Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ibanez_ax]

Umm, okay Keef.

http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/music/interviews/a36899/keith-richards-interview-0915/

[Normandie]

I saw this earlier today but hadn't had time to post the URL yet.

Umm, okay Keef.

That was my reaction, too.

[ibanez_ax]

[ibanez_ax]

24 pages of discussion about this over at the Hoffman forums in little over 24 hours.

[KelMar]

The Dos Equis guy is right; it was a stupid thing to say but it was even more stupid to build the title of the article from that one statement.

[Klang]

Yea, it's a crappy headline for the article because a) the comment represents just a sliver of the interview; and b) he doesn't actually explain why Sgt. Pepper was rubbish, other than to say they forgot their roots, whatever that means. Just jealousy, I'd say. The Fabs were reinventing music, while the Stones just rehashed it.

 

[Normandie]

Yea, it's a crappy headline for the article because a) the comment represents just a sliver of the interview; and b) he doesn't actually explain why Sgt. Pepper was rubbish, other than to say they forgot their roots, whatever that means.

LOL Jim, I was just typing out a very similar post when the forum sent the message that a new reply had been posted, so I checked to see. It is a crappy headline. That's the way major (esp. online) news outlets seem to be going. CNN and MSN seem to be particularly frequent offenders.

[Klang]

Great minds...

 

[Mr Mustard]

It must be exasperating for Keith I suppose.... the writer decides the only way a Stone can grab a headline is by referencing The Beatles. The Fabs are still constantly held up as The Stones' yardstick which must be quite galling after all this time.

But as John reminded us way back in 1980: The Stones never did learn how to move on.

[nimrod]

John (the rocker) Lennon would probably agree with him

[ibanez_ax]

Yeah the headline was "clickbait".

[Klang]

John (the rocker) Lennon would probably agree with him

Every time I'm reminded how John criticized 'Sgt. Pepper...' my oyster gets a little further roasted. First off, what's not rockish about the opening and reprise? That's heavy rock, probably invented then and there. 'Good Morning' too, which he reportedly didn't like so much, but it was a blazing little rocker - great guitar solo as well. Then, if he complains about Paul's straying from the roots, as Keef might say, what about 'Lucy...,' '...Mr. Kite,' and 'A Day In The Life'? Compared to most of Paul's pieces, these were from outer space, in terms of conventionality. Did he forget he wrote and performed those songs?

Maybe the comments were part of the silly feud the two had going for a while. Dunno. It's just sad to think he didn't seem to really appreciate what they had accomplished. Something the Stones couldn't even dream of coming near to.

 

[oldbrownshoe]

I love the Stones, the Stones are the 60s and so are the Beatles.....the era is everything.

I get teenage girls in 1964 preferring one over the other, indeed I like it, now it just seems totally naff.

Sadly, the tongue-era Stones is the BRAND in 2015 (i.e. the 1970s) and so it doesn't really suit the BRAND to be linked with the 60s.
I think Keith was just being a bit clumsy but it is quite sad.
Brian Jones, best out of it frankly, must be turning in his grave.

[Kevin]

I do get Keef's point.if you take away the mystique of the cover and he reprised opening track and you're left with a mash of styles that don't sit all the well together. within you without you to 64 isacase in point.
For me it's the same problem with Revolver. I have no problems with eclestism, but neither album reallyhas a cohesive sound other than that the tracks are so different. To call it rubbish is a bit strong though
Which for me is why rubber soul wins best album award.

[nimrod]

Keef, who's spent the last 40 years churning out unimaginative Blues/Rock, to put the boot in is a bit cheeky and lacking in awareness to be honest

[nimrod]

[Moogmodule]

Very lacking in self awareness, given the Stones tried to emulate it with Satanic Majesty's. I'm sure that cover still makes them cringe.

[oldbrownshoe]

In fairness, he alludes to Satanic Majesties in the same paragraph.

[Moogmodule]

So he does. At least he's being balanced then. I wouldn't say either were rubbish. I think with the stones Satanic was further from their thing than Pepper was from the Beatles though. But the Beatles had the eclectic thing down pretty well. You never expected as much variety from the Stones.

[nimrod]

I do get Keef's point.if you take away the mystique of the cover and he reprised opening track and you're left with a mash of styles that don't sit all the well together.

thats a matter of opinion, surely its no more eclectic that Revolver, Abbey Rd or The White album and millions of people are fans of the Beatles because of their eclecticism, there was no typical Beatles style, they did everything, and thats why imo they were head and shoulders above all other bands like the Stones, The Who, Led Zep etc The fabs could write all sorts of music, music hall ? no problem, Childrens singalongs? no problem, Crooner songs? Heavy rock ? no problem, pure Pop? Prog rock? no problem..... I mean what other band put childrens songs on their albums?

I think Pepper is absolutely fantasmagorically brilliant, every track......When Im 64 is a masterful melody any Jazz musician wouldve been proud of, LSD was THE best psych song ever, Rita. The fab title track and of course the fact that it was the worlds first concept album.
Keef is just p*ssed because their imitation is weak and is in fact rubbish.