night after night. I firmly believe that they've only recently gotten to the point where they can't quite do it anymore - and Keef falling out of a coconut tree had a lot to do with them reaching that point, I reckon. And like I said: I'll be forever grateful for what they've given me. Great post, haters are going to hate regardless. Which of these new " Progressive, Fresh Sounding, Innovative Bands" of today will be producing albums and packing out venues fifty years from now? Answer.... Few, if any. There's a huge difference between playing music and making music. You can have that sterile Steve Vai and Yankme Manstem "wizardry" , I'll take Mick and Keef in spades. JMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdgm Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 ....it boggles me that rock n' roll goes hand in hand with sex and drugs. You don't see the guys in Rush backstage doing a line of blow or taking tons of strange women back to their hotel rooms. Kaleb my man, it boggles me that it boggles you etc etc....come on!...boggle? Does not compute! Calling Elvis! As for Rush...ah, but when they were younger.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirstMeasure Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 No, it's about doing what you want for as long as you want. Nice try on the spin though And just whats wrong with staying true to yourself? Or, as you say, doing what you want for as long as you want? When did you stop doing what you want to do and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirstMeasure Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Kaleb my man, it boggles me that it boggles you etc etc....come on!...boggle? Does not compute! Calling Elvis! As for Rush...ah, but when they were younger.... Sounds more like a young people like Sex and Drugs, not just those that play Rock and Roll. Actually, there was quite a lot of Coke and Gin going around the Rat Pack when they were young, but not a lot of Rock and Roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaleb Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Kaleb my man, it boggles me that it boggles you etc etc....come on!...boggle? Does not compute! Calling Elvis! As for Rush...ah, but when they were younger.... Ok, it doesn't boggle me.....But it sex and drugs are part of a lifestyle, and rock n' roll is separate to me. That lifestyle can go along with being famous or having money, but I don't think it's necessary for rock n' roll. It's all about the music and being entertaining for me. I don't wanna numb myself with any substances, and while I'd be flattered if women threw themselves at me, it really wouldn't matter. I would just wanna be happy and do what I do. There's other exciting things to do on the road besides getting loaded and having multiple affairs night to night. And believe me, the groupie thing is almost as bad as the drugs. No matter how sober and clean Gene Simmons is, he and women are like Ace and alcoholic beverages........And the worst part is when rock's sex addicts don't seem to be aware that they have a problem.... As for Rush, their hobbies on the road are much more interesting to me than the classic sex, drugs, and rock n' roll stories.... The Professor biking between shows in search of America's cheapest motel beats any of those Zeppelin stories (except for the one with the fish....)..... You won't find Alex Lifeson on TMZ.......Which is good. All the players I looked up to @#$%d up themselves in one way or another.... EVH, Ace, Michael Schenker, etc.... I have great respect for Alex because for not being in that group.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky4 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 And just whats wrong with staying true to yourself? Or, as you say, doing what you want for as long as you want? When did you stop doing what you want to do and why? IMO, bands have a shelf life of around 5 years. Their are rare exceptions, but for the most part, bands don't have the hunger, attitude, swagger, etc, they had in their younger years. If you think the Stones of 2012 are just as good as the Stones of 1972, good for you, As far as I'm concerned, they're a far, far cry from what they used to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Ok, it doesn't boggle me.....But it sex and drugs are part of a lifestyle, and rock n' roll is separate to me. That lifestyle can go along with being famous or having money, but I don't think it's necessary for rock n' roll. It's all about the music and being entertaining for me. I don't wanna numb myself with any substances, and while I'd be flattered if women threw themselves at me, it really wouldn't matter. I would just wanna be happy and do what I do. There's other exciting things to do on the road besides getting loaded and having multiple affairs night to night. And believe me, the groupie thing is almost as bad as the drugs. No matter how sober and clean Gene Simmons is, he and women are like Ace and alcoholic beverages........And the worst part is when rock's sex addicts don't seem to be aware that they have a problem.... As for Rush, their hobbies on the road are much more interesting to me than the classic sex, drugs, and rock n' roll stories.... The Professor biking between shows in search of America's cheapest motel beats any of those Zeppelin stories (except for the one with the fish....)..... You won't find Alex Lifeson on TMZ.......Which is good. All the players I looked up to @#$%d up themselves in one way or another.... EVH, Ace, Michael Schenker, etc.... I have great respect for Alex because for not being in that group.... Umm...wow doggies. hold on a second. You talking about everything and everyone else except the Stones. The more you stretch your mind to come up with a who's who or add names, the more confusing this is because you fail to mention the big one: KEEF! Let me back up a little bit and address this a little: Where the heck does ACE come into this equation? What does KISS have do do with this? WAIT!!! BEFORE you answer, let me point out that KISS has NOTHING to do with the Stones or KEEF or the context of this subject. Not that I can't appreciate the KISS or that whole deal, but I hate to tell you, you got drop the Kiss for a moment. STEP AWAY FROM THE KISS. Just...put...it...down...gentle.....EASY! STOP!!! I know you were thinking it! RESIST!! Step...away...put it out of your mind. Nice..and...easy...now... The temptation is great, as your mind wants to go to RUSH...Resist. turn around, go the OTHER way. As you think about all the names you named above, let them lead you to the beginning. They should all lead you to one place. Yes, the STONES. The Stones. THE ROLLING STONES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaleb Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Umm...wow doggies. hold on a second. You talking about everything and everyone else except the Stones. The more you stretch your mind to come up with a who's who or add names, the more confusing this is because you fail to mention the big one: KEEF! Let me back up a little bit and address this a little: Where the heck does ACE come into this equation? What does KISS have do do with this? WAIT!!! BEFORE you answer, let me point out that KISS has NOTHING to do with the Stones or KEEF or the context of this subject. Not that I can't appreciate the KISS or that whole deal, but I hate to tell you, you got drop the Kiss for a moment. STEP AWAY FROM THE KISS. Just...put...it...down...gentle.....EASY! STOP!!! I know you were thinking it! RESIST!! Step...away...put it out of your mind. Nice..and...easy...now... The temptation is great, as your mind wants to go to RUSH...Resist. turn around, go the OTHER way. As you think about all the names you named above, let them lead you to the beginning. They should all lead you to one place. Yes, the STONES. The Stones. THE ROLLING STONES. Keef is different from the others. He invented it! He was and still is genuine. I can't complain about the Stones lifestyle because they live it like nobody's business. So does Lemmy. He's not trying to be "cool", he's merely being himself. Ace comes in because he was almost as bad as Keef, you know, citywide police chases in a DeLorean and accidental backfiring of Uzis and all..... I'll tell ya', his book makes Motley Crue look like pussies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 IMO, bands have a shelf life of around 5 years. Their are rare exceptions, but for the most part, bands don't have the hunger, attitude, swagger, etc, they had in their younger years. If you think the Stones of 2012 are just as good as the Stones of 1972, good for you, As far as I'm concerned, they're a far, far cry from what they used to be. Have you been able to compare the Stones of '72 to the Stones of today? What about other times? How would you rate the live shows you have attended, or seen? How might you compare the music you were listening to in '72 compared to what the Stones were putting out at THAT time? And then how would you rate BIGGER BANG and BRIDGES in the context of the music of THAT time? What songs do you think depart or out-do current music on these two records? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Keef is different from the others. He invented it! He was and still is genuine. I can't complain about the Stones lifestyle because they live it like nobody's business. So does Lemmy. He's not trying to be "cool", he's merely being himself. Ace comes in because he was almost as bad as Keef, you know, citywide police chases in a DeLorean and accidental backfiring of Uzis and all..... I'll tell ya', his book makes Motley Crue look like pussies... LEMMY?!?!? ...LMAO...where the heck? BTW...I seen the Crue open for the Stones...they do rock and they are as real as it gets. I seen it. I digress... BACK to the STONES...come back... I wish I knew this computer stuff and could link, but anyway...I have this particular memory of KEEF playing a Jr. with one P-90 belting out the riff to 'midnight rambler'. It didn't sound really too much like the record. It was one of the meanest, dirtiest, piece of ROCK or whatever you might call it I have ever imagined. For a live rig, he uses a pair OR 3 tweed high-power Twins. Real ones. Ever play a geniune tweed Fender? Like a Bassman or a deluxe? A tweed Twin is like a Marshall stripped of any freindly, mellow sounds. It's pure roar. Like spegetti, except you ditch the noodles and just eat the meatballs. KEEF is one of the only players to actually HIT someone with his Tele, as opposed to most of us (me too) that just realize we could, or even talk about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Keef is different from the others. He invented it! He was and still is genuine. I can't complain about the Stones lifestyle because they live it like nobody's business. So does Lemmy. He's not trying to be "cool", he's merely being himself. Ace comes in because he was almost as bad as Keef, you know, citywide police chases in a DeLorean and accidental backfiring of Uzis and all..... I'll tell ya', his book makes Motley Crue look like pussies... You couldn't resist, could you. YOU WERE DOING SO WELL!! You edited and added ACE while I was typing. What was that 5 minutes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaleb Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 You couldn't resist, could you. YOU WERE DOING SO WELL!! You edited and added ACE while I was typing. What was that 5 minutes? What's wrong with Ace? I answered one of your questions, which was something along the lines of "What does Ace have to do with it?" did I not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff-7 Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 It seems like every thread lately turns from the OP to arguing about KISS and Rush. It's getting pretty annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissouriPicker Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 The Stones. Love them or hate them, they are who they are. A grand mixture of rock & roll, folk, blues, drugs, whiskey, rot gut, sex, in-your-face attitude, and stick-it-where-the-sun-don't-shine. They are real. . Chances are they should have retired decades ago, but they didn't, because they are The Stones. The more they're labeled as being too old, the more they're The Stones. Never the guys a father wants his daughter to date, but always the guys that dad dreamed of hanging-around with. I've always liked The Stones and The Beatles. I lean more toward The Stones because I think I identify very easily with them. Not on talent, musical abilities, lifestyles, but on the attitudes that make us who we are as human beings. Johnny Cash said in an interview, after being asked about teenage fans who wanted to be like him: "Everybody wants to be somebody, but you've got to be who you've got to be. I have to be me, and you have to be you." The Stones have always been the "bad boys." They didn't have to change their image, etc. They were already who they are. They could never be the "nice boys," because it is not who they are. Anyway, I hate to see the end of the era. To me, if they do retire, it will kind of be like when Cash died-----something was definitly missing and world was a lesser place. Long Live The Stones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaleb Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 It seems like every thread lately turns from the OP to arguing about KISS and Rush. It's getting pretty annoying. Since when has something turned into a KISS argument since I stopped talking about them in the beginning of May? And we don't argue about Rush, we just talk about how much we love them.... I have never heard anyone on here say anything negative about Rush, even if they don't like them. KISS on the other hand........ If every thread turned into something about Hendrix or Page then I bet no one would be annoyed! And you don't bother to read most of my posts, do ya? Go figure. Most of the time, I just say what needs to be said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff-7 Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 To be honest I only glance over your posts anymore since you even threw around KISS and Rush in my gear thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaleb Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 To be honest I only glance over your posts anymore since you even threw around KISS and Rush in my gear thread. When did I do that? I don't even think I participated in that thread...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff-7 Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 http://forum.gibson.com/index.php?/topic/74206-jeffs-sonic-thread/page__st__80 Pages 5 and 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaleb Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 http://forum.gibson....ad/page__st__80 Pages 5 and 6. I realized that as I just hunted it down. There was no Rush in there though! (although anytime anyone talks about chorus I'm gonna talk about my man Lerxst!) So I mentioned the name KISS and some Ace stuff? I only mentioned KISS because I used it as an example to back up my reasons for a tech switching my effects (platform shoes preventing me from stomping....)... And on p. 6 where I mentioned Ace, I was only talking about his uses of delay (as we were talking about delay pedals...), nothing more. Don't get your bellbottoms tied over this, bud! Geez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dem00n Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 No offense Kaleb but you always do talk about Ace and Rush and it makes your posts very...recycled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaleb Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 No offense Kaleb but you always do talk about Ace and Rush and it makes your posts very...recycled. I am aware.... Thank you for trying to be polite about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirstMeasure Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 IMO, bands have a shelf life of around 5 years. Their are rare exceptions, but for the most part, bands don't have the hunger, attitude, swagger, etc, they had in their younger years. If you think the Stones of 2012 are just as good as the Stones of 1972, good for you, As far as I'm concerned, they're a far, far cry from what they used to be. Thank God that's only your opinion. If CSN&Y had taking your advice I never would have seen them. Same with Eric Clapton, Santana, RUSH, Grateful Dead, Traffic, Little Feat, and Heart just to name a few. Absolutely some of the best shows I've ever been to. Even though I saw Alice in Chains and Primus in thier Prime they couldn't compare to the aforementioned Classic Rock hacks that were (by your standards) way beyond their prime. I'm sorry, but in my opinion, your opinion is so off base that it's really not an opinion at all. You're just dead wrong about a bands shelf life and the notion that an artist should quit shortly after producing their best work is unrealistic and shows a severe lack of general understanding about how a working musician or songwriter makes a living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky4 Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Thank God that's only your opinion. If CSN&Y had taking your advice I never would have seen them. Same with Eric Clapton, Santana, RUSH, Grateful Dead, Traffic, Little Feat, and Heart just to name a few. Absolutely some of the best shows I've ever been to. Even though I saw Alice in Chains and Primus in thier Prime they couldn't compare to the aforementioned Classic Rock hacks that were (by your standards) way beyond their prime. I'm sorry, but in my opinion, your opinion is so off base that it's really not an opinion at all. You're just dead wrong about a bands shelf life and the notion that an artist should quit shortly after producing their best work is unrealistic and shows a severe lack of general understanding about how a working musician or songwriter makes a living. I completely disagree with you. I think people get sucked into big names. If Aerosmith had just started in 1989 and made Pump, and tried to push Janies Got A Gun as a single, I think they would have been unsuccesful. But the fact that they were Aerosmith, and had a reputation, and had been around doing great music for years, the single got airplay. Same with Tom Pettys Into The Great Wide Open. It's a terrible song, but the fact that Tom Petty did it, it became a hit. There are exceptions. Radiohead is as good today or even better than they were 20 years ago. The Chili Peppers are also in that category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clayville Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Ya'll can argue about... err, Rush all you want (to me they're like fingernails on a chalkboard, creating diddly and divergent fantasias). Different strokes, different folks, etc. But a couple of things seem worth pointing out as I look over the last few pages of the thread: Keef is indeed genuine, but the truth has more nuance than perhaps was meant by "original". Original what? Rock outlaw/pirate? Addict/survivor? Guitarist/writer? He learned Open G tuning from Ry Cooder during the time of Let it Bleed in 1969 (Cooder is on Sister Morphine and plays mandolin on Love in Vain). He took off his lowest string so the root was (almost) always on the bottom and thus began the second great wave of riff-based songwriting. But you can certainly hear his hero Chuck Berry in many of his moves too. When it comes to The Stones, perhaps you've noticed that they're named after a Muddy Waters song, that Chuck Berry wrote Little Queenie, Robert Johnson wrote Love in Vain (recently rediscovered at the time the Stones recorded their version), Willie Dixon wrote Little Red Rooster for Howlin' Wolf. Once you do, and pull those threads backwards through the 50s to the earliest roots of recorded blues you'll see how much the Stones, through their own fandom and emulation, bridged the gap between blues and rock. That, to me, is their greatest achievement and a connection they made for me as a kid that changed my musical life forever. There are other, err, famous blus-rock bands and guitar heroes who were less generous towards the blues originators with the songwriting credits. I'm talking to you, Mr. Page! As to the '72 vs 2005 comparison, I did see them in '75 and '05 and the point I was trying to make above is that by '05 Keef was amplifying the essence of the riffs, conveying them somewhat telegraphically (no pun intended) in a way that was brilliantly effective rather than forgetful, lazy or sloppy - at least the night I saw them. The 'show' was technically much better than in '75 (as a Stones show, not in a 'who plays faster: Lifeson or Keef' sort of way). Spectacle is just spectacle - after all, the '75 Tour of the Americas had a giant inflatable penis rise out of the lotus flower stage - but to be able to reduce such elemental and familiar tunes - that we've all heard hundreds if not thousands of times - and somehow make them more in the midst of that spectacle is no simple or easy feat. Perhaps you just meant to compare the recorded output of those eras, or the songwriting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonzoboy Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 As far as I'm concerned they should have called it a day when Brian died.I am currently reading Keith's autobiography-Life and a biography by Laura Jackson of Brian's life. In Keith's biography he makes it seem like he and Mick formed the Stones when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.In their very earliest days they were always billed as Brian Jones and His Rolling Stones.Brian is the one who scrimped and saved and begged borrowed and even stole to get the money to rent venues for auditions.He was the driving force of their formation and it was him that taught Richards most of playing the blues and also taught Jagger how to play the harp.He played a good deal of the lead and all the slide and harp on their early albums. I have known this for years from listening to candid interviews with their producer Andrew Loog Oldham,who has been setting the record straight for years,and as well Brian's story has been told by many who were close to him and wanted the world to know the truth of it all.It truly sickens me to see Richards and Jagger take all the glory and credit for forming the Stones when in fact they wrenched control from Brian which caused him incredible heartbreak to see something that was his brainchild and his making whipped out from under his feet.This caused his downward spiral into depression that drove him to abusing alcohol and drugs to kill the pain of loosing what was so precious to him and was his life's work.It would behoove anyone who reads Richard's book to pick up a copy of "Brian Jones...the untold life and mysterious death of a rock legend" by Laura Jackson and get the real story.So The Stones are retiring......good riddance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.