Print

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

[Hombre_de_ningun_lugar]

Let me tell you then...

because it's not John and/or Paul singing them.

The songs aren't bad songs but the vocals are atrocious!!!

I don't agree that the vocals are atrocious, though it's true that John and Paul are far better singers (your bar is too high). I just think that a rock music fan should appreciate other elements beyond the vocals. This is not the opera, after all.

[Dcazz]

I remember a John Lennon interview where he stated that he thought "the Rolling Stones became a good band when they stopped trying to be us!" I bet Keif is just messing with us all!

[ibanez_ax]

I actually like the Stones more now than when I was younger.  There are a lot worse singers in rock than Jagger.  I'm not sure what this magic is that the Stones allegedly don't have.  If music moves me, it's magic. 

[Hombre_de_ningun_lugar]

I actually like the Stones more now than when I was younger.  There are a lot worse singers in rock than Jagger.  I'm not sure what this magic is that the Stones allegedly don't have.  If music moves me, it's magic.

Same words.

[nimrod]

I remember a John Lennon interview where he stated that he thought "the Rolling Stones became a good band when they stopped trying to be us!" I bet Keif is just messing with us all!

Maybe he needed some publicity ?

To describe one of the most important albums in the history of music as 'rubbish'.......well, he has lost his mind

Paul or John have/had more talent in their big toe's than he has ever had, he should read what more talented people than him (like Elvis Costello or Neil Young or Neil Diamond) think of Pepper

I remember when Mick Taylor first jammed with The Stones he remarked on how crap they were (just before the Stones in The Park show)

then again its his opinion so that fair enough 

[tkitna]

I don't know.  Being pretty harsh on Keith for emitting his opinion.  Maybe he doesn't like Peppers.  If he doesn't like it, I'm sure it is rubbish to him.  I don't like Queen, Dylan, and Springsteen albums.  I think they are all rubbish, but that's just me.

As for Keith not having talent compared to John and Paul,,,he can play the guitar better then either one of them

[nimrod]

I don't know. Being pretty harsh on Keith for emitting his opinion.  Maybe he doesn't like Peppers.  If he doesn't like it, I'm sure it is rubbish to him.  I don't like Queen, Dylan, and Springsteen albums.  I think they are all rubbish, but that's just me.

As for Keith not having talent compared to John and Paul,,,he can play the guitar better then either one of them

read my last sentence

dont agree about the guitar playing, Paul much better

[ibanez_ax]

I like Keith's rhythm playing a lot more than his lead playing.  A lot of people don't remember that he was their lead player early on.

[Bingo Bongo]

No argument that Mick IS The Stones - the lips/tongue logo does indeed seal that deal. In "iconic"/marketing terms he's head and shoulders above his bandmates.

True, if Keith left the Stones , they could still tour, but you couldn't go see the Tour without Mick singing!

[Mr Mustard]

True, if Keith left the Stones , they could still tour, but you couldn't go see the Tour without Mick singing!

...that's why I'd never go see the Tour!

 

[tkitna]

dont agree about the guitar playing, Paul much better

Yes, we will have to agree to disagree here.

[nimrod]

I actually like the Stones more now than when I was younger.  There are a lot worse singers in rock than Jagger.  I'm not sure what this magic is that the Stones allegedly don't have.  If music moves me, it's magic.

Thats a fair comment mate , I suppose what I meant was that I really like loads of bands that really do move me, I love bands like The Kinks and America and Pink Floyd, but although they all move me they dont have the X factor that the fabs had, each album after RS had what I thought of as magical qualities, all the fictitious people they invented, all the new sounds they invented, The Beatles were pioneers, leaders of the day in style and in music, no-one knew what gems were coming next, each album a cavalcade of invention and idea's.
From music hall to heavy rock, they did it all and it was a brilliant (yes magical) time to be alive.

I remember from Geoff Emericks book, "we recorded Tomorrow Never Knows, then afterwards I had a cup of tean and some nice biscuits"..........like an accountant that had had a normal day at the office. 

[Hombre_de_ningun_lugar]

I don't think that the Stones would still tour without Keith Richards; it would be like the Who without Pete Townshend or the Beatles without Lennon or McCartney.

[Klang]

Agreed. Mick would be out there with his own band, with the others dropping in occasionally. And then a grand "reunion" once in awhile, a la the Dead's "Fare Thee Well" stunt.

Lots of mileage in those boys yet. "100 And Counting."

 

[Mr Mustard]

I don't think that the Stones would still tour without Keith Richards; it would be like the Who without Pete Townshend or the Beatles without Lennon or McCartney.

I know what you mean Hombre but "Queen" still have the cheek to play live (as Queen!) despite the death of Freddie Mercury and the consequent (and creditable, in my opinion) departure of John Deacon. Really, Roger Taylor and Brian May could have the good grace to demote themselves to "Princess" or even "Lady In Waiting" or something but no, they go out there bold as brass as QUEEN. I mean, Queen without Freddie Mercury? Come off it!!

Same with Slade, now touring as Dave Hill (lead guitar) and Don Powell (drums) with a couple of makeweights standing in for lead singer/front man Noddy Holder and co-writer/bassist/multi instrumentalist Jim Lea. It's like George and Ringo having the nerve to tour as "The Beatles".

Ridiculous!!!!

[ibanez_ax]

Thats a fair comment mate , I suppose what I meant was that I really like loads of bands that really do move me, I love bands like The Kinks and America and Pink Floyd, but although they all move me they dont have the X factor that the fabs had, each album after RS had what I thought of as magical qualities, all the fictitious people they invented, all the new sounds they invented, The Beatles were pioneers, leaders of the day in style and in music, no-one knew what gems were coming next, each album a cavalcade of invention and idea's.
From music hall to heavy rock, they did it all and it was a brilliant (yes magical) time to be alive.

I remember from Geoff Emericks book, "we recorded Tomorrow Never Knows, then afterwards I had a cup of tean and some nice biscuits"..........like an accountant that had had a normal day at the office. 

I see what you're saying.  One thing I don't do is hold up any band to The Beatles, because they will come up short IMO.  I try to let each artist stand on their own merits. 

[Hombre_de_ningun_lugar]

I know what you mean Hombre but "Queen" still have the cheek to play live (as Queen!) despite the death of Freddie Mercury and the consequent (and creditable, in my opinion) departure of John Deacon. Really, Roger Taylor and Brian May could have the good grace to demote themselves to "Princess" or even "Lady In Waiting" or something but no, they go out there bold as brass as QUEEN. I mean, Queen without Freddie Mercury? Come off it!!

Same with Slade, now touring as Dave Hill (lead guitar) and Don Powell (drums) with a couple of makeweights standing in for lead singer/front man Noddy Holder and co-writer/bassist/multi instrumentalist Jim Lea. It's like George and Ringo having the nerve to tour as "The Beatles".

Ridiculous!!!!

Of course, Mick Jagger still could take the name of the Stones and tour without Keith Richards, but I think that most fans wouldn't respect that.

There are other examples of secondary members using the name of the band they had been part of. After the break up of Buffalo Springfield, drummer Dewey Martin formed a new group (without Stills, Young and Furay) using the same name. The Yardbirds still exist as a band with drummer Jim McCarty as the only original member (none of the three guitar heroes is there).

Mick Jagger is a main member of the Stones, of course, but the band is too big to be carried just by his name. I don't see him touring as the Stones with other musicians.

[oldbrownshoe]

To absolute love The Beatles and absolutely loathe The Rolling Stones, or vice versa, is to absolutely misunderstand the era that both groups arose from.

I've never encountered a person who actually lived through the era (born 30s/40s) who held such entrenched views.

[Mr Mustard]

I don't think I've ever encountered anyone who loves one and loathes the other either. What I find most irritating is the tiresome comparison as though they were fairly equal heavyweights from their era. Let's get it crystal clear once and for all: There was a gigantic, immeasurable GULF between The Beatles and EVERY other group from the Sixties. I think it was Tom McGuinness from Manfred Mann who pointed out that The Beatles were emphatically head, shoulders, torso, groin, thighs and knees above ALL their peer groups (who should not have the cheek to dare call themselves "rivals").

So for me, although The Rolling Stones are good(ish) (but not as good as, say, The Kinks or The Hollies) to pretend they were a counterbalance to the fab four  as some people do is just plain ridiculous. The Beatles transcended their era - and, indeed, music - by imprinting themselves into the permanent fabric of mainstream cultural life. Only Elvis Presley comes close to their universal, lasting impact.

People like Dylan and Hendrix were touchstones within their field but didn't influence shoe styles, haircuts, the shape of spectacles or vernacular speech like The Beatles did. The Rolling Stones certainly didn't. Ever. Before The Stones figured highly on most people's radar The Beatles were being played off against people like Gerry & The Pacemakers or The Four Seasons or The Dave Clark Five. The Stones were certainly not unique in being held up as the "alternative to The Beatles", just the most famous in a media concocted line of challengers who in reality posed no credible comparison.

[Hombre_de_ningun_lugar]

The Beatles were the most important ingredient in 60's rock music, but they were not the only ingredient. The Beatles influenced other groups, but they were influenced by other contemporaneous artists as well. The air of the time also contributed to the success of a phenomenon like the Beatles. So I don't think that the magic of the Beatles depended only on those four heads.

Anyway, I don't care if the Beatles were absolute geniuses or just the loudest echo of a wonderful era. I just enjoy their music because of what their music is.