DM's Beatles forums

Other music forums => Various Artists, Lyrics, Discographies => Topic started by: Wayne L. on July 31, 2006, 06:41:26 PM

Title: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Wayne L. on July 31, 2006, 06:41:26 PM
The Rolling Stones are one of the greatest rock bands of all time, without a doubt & I have been a dedicated fan for a long time.  My favorite era is during the late 60's/early 70's, which defines them for me, when they were their baddest & their ballsiest in their music, their image & their attitude.  I think it's kind of funny looking back on it, how controversial they were back in the early 60's & I can see the media & parents going nuts.  Gimme Shelter is my all time favorite concert documentary from the Stones, which I saw for the first time way back in 77 & it was just a bad day at a rock show at Altamont, it wasn't the apocalyse as some former hippies, who were there, like to make it.  I never thought they would be around by this time when I first became aware of them listening to the radio way back in 69.  It's great that they're still rockin after over 40 years, but I think the end is coming soon, because I can't picture Mick Jagger onstage in ten years.  
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Mairi on July 31, 2006, 11:30:44 PM
The Stones are coming to Halifax, and I'm gonna have to see 'em, since I missed them when they came to Moncton, and, like you said, they won'y be touring forever. Anyway, I promised my dad that I would go with him if they came. I dunno how I'm going to come up with the money but..... STONES! I have to see them.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: on August 02, 2006, 01:19:45 AM
Eddie's dead.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: apple sauce on August 02, 2006, 01:34:20 AM
The "quality" of the Stones songs often get overlooked. They have written just as many great songs as the Beatles, but never gotten the recognition they deserved. Yes often reffered to as the greatest rock and roll band in the world but that's as far as it goes? Through the 60s, 70, 80, and 90s the band has come up with some really good songs!
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Bobber on August 02, 2006, 07:10:31 AM
Their concert in the Netherlands last week was not sold out.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: The End on August 02, 2006, 11:31:03 AM
Their tickets are ridiculously priced!
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Wayne L. on August 03, 2006, 09:34:33 PM
The Stones tickets are ridiculously priced, but you know what you're getting, unlike most of the crap from today's artists The End.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: The End on August 03, 2006, 10:14:06 PM
Very true Wayne - I would absolutely love to see them live but they are priced WAY out of my pocket :(
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Bobber on August 04, 2006, 07:06:18 AM
Quote from: Wayne_L.
...but you know what you're getting...

And that's exactly why one can call the tickets 'overprized'.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: ma_tt2 on August 13, 2006, 10:25:08 PM
finally they're coming to Vancouver, I'm going to have to see them. This seems like a never ending tour.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Wayne L. on August 15, 2006, 07:48:08 PM
Quote from: ma_tt2
finally they're coming to Vancouver, I'm going to have to see them. This seems like a never ending tour.

It seems like a never ending tour by the Stones, but this will probably be the last one.  
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: ma_tt2 on August 16, 2006, 12:09:08 AM
Quote from: Wayne_L.

It seems like a never ending tour by the Stones, but this will probably be the last one.  

That's exactly what I thought when I realised how long they've been on tour for. I would love one more album, A Bigger Bang was great, best Stones album since Some Girls.

Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: The End on August 16, 2006, 11:35:10 AM
Guess what!!!! I've got tickets for next Tuesday!!!! 90 quid though - which is still relatively cheap from what I've seen! ;D
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Indica on August 16, 2006, 02:52:50 PM
A couple of my mates seen them in Nice last week - they said the performance and whole show-package was out of this world - seems like they can still put on a show.
Mick Jagger could speak fluent French, but Old Keith just said "Bonjour"... keeping it simple :)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: SallyG on August 16, 2006, 07:12:31 PM
I saw them about 9 months ago and the show kicked butt. Hopefully for you folks across the pond that are going, Mick gets over his throat problems. They've already cancelled one show in Spain.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060814/en_nm/jagger_cancellation_dc
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: ma_tt2 on August 17, 2006, 04:16:40 AM
2 shows in Spain cancelled. Tickets go on sale in Vancouver on Monday at 10 am, I heard in Winnipeg the sold out in 8 min.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Joost on August 18, 2006, 10:13:21 AM
I like almost all of the big 60s bands, but somehow I just can't get into the Stones, even though I really tried. I even got the 40 Licks double CD and tried to enjoy it, but I just really don't like the Rolling Stones.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Wayne L. on August 18, 2006, 12:32:48 PM
Quote from: Biscuit_Power
I like almost all of the big 60s bands, but somehow I just can't get into the Stones, even though I really tried. I even got the 40 Licks double CD and tried to enjoy it, but I just really don't like the Rolling Stones.

You're probably one of the very small few who don't like the Stones.  
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Joost on August 18, 2006, 12:35:19 PM
Quote from: Wayne_L.

You're probably one of the very small few who don't like the Stones.  

I know, I really wish I could like them. I know they're good musicians and that they have a whole lot of classic albums waiting to be explored, but I just can't enjoy their song material and I dislike Mick's voice...
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: ma_tt2 on August 19, 2006, 03:29:55 AM
Quote from: Biscuit_Power

I know, I really wish I could like them. I know they're good musicians and that they have a whole lot of classic albums waiting to be explored, but I just can't enjoy their song material and I dislike Mick's voice...

You need to listen to some of the softer stuff to really appreciate Mick's voice. Angie, Wild Horses, Moonlight Mile, Waiting On A Friend, Memory Motel, those are the songs that got me into the stones. Then I really started to appriciate his singing in all the other songs he sings.

Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: SallyG on August 19, 2006, 07:10:12 PM
Yeah. I wouldn't go for a 'Greatest Hits' package. 'Let It Bleed', 'Beggar's Banquet' are great '12X5' is great early bluesy stuff.. PM me with your address, I'll be glad to make a decent compilation. The best stuff is usually not what you hear on the radio, and they do have alot of great stuff.   -SG-
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: TurnMeOnDeadman on August 21, 2006, 03:56:41 AM
Quote from: Biscuit_Power
I like almost all of the big 60s bands, but somehow I just can't get into the Stones, even though I really tried. I even got the 40 Licks double CD and tried to enjoy it, but I just really don't like the Rolling Stones.

listen to:

I Got The Blues
Tumbling Dice
Sweet Virginia
Wild Horses
Salt Of The Earth
b****
The Lantern
Beast Of Burden

they have way more songs i didnt think a rock fan wouldnt enjoy, if you still dont like them then get stoned and listen to them
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: ma_tt2 on August 21, 2006, 05:17:29 PM
I got floor seats for the stones row 26, it cost a pretty penny though.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: SallyG on August 21, 2006, 07:40:23 PM
Quote from: ma_tt2
I got floor seats for the stones row 26, it cost a pretty penny though.

Wear your hi-heeled sneaker baby, but will be cool is that the stage, unless they've changed it, they wheel back and do a set towards the back, and you will probably be in good position.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: SallyG on August 21, 2006, 07:48:34 PM
p.s. Chicago--Soldier Field --October 23, on a f***ing Monday. Doesnt' Chicago get the good days like Friday or Saturday. I'd go to see Keef again if I ain't employed.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: ma_tt2 on August 22, 2006, 08:08:45 AM
I've actually got great seats, 5 seats away from the walk out part of the stage
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: The End on August 22, 2006, 11:55:42 AM
I'm seeing them tonight! I'll let you know how it goes! :)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: The End on August 23, 2006, 12:17:35 PM
My god, I've been here for over an hour and I haven't even mentioned the Rolling Stones concert I went to last night!!!! But now I have run out of time - the next time you hear from me might be AFTER I get back from Liverpool!!!

AL (flower)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Bobber on August 23, 2006, 12:27:33 PM
Don't bother. Tell us about Liverpool instead.  ;D
Title: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on June 27, 2007, 04:59:56 AM
I didn't see a thread for them in this section so I thought I'd start one. We don't talk about them much here it seems. I've been listening to them a lot lately. I think they're probably the second greatest band of all time. But I'm really into them at the moment, so that opinion could change in a few months.


I found this interview with Mick Jagger. He sounds like a COMPLETELY different person. This must be his real accent. No bad grammer or slurring words here. He sounds very stuffy! But he looks GORGEOUS!! He's a pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty, boy.
PtxD0TXqaO4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtxD0TXqaO4)

This is how I'm used to him talking. I can maybe understand about half of what he's saying. This one's creepy though. He looks way to feminine or something. Ick.
8Qp_1OpYLV0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qp_1OpYLV0)

One of the greatest songs ever:
bGAWE7l-fgU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGAWE7l-fgU)
Mick at about 1:16 gives me chills. When he goes woooo! At that point I think I would be willing to do anything he wanted. Like some mindless groupie. I'm so ashamed!  ;D
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Wayne L. on June 27, 2007, 07:35:24 PM
I will always remember the Stones during the late 60's/early 70's when their music was ballsy & their image was the baddest. I have been a dedicated RS fan for a long time with Get Yer Ya Yas Out being one of my all time favorite live albums.  I plan on seeing them next time live, if there is a next time, but I'm not expecting anymore tours afterward.  
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: lennon-legend on June 27, 2007, 09:01:23 PM
Yes, The Rolling Stones are one of the greatest bands of all time, no doubt about that... their stage presence, attitude and music are great...and yes, Gimme Shelter is definitely one of their strongest songs...it's got a "hauting" vibe to it..love it...
They just rock...no wonder they still sell out shows 40 years later...
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Mairi on June 27, 2007, 09:10:56 PM
I didn't use to like them (their fans turned me off mostly) but I've really gotten into their music over the past two years. I love some of their slower songs, especially Wild Horses, but I think they are best when they are in their blues/rock mode.

And Mick is the eternal hotness <3333 i just love the way he moves on stage.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on June 28, 2007, 03:35:55 AM
Angie rules too. God I love that song! I can't stop listening to that this month. That and Tumbling Dice and Sympathy for the Devil and Rip This Joint and Beast of Burden and You Can't Always Get What You Want and Respectable and Shattered and so on!! But I'd still chuck it all if I had to choose between their entire catalogue and the song Let It Be.

Okay. One last YouTube video. Mairi you have to look at this one and tell me what you think. I'm dying to know your opinion. It's from their 1978 Saturday Night Live performance. I've seen that episode, but amazingly enough I don't remember this moment. You'd think that this image would have been burned into my brain or something, but no. The Shattered performance where he rips up his shirt left a greater impact. Strange what sticks in your head and what doesn't.

3B2eBHucDMw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B2eBHucDMw)
 :o
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Bobber on June 28, 2007, 07:04:51 AM
Quote from: 411
Yes, The Rolling Stones are one of the greatest bands of all time, no doubt about that... their stage presence, attitude and music are great...and yes, Gimme Shelter is definitely one of their strongest songs...it's got a "hauting" vibe to it..love it...
They just rock...no wonder they still sell out shows 40 years later...

They didn't sell out over here this year. Fans are getting tired of the announcement that it is their last tour. They have said that for at least ten years.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: nousha on June 28, 2007, 07:14:31 AM
I wan't Stones fan for a long time, but recently I started to listen to their music more. Well, OK, my favourite songs are still Angie, Wild Horses and Out of Tears. I assume their earlier stuff is something I'd like a lot, so I'll have to find their albums. I had to write a review of the DVD in Rio and that was amazing, so now I'm going to see them in Belgrade in two weeks.

Bobber, you're lucky you can get tired of such a thing. They have never been and will never come to Bulgaria so it's a huge opportunity for many people here to go and see them in the nearby countries (Romania, Serbia). I'm glad their last show wasn't ten years ago, when I didn't like them - I would have missed the show  :-/
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Bobber on June 28, 2007, 08:07:44 AM
You're very right, nousha. In a way we are spoiled.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Kevin on June 28, 2007, 08:13:14 AM
I think that during the Mick Taylor years their music was more vital and relevant than The Beatles (just).
I'd rather have sympathy for the devil than letting it be any day.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on June 28, 2007, 01:30:07 PM
As much as I love Sympathy for the Devil, I think that if I listened to it a hundred times I'd be completely sick of it. With Let It Be, I KNOW I have listened to it at LEAST a hundred times and I'm nowhere near sick of it. It still gives me shivers. But only the album version. I need that distorted guitar solo and loud drums.

I'm not sure I know what you mean about their music being more relevant at that time. As in how?
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: BlueMeanie on June 28, 2007, 02:32:33 PM
Quote from: 216
I'm not sure I know what you mean about their music being more relevant at that time. As in how?

To me The Beatles 'sound' was beginning to sound a little out of date by 1969. Don't get me wrong, I love Let It Be, and Abbey Road, but The Stones at that time sounded just a bit more hip to me. A bit more 'current', if you see what I mean.

Sorry if I'm not explaining myself very well!
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Kevin on June 28, 2007, 02:47:09 PM
Quote from: 216


I'm not sure I know what you mean about their music being more relevant at that time. As in how?

Late sixties had Kent State, Paris riots, anti-Vietnam protests - the summer of love was getting a bit darker, and as BM said the Stones seemed to have tuned into the mood more - they caught the feeling of the time. They had an aura of danger, risk and a hint of violence that was in the air at the time.
I think they were "a bit more hip."
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on June 28, 2007, 02:52:10 PM
I get what you mean. The Stone's music is not as original though. They're blues/rock or whatever is such a traditional form of music. They borrowed so much and it's apparent always. I think the Beatles were on a different level. I think their music was probably ahead of its time in some way. Some of it anyway. Even the late stuff. Songs like Get Back, Come Together, Something, Don't Let Me Down, I Want You (She's So Heavy), Because, Let It Be, etc. don't sound dated to me at all even in 2007.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Kevin on June 28, 2007, 03:28:02 PM
Personally I'm not sure if I'd call Let It Be, Don't Let Me Down, Get Back or Something as cutting edge. The Beatles had big debts as well.
Agree the Stones had very deep roots - but they did it so damn well.
And The Stones in 68/69 onwards took blues rock, threw in some pop, added a dash of darkness and produced a great original sound.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: BlueMeanie on June 28, 2007, 03:29:23 PM
Quote from: 216
I get what you mean. The Stone's music is not as original though. They're blues/rock or whatever is such a traditional form of music. They borrowed so much and it's apparent always. I think the Beatles were on a different level. I think their music was probably ahead of its time in some way. Some of it anyway. Even the late stuff. Songs like Get Back, Come Together, Something, Don't Let Me Down, I Want You (She's So Heavy), Because, Let It Be, etc. don't sound dated to me at all even in 2007.

They don't actually sound dated to me now either. But set against what other musicians were doing at the time, they may have back then.

Does that sound stupid? :-/
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Kevin on June 28, 2007, 03:35:13 PM
I think Abbey Road as an album was a look at the future - at least until 76 when punk blew prog rock and AOR out the window.
I think the Stones sound of the time is probably more enduring. To me modern rock albums sound more like Exile On Main street than Abbey Road.
(I might need to think about that a bit more, but it's my immediarte feeling)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on June 28, 2007, 08:10:03 PM
Quote from: 185
Personally I'm not sure if I'd call Let It Be, Don't Let Me Down, Get Back or Something as cutting edge. The Beatles had big debts as well.
Agree the Stones had very deep roots - but they did it so damn well.
And The Stones in 68/69 onwards took blues rock, threw in some pop, added a dash of darkness and produced a great original sound.

I meant those songs don't sound dated to me. I don't find them to be cutting edge. They had other stuff and did other things which we all know about that was innovative and all. They did have their influences too, but they took it and did something completely original. Beatles songs don't really sound like anybody else where I think the Stone's fit more in a box. I mean, I love the Rolling Stones and they are the best at what they do. They write amazing hooks and riffs or whatever. Again, I think they are probably the second greatest band of all time. Music wise. They weren't great innovators or anything, but not every band has to be to be great.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on June 28, 2007, 08:13:39 PM
Quote from: 185
I think Abbey Road as an album was a look at the future - at least until 76 when punk blew prog rock and AOR out the window.
I think the Stones sound of the time is probably more enduring. To me modern rock albums sound more like Exile On Main street than Abbey Road.
(I might need to think about that a bit more, but it's my immediarte feeling)

Yeah, for a while they were out, but nowadays bands steal from them constantly. Or borrow or are inspired by and so on. I read one article where a musician played Tomorrow Never Knows for his friends who didn't know much about the Beatles and they thought it was a new band because it sounded so original and like something bands are trying to do now. So that was pretty ahead of it's time that song. Among others. Happiness is a Warm Gun I'd say is still pretty original.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: adamzero on June 29, 2007, 01:01:22 AM
I think Jimmy Miller deserves alot of credit for the classic Stones sound.  He knew how to mike drums and he and Keith got a great guitar sound (Keith played a Gibson ES 335, Les Paul custom, and sometimes a Telecaster to get those fat choppy chords--in the open tuning he'd learned from Ry Cooder).

Every rock-and-roll band since then has been trying to reproduce that sound--that's why it sounds so "current."   Les Paul's sold alot of guitars.  

By comparison the Beatles never became locked in a sound the way the Stones did--Mick Taylor tried to broaden their musical horizons but got sick of getting stiffed on writer credits so they hired Keith imitator Ron Wood to play riffy simpler stuff.  

I think the Beatles sound lives on in a lot of bands from Oasis to Smashing Pumpkins that experimented with sounds rather than having one defining "sound."  The idea of each record sounding "different" is a legacy of the Beatles--that many serious artists are still copying.  

I think the two-guitars rock band the Stones created is deader than dead--at least in terms of creativity, there's no end to the supply of imitators.  
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Kevin on June 29, 2007, 08:28:48 AM
Yeah - I agree The Beatles circa 65-66-67 are much more influential than anything The Stones ever did at anytime.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: BlueMeanie on June 29, 2007, 08:43:22 AM
Personally I've never seen the Stones as an influential band. Inspiring, I'm sure, but influential in the way of: Chuck Berry, Elvis, The Beatles, The Who, The Kinks, Hendrix?
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Kevin on June 29, 2007, 09:08:36 AM
Quote from: 483
Personally I've never seen the Stones as an influential band. Inspiring, I'm sure, but influential in the way of: Chuck Berry, Elvis, The Beatles, The Who, The Kinks, Hendrix?

Could you trace a line from their black magic - voodoo thing to Black Sabbath/Zepplin  and on to heavy metal?
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: BlueMeanie on June 29, 2007, 09:26:53 AM
Quote from: 185

Could you trace a line from their black magic - voodoo thing to Black Sabbath/Zepplin  and on to heavy metal?

Apparently Ozzy was quite taken with Arthur Brown. And Zep were heavily influenced by the delta blues and all the connotations there. So I don't really think The Stones had anything to do with that.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: The End on June 29, 2007, 04:35:35 PM
Ozzy Osborne is also a huge Beatle fan and the record that inspired him into music was She Loves You!
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Mairi on June 29, 2007, 07:46:57 PM
Quote from: 216
Okay. One last YouTube video. Mairi you have to look at this one and tell me what you think. I'm dying to know your opinion. It's from their 1978 Saturday Night Live performance. I've seen that episode, but amazingly enough I don't remember this moment. You'd think that this image would have been burned into my brain or something, but no. The Shattered performance where he rips up his shirt left a greater impact. Strange what sticks in your head and what doesn't.

1978??? I can't believe they got away with that. Amazing... thanks for posting that, I'll be replaying it several times over gain, I'm sure...  ;)

Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on June 29, 2007, 08:16:09 PM
One of my students is going to the Paul Green School of Rock Music and he's in a Rolling Stone's cover band. It's so funny. His band is playing the Roxy next weekend! It's so cute. He's Mick Jagger. I'm excited. I love the school's motto: Saving Rock and Roll One Kid at a Time! If I had a kid I'd so send him or her to this school!
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on June 30, 2007, 03:50:50 AM
Quote from: 218

1978??? I can't believe they got away with that. Amazing... thanks for posting that, I'll be replaying it several times over gain, I'm sure...  ;)


Mick's all about the tongue. I had to block out Ron Wood's face though. There's absolutely nothing appealing about that man. I didn't understand Mick's motivation. It's just so random. I think people got away with way more in the seventies because political correctness had yet to disease people's minds and hedonism was the call of the day.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Mairi on June 30, 2007, 03:54:54 PM
Mick's great. It's funny, you know, about political correctness. People were up in arms about Britney and Madonna kissing a couple of years ago, and yet I never hear people talking about this.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on July 01, 2007, 04:58:14 AM
And like anybody should even give Madonna and Britney two seconds of their time. They're so not worth the effort. They could full on make out and I couldn't care less. Like this thing with Paris. Anyone who watched her on Larry King the other night should just be taken out back to have some sense beaten into them. He bumped f***ing Michael Moore for her!! Moore had to wait a day to talk about an actual issue that plagues this f***ing country so we could get an update on f***ing Paris Hilton's bullsh*t enlightenment. f***ing media whores. Excuse the language. I'm in a bad mood.

Anyway, back to the Stones. Here's John talking about them. Mainly Mick and what a joke he thought he was. This was during John's bitter phase. Obviously:

sOF66KTRIxw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOF66KTRIxw)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: harihead on July 01, 2007, 02:19:22 PM
John gives a brilliant quote about Mick also. I forget which interview it's in, but one of those on YouTube. John's in his mid-thirties.

Anyway, John is asked how long he'll keep doing this rock 'n' roll thing, and he gives what is (to me, as an old lady ;) ) a funny answer, about how he doesn't expect to be out there singing when he's old and asthmatic and fifty!!  :o ;D And then he's asked about Mick, and John says with perfect composure and sincerity, "Oh, he'll be out there jumping around and doing the exact same thing when he's 60" and my jaw just dropped. You called it, Johnny baby! Brilliant comment, that.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Mairi on July 01, 2007, 02:38:48 PM
LOL! Good call John! My friends and I all agree that Mick will tour forever, until he dies, which will probably be onstage in the middle of a strut.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on July 01, 2007, 06:36:38 PM
Or with some 20 year model...
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: JimmyMcCullochFan on July 03, 2007, 07:27:00 PM
i love Gimme Shelter
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: wingsman on July 09, 2007, 03:06:31 AM
I hate the Stones. Simple as that.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on July 26, 2007, 07:02:40 PM
It wasn't until recently that I even knew that Gimme Shelter was an anti-war song. Probably because I can't understand half of what he sings, but still I feel like I should have known that. Anyway, Are there any other Stone's songs that have some sort of significance or story? I always just looked at their music as sort of meaningless rock and roll. I mean, I know the Angie/Anita thing, and the Sister Morphine thing as well as Mick getting the 'wild horsed couldn't drag me away' from Marianne Faithfull after she woke up from her overdose, but other than that is there anything else interesting going on in Stones songs? Certainly not to the level of the Beatles I would imagine, but something?
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: on September 29, 2007, 07:10:58 PM
I followed Mick & company as closely as I did The Fab.

Eight GREATEST Stones songs and/or singles  ?  in order of GREATNESS (according to personal taste, that is)(lol) : 1) Satisfaction 2) Sympathy For The Devil 3) Brown Sugar 4) Honky Tonk Woman 5) Ruby Tuesday 6)Street Fighting Man 7) Jumpin' Jack Flash 8)Let It Bleed.

Fave Stones Albums : 25x5, Let It Bleed, Satanic Majestie's Request, Beggar's Banquet, Aftermath, Flowers.

fave FORGOTTEN Stones gems : Oh Carol!, Route 66 (damn, I love this one), Happy, Rip This Joint, It's Only Rock and Roll (but I like it), Star, Star.

..and Bill Wyman's "Monkey Grip Glue" album!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: on September 29, 2007, 07:13:40 PM
Quote from: 218
LOL! Good call John! My friends and I all agree that Mick will tour forever, until he dies, which will probably be onstage in the middle of a strut.


and Keith comes out w/ a walker.

 ;D

Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Pasta Cheif on October 03, 2007, 03:17:20 AM
 There was a period of three albums that were just absolutely killer. Sticky Fingers, Beggars Banquet, and Exile on Main Street. One is no better then the other, they're all brilliant.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: legthi on October 04, 2007, 08:16:56 PM
I agree, beggers banquet is actually an amazing album, has a great feel to it. Also the last stones album with BRIAN JONES in the band, and his last major contributions - which really stick out in 'no expectations', etc. Also love 'you can't always get what you want' and most stuff off 'let it bleed'. Am not too keen on their early stuff, tho' I'm sure it's amazing.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: BlueMeanie on October 04, 2007, 08:24:26 PM
I actually heard Sticky Fingers for the first time about 6 months ago. I thought it was crap! I was really suprised because of all the plaudits over the years. I'm not a great fan, but I do like some of the 60's stuff.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Andy Smith on October 04, 2007, 10:12:15 PM
I listened to Exile on Main Street about 2 or 3 years ago for the first time &
never liked it, .. & the same happend recently when i gave it another whirl &
still don't like it apart from the operning track 'Rocks Off'.
so i'm obviously not a stone's fan.I find a lot of their stuff sounding the same
after a while & it dosen't interet me.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: fendertele on October 04, 2007, 10:29:15 PM
gimme shelter and paint it black was about as much as i got into from the stones, and from what ive heard those two tracks were a bit different from the rest of there stuff
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sea of Time on January 06, 2008, 07:51:01 PM
I like their run of albums from 1967 through 1972 the most, they were turning out incredible work during that period. There are some great songs and good albums from before and after that period but the '67 - '72 period is what I return to the most.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: WaMoZ on January 12, 2008, 05:15:28 AM
The Stones are too conventional for me. Mick as the frontman, like most bands. Unlike the Beatles, where even Ringo could rock the house down with Honey Don't or Boys.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: moodyblue71 on February 02, 2008, 07:06:11 PM
I like the Stones.  I just finished reading Ronnie Wood's book...it was pretty good.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Geoff on March 16, 2008, 02:34:54 AM
For me, Exile On Main Street is the great end of the sixties the-game-is-up record. You can also really crank it up and dance to it, which is always a great selling point with me. Beggar's Banquet is a great record, too, although, like Sandra, I'm completely sick of "Sympathy For The Devil." That song and "Midnight Rambler" for me epitomize the cheezy let's-shock-teacher school of rock that became unbearable- and laughable- by about 1974.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Geoff on April 04, 2008, 01:32:26 PM
Review of Martin Scorsese's Shine A Light from this morning's The New York Times; and yes, it has a Dorian Grey reference: ;D


Only Rock
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: adamzero on April 05, 2008, 02:19:43 AM
I like the Stones but I don't much see the point of this.  I would have liked to see a reunion of the early 70s Stones (with Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor) playing tunes from that crucial era.  Just the five of them.  No guests.  

Now that would have been interesting.  

I would hesitate to call what Scorsese's doing "documentary."  It's more like pre-planned filmed event.  Even The Last Waltz (much of which, apart from Levon, was overdubbed afterward).  

What's the point of these movies?  
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Geoff on April 05, 2008, 05:51:47 AM
Quote from: 9

What's the point of these movies?  

I doubt there's much of a point at all, but there's probably ample reportage on how the machinery of old time rock biz continues to grind along with its gears of celebrity intact even today. Naturally it's a bit absurd, though: the sixties are as remote from us as that decade was from the era of silent film, and the sight of pensionable rock musicians singing their old songs of adolescent rebellion can't help but induce cringes. If you want to hear the Stones, give your local football stadium a pass and go listen to the old Decca catalog instead.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Kevin on April 05, 2008, 12:14:37 PM
Quote from: 9
What's the point of these movies?  

?????  What's the point of most cinema but top entertain and make money? Though I'm sure Scorcesce, like Stone, believes he's tapping into the rich vein of contempory american culture yardy yardy yardy.
Personally, I think a documentary" (and come on, now one really believes what they see on the screen is real -Shea Stadium anyone? ) about the Stones 40 years on is a good a topic as any. All post modern irony and crap. And it's a neat little trick telling their story through how they appear today. More "cinemaric" than just splicing together archive footage. I think it worked for The last Waltz and will probably work again.
Though I think to make Harrison's post Beatle career interesting will stretch his storytelling skills to the max.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Geoff on April 05, 2008, 01:24:56 PM
Quote from: 185
All post modern irony and crap.

Wouldn't doubt it. ;D

Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: adamzero on April 06, 2008, 01:12:47 AM
I have a feeling that Scorsese will turn George Harrison into the Travis Bickle of the Beatles . . . I can just see De Niro looking into a mirror in a dramatic recreation, muttering over and over, "You within me or are you without me?"
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on April 13, 2008, 05:53:16 PM
cool...i was not aware Rqqaw9iN0Js (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rqqaw9iN0Js)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: HeatherBoo on April 13, 2008, 06:18:52 PM
I would have to agree with some of the others, the Stones are probably the 2nd greatest band ever.  

Gimmie Shelter
(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction
The Last Time
Jumpin' Jack Flash
Let's Spend The Night Together
Honky Tonk Women
Paint It Black
Ruby Tuesday
Get Off of my Cloud
Wild Horse
Sympathy for the Devil
Under My Thumb
You Can't Always Get What You Want
19th Nervous Breakdown
It's Only Rock and Roll
Angie
Beast Of Burden
Brown Sugar
Start Me Up

Just to name a few!  They really have a wide range of hits and have been around for a long. Fans young and old love them. They really are a top-notch band.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on April 18, 2008, 01:56:31 AM
wHEVjkK1_U0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHEVjkK1_U0)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on May 11, 2008, 03:42:40 AM
E_YTnenAUXY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_YTnenAUXY)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: wingsman on June 05, 2008, 02:05:30 PM
Hi. I'm gonna make a mix tape for my dad who's turning 53 very soon. And I want to include a collection of Rolling Stones ballads. I got almost every RS album here in my home, but I'm definitely not a fan (love Beatles, hate Stones  :lol: ), so I'm asking to anybody who really likes them about their best ballads...

The ones I know are:
Angie
Out of Tears
Wild Horses
As Tears Go By
Lady Jane
Streets of Love (is this a ballad...?)

And that's it.
If anyone can help me I would be really grateful.  :D
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Geoff on June 06, 2008, 06:17:08 PM
Stones ballads? I'd go with "Lady Jane" from Aftermath and "Almost Hear You Sigh" from Steel Wheels myself. "Beast Of Burden" from Some Girls is pretty good too, and if you've got the nerve, use "Dead Flowers" from Sticky Fingers instead of "Wild Horses." "Sweet Black Angel" from Exile On Main Street and "Everybody Need Somebody to Love" from The Rolling Stones No 2 aren't really ballads but they're very good and would certainly fit. Unless your dad's got a taste for soppy football stadium ballads, just pretend "Angie" and "Fool To Cry" don't exist.  ;D
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Mr. Mustard on June 18, 2008, 10:53:55 PM
I love the Stones -- in my book they're in the holy trinity of rock bands, along with the Beatles and Led Zeppelin.  While I get the Beatles vs Elvis rivalry, and the fact that generally a fan falls into either one camp or the other but not both, I don't see that with the Beatles vs Stones.  I don't relate to the idea of being a fan of one of these bands but not the other.

A previous poster mentioned "Wild Horses" and how it was about Mick's reaction to Marianne Faithfull's OD; I'd heard it was written by Keith and it was to his kids and how he felt when he left them to tour -- I'll have to look into that.

The Stones did something that in my opinion not even the Beatles topped, in that they released five consecutive albums which could be considered all-time greats: Beggar's Banquet, Let it Bleed, Get Your Ya-Yas Out (one of the all-time great live albums), Sticky Fingers and my favorite, Exile On Main Street.  Exile is not that easily accessible, but on repeated listens it grows on you.  Now I think there's not one weak song on the album.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on June 19, 2008, 08:35:17 PM
Mr. Mustard, great! The Beatles and Led Zeppelin - my favourites! However, i dont like everything from Stones. Nevertheless it `s no doubt they are beyond comparison and above a lot of bands.  
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: adamzero on July 08, 2008, 04:07:58 AM
Stones ballads, ah, there's a nice challenge.  

Here goes:

As Tears Go By
The Singer Not the Song
Tell Me
Back Street Girl
Lady Jane
Ruby Tuesday
She Smiled Sweetly
No Expectations
Love in Vain
You Got the Silver
Wild Horses
Moonlight Mile
Angie
Time Waits For No One
Fool to Cry
Memory Motel
Waiting on a Friend
No Use in Crying
Sleep Tonight
The Worst
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on July 12, 2008, 09:29:30 PM
I love - As Tears Go By. Where`s Satisfaction? Oh, it`s not a ballad, is it?
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on July 13, 2008, 03:29:00 AM
rock and roll circus........http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTI3NjUwMjQ=.html
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on July 13, 2008, 03:56:39 AM
my name is iva the engine driver.....
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Mairi on July 15, 2008, 01:47:20 AM
I think I prefer the Marianne Faithfull version of As Tears Go By, to be honest.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on July 17, 2008, 01:30:33 PM
I`m gonna see the new movie with Rollings staring this Saturday. I am looking forward to it! Have you seen it, is it real good?
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: legthi on July 17, 2008, 11:23:18 PM
Quote from: 218
I think I prefer the Marianne Faithfull version of As Tears Go By, to be honest.

I second that. she was great, and a really nice lady!

Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on July 19, 2008, 09:39:04 PM
So, i have seen the new movie with Rollings starring by Martin Scorsese! In English it is called Shine the Light (if i am not mistaken). In fact it is not so much a movie than a concert. I enjoyed it very much, watching these great rockers, and especially Mick Jagger, oh, how wonderful he is! And my favourite song: As Tears Go By! Is the film on in your parts?
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: HeatherBoo on July 20, 2008, 02:04:26 AM
Yes it came out here in the US also
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Mr. Mustard on July 20, 2008, 03:18:06 AM
I attended their show in November of '06 at the Oakland Coliseum, one week into the start of their tour, with Van Morrison opening.

Greatest show I've ever been to.

By the way, has anyone heard (or bought) their most recent album A Bigger Bang?  I listened to the whole thing shortly after it came out, and I really liked it -- the Stones rocked hard and it was probably their best album since Tattoo You, if not Steel Wheels.  But even as I was listening to it, I found it almost 'too clean' -- Jagger's vocals were very up front, not buried in the mix as in vintage Stones LPs.  I wasn't sure what to make of it -- I liked it, but it was a little foreign to me.  Any other opinions on that album, or memories of Stones shows?
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on July 20, 2008, 08:03:19 AM
You got Van Morrison!! Damn. I got Joss Stone. I feel gypped.  But the Stones' rocked. I cannot believe the energy of Mick Jagger. He didn't stop moving the entire two and half to three hours.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on July 20, 2008, 07:54:08 PM
Mr. Mustard! I just love that album! A Bigger Bang is fantastic: Rain Fall Down, This Place Is Empty and the song Biggest Mistake is so thrilling and moving as if Mick has himself experienced the thing profoundly and is venting all his emotions and sorrows on us, feeling the deepest regret about his mistake. I am always so carried away with it...The album is very good, I think it can`t be compared to the monotonous works of some newly, or better say, recently emergent groups, such as Travis or Kean or Coldplay. By the end of their albums you find yourself sleeping soundly. Though all these bands are to my liking. But the Great Rolling Stones are way ahead, miles ahead. Mick is incredible!
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Mr. Mustard on July 20, 2008, 08:01:42 PM
I also saw the Stones play in Oakland (in the smaller indoor arena, about 18,000 seats) in '99.  But I didn't get so lucky with the opener -- Bryan Adams.

I was exhausted watching Jagger 2 years ago.  So much so, that two nights later, the Who (well, Pete and Roger) were playing the Shoreline Amphitheatre (much cheaper ticket, $40 compared to $150 for the Stones), but I was still too worn out from the Stones show to consider seeing the Who.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on July 20, 2008, 09:59:42 PM
Quote from: 1333
I also saw the Stones play in Oakland (in the smaller indoor arena, about 18,000 seats) in '99.  But I didn't get so lucky with the opener -- Bryan Adams.

I was exhausted watching Jagger 2 years ago.  So much so, that two nights later, the Who (well, Pete and Roger) were playing the Shoreline Amphitheatre (much cheaper ticket, $40 compared to $150 for the Stones), but I was still too worn out from the Stones show to consider seeing the Who.

What do you mean by being exhausted? Were you in the fan area, dancing, singing, shouting so that you could no longer stand it? Did Mick involve you in the show emotionally so much that you needed a break to come round? And is Bryan Adams no good on stage?
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: fendertele on July 20, 2008, 10:20:01 PM
never got into them  :-/ i like paint it black and gimme shelter.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on July 20, 2008, 10:23:13 PM
What about The Girl With Far Away Eyes? One should watch Mick on stage, he is virtuos.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: HeatherBoo on July 20, 2008, 10:27:07 PM
Mick can certainly dance thats for sure.  I wish I had half the energy he does.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Mr. Mustard on July 20, 2008, 11:48:47 PM
I'm not sure exactly 'how' I was exhausted from the '06 show.  I wasn't dancing in the aisles or anything, so it wasn't a physical exhaustion.  But the Stones just emotionally wrung out the audience, for lack of a better description.  Two nights later, debating whether to see the Who, all I could think about it was, Dude, I'm still not quite recovered from the Stones yet.

Bryan Adams in '99: first and foremost, I'm just not a fan of the guy.  He just doesn't do anything for me.  I don't dislike him, I'm just bored by him (which I guess means that by default, I do dislike him; not personally though).  His band was a three-piece, and everything was snow-white: the band's t-shirts and pants, the stage floor, even the drums.  I basically shrugged my way through that set.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Oh Pineapple on July 21, 2008, 05:46:22 AM
This is so random, but Mick Jagger has a huge mouth.
hahah   ??)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on July 21, 2008, 10:28:05 AM
His figure hasn`t changed a bit, so upright and thin, that`s why the mouth had to take the blow!  ;D
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Oh Pineapple on July 21, 2008, 06:20:13 PM
hahahahahahaahah
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Mr. Mustard on July 21, 2008, 09:57:57 PM
Bryan Adams redux:

Yesterday the local rock station was doing their typical weekend triple-shots, and during the afternoon they played 3 by Bryan Adams.

I have to admit, Run to You is a pretty damn good song, both musically and lyrically.  And Cuts Like a Knife isn't bad.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on July 22, 2008, 09:18:13 PM
And what about - When a Man Loves a Woman, by Bryan Adams ? Incredible!!! Incomparable!!! The best of the best! So romantic and touching! Don`t you think so?
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Mr. Mustard on July 22, 2008, 10:48:37 PM
Eh, I prefer Percy Sledge's.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: HeatherBoo on July 22, 2008, 11:40:11 PM
Yea I like Percy better.

And yes Mick has a huge mouth, also Steven Tyler from Aerosmith.  They both kinda have the same look.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on July 23, 2008, 08:14:46 PM
Quote from: 1204
Yea I like Percy better.

 also Steven Tyler from Aerosmith.  They both kinda have the same look.


Oh GOD no!!! NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!



[size=18]NO![/size]

 ??)


BTW, how much of a rip off is this pic? They SO wanna be the American Rolling Stones. NOT QUITE. BTW, Tyler doesn't have 1/8th of the sex appeal Mick had/has.
(http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Mark-Seliger/Steven-Tyler-and-Joe-Perry-Rolling-Stone-no-867-April-2001-Photographic-Print-C13020746.jpeg)

The real thing.
(http://www.rollingstonesnet.com/images/RS191.jpg)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on July 23, 2008, 10:35:50 PM
Sandra, I agree with you 100% ! Mick is sooooo sexy, while Tyler is...well...not quite.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Mr. Mustard on July 23, 2008, 10:44:11 PM
I always looked at Aerosmith -- when they were at their best, in the mid '70s, as trying to bridge the gap between the Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin; the Stones in their look and attitude, and raunch, and Zeppelin in their melodies (Dream On, Joe Perry's style of play).

I don't dislike Aerosmith (I have one of their greatest hits albums, with their '70s stuff, which is enough for me), but I was a little dismayed when I saw in the Guiness record book a few years ago that the top five album-selling bands in the U.S., according to the RIAA (Recording Ind. Assn. of America), are (in order) the Beatles, Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, the Eagles, and AEROSMITH!

I was shocked that Aerosmith has outsold the Stones (at least in terms of albums) in the U.S.  I know they had their big comeback in the '80s (actually they got way bigger than they ever were in the '70s), but still!  I was slightly less surprised by the high rankings of Floyd and the Eagles, though in their cases each band had a couple of albums that are in the top 5 or 10 biggest sellers ever.  The Stones don't have that one Godzilla-type album like The Wall, or Dark Side, or Eagles Greatest Hits -- their stuff sold steadily but in smaller numbers.  I still think of the Stones as being bigger than all other bands except for the Beatles and Zep, but maybe they're not as popular as I think.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on July 23, 2008, 11:07:36 PM
The thing is that Stones` music is harder to absorb. I believe they are greater onstage than on CD, so to speak. Every song of theirs becomes outstanding when you watch them perform. Their music is real rock. While Aerosmith is much more pop and they have more catchy melodies. People in the majority prefer pop, or rock-pop, or the like. You are right, Stones are big and great, but less popular - cause they are not pop.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: HeatherBoo on July 24, 2008, 12:23:53 AM
I meant in the sense that they have big mouths and also really skinny and somewhat style of clothes.  Wrong choice of words HAHA Mick is way better than Steven!  Steven is starting to look scary like he had a bunch of surgery or something  :D
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on July 24, 2008, 01:54:02 AM
Quote from: 1333
I always looked at Aerosmith -- when they were at their best, in the mid '70s, as trying to bridge the gap between the Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin; the Stones in their look and attitude, and raunch, and Zeppelin in their melodies (Dream On, Joe Perry's style of play).

I don't dislike Aerosmith (I have one of their greatest hits albums, with their '70s stuff, which is enough for me), but I was a little dismayed when I saw in the Guiness record book a few years ago that the top five album-selling bands in the U.S., according to the RIAA (Recording Ind. Assn. of America), are (in order) the Beatles, Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, the Eagles, and AEROSMITH!

I was shocked that Aerosmith has outsold the Stones (at least in terms of albums) in the U.S.  I know they had their big comeback in the '80s (actually they got way bigger than they ever were in the '70s), but still!  I was slightly less surprised by the high rankings of Floyd and the Eagles, though in their cases each band had a couple of albums that are in the top 5 or 10 biggest sellers ever.  The Stones don't have that one Godzilla-type album like The Wall, or Dark Side, or Eagles Greatest Hits -- their stuff sold steadily but in smaller numbers.  I still think of the Stones as being bigger than all other bands except for the Beatles and Zep, but maybe they're not as popular as I think.

Dream On alone got more radio play than the best of any Stone's song. Well, besides Satisfaction. It's like a Stairway to Heaven or Another Brick in the Wall Part II. And Toys in the Attic was pretty huge. And again spawned radio staples:  Walk This Way and Sweet Emotion. Oh yeah, and then that thing they did with Run DMC and the whole eighties sell out come back. A lot of gimmicky and flash in the pan stuff that sold huge at the time.

But yeah, how they outsold the Stones is beyond me. I think the Stones probably kick anyones ass in concert ticket sales though.

Funny, I was just thinking about Pink Floyd and how they became such a monster band. I think that's so awesome that they're in that top five. But not surprised. Isn't it a right of passage for every young budding stoner to experience Dark Side in various states of...uh, what's the word?
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Oh Pineapple on July 24, 2008, 03:15:23 AM
I thought Mick Jagger had a little something, something back in his early days.
hah
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Mr. Mustard on July 24, 2008, 05:43:47 AM
Quote from: 216
Funny, I was just thinking about Pink Floyd and how they became such a monster band. I think that's so awesome that they're in that top five. But not surprised. Isn't it a right of passage for every young budding stoner to experience Dark Side in various states of...uh, what's the word?

I think the word you're thinking of is "consciousness."
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on July 24, 2008, 10:00:39 AM
How could the Eagles have got to the top? It`s a surprise to me. They ve got Hotel California, sure a hit, but to be number 4 is beyond me. Are they really so popular in the USA?
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Mr. Mustard on July 24, 2008, 10:25:03 AM
Supposedly, the Eagles' first greatest hits album is the #1 selling album of all time.  Or at least in the U.S.  But the Michael Jackson/Thriller camp will likely dispute that.  (I think Thriller is #1 worldwide, but Eagles Greatest Hits might be #1 in the U.S.).  And the Hotel Califonia album was a massive seller as well.  

I read somewhere about the Eagles' record sales, and someone (I wish I remember the source) derisively said that most of the Eagles' sales came from those promotions you would find in the middle of magazines, where you could buy 12 albums for a penny (plus what was in the small print).  I thought that was funny, but then I remembered that that was exactly how I bought their greatest hits CD!  (The company that ran that promotion was Columbia House.)

And I own the Hotel California LP on vinyl -- which I bought at a used record store (Rasputin's) for $1.  I still remember that day -- I picked up about 12 classic albums -- Eagles, Neil Young, Skynyrd, Allmans, Bowie, Traffic, some others, for 12 FREAKING DOLLARS!  
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on July 24, 2008, 11:59:13 AM
Quote from: 1393
How could the Eagles have got to the top? It`s a surprise to me. They ve got Hotel California, sure a hit, but to be number 4 is beyond me. Are they really so popular in the USA?

Yes. I've even heard them promoted as America's answer to the Beatles. Which is pretty lame, but I get it. There's a massive amount of talent in that band. They've got a great amount of hits. All members wrote and sang and their musicianship is excellent. When they started, it was supposed to be a situation of all members being equal. Similar to the Beatles style. All getting songs on the album, all getting the same amount of money. Then Henley and Frey's egos got in the way. As it is, Joe Walsh is just a paid employee at this point! Which is ridiculous because a good amount of their live show consists of old Jame's Gang and solo Walsh songs. Kinda sucks because I feel like stuff like this takes the soul out of a band. They all pretty much hate each other. Don Felder, who wrote most of Hotel California was fired and had to sue them, two other guys quit because of the way they were being treated and so on.

Anyway, yeah, they're pretty huge over here. No problems at all selling five or six nights worth of shows at stadiums. They did it here when they played The Staples Center which is a huge stadium. They even had to add a show.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: BlueMeanie on July 24, 2008, 12:12:04 PM
In the movie, do you actually get to see Darryl Jones playing bass? Of all the film I have seen of them I have yet to see him, unless it's a distance shot of the whole stage.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Geoff on July 24, 2008, 12:18:56 PM
Quote from: 483
In the movie, do you actually get to see Darryl Jones playing bass? Of all the film I have seen of them I have yet to see him, unless it's a distance shot of the whole stage.

 ;D

Great point, that. Can't say I noticed a lot of shots of him either.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Geoff on July 24, 2008, 12:34:57 PM
Quote from: 216
Yes. I've even heard them promoted as America's answer to the Beatles. Which is pretty lame, but I get it. There's a massive amount of talent in that band. They've got a great amount of hits. All members wrote and sang and their musicianship is excellent. When they started, it was supposed to be a situation of all members being equal. Similar to the Beatles style.  


Never had much interest in the Hotel California type of thing myself, but I like some of the earlier stuff:

Take It Easy

mM6apXyhHg0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM6apXyhHg0)

I think Jackson Browne had a hand in writing it, but I'm not sure.  :)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on July 24, 2008, 01:22:57 PM
Very interesting! Could have never thought of such a high position for the Eagles!
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on July 24, 2008, 10:22:14 PM
Though the thread is dedicated to the Stones, we spoke about Brian Adams here, and I can`t help saying that driving home late at night, just 20 minutes ago i listened on the radio to Brian singing When a Man Loves a Woman and then came Eric`s You`re Wonderful Tonight. Two SUCH songs running! I go crazy listening to men singing such romantic beautiful songs. Still haven`t come round. Oh, what an emotional person!
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on August 02, 2008, 02:00:31 AM
I'm listening to Wild Horses right now, and while I LOVE Mick's style, his delivery just cracks me up sometimes. I mean, he really goes overboard with the southern accent thing. If that was in fact what he was trying to emulate. I wonder if he worked on that or if it just came naturally. Personally, I like it better when English singers sing with their English accents. Like the dudes from Pink Floyd or the Kinks. Even the Beatles really. But it did work for the Stones I guess. Part of their charm. :K)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on August 02, 2008, 02:06:38 AM
And just because:  
(http://www.morrisonhotelgallery.com/images/medium/RS%201965%20%20Mick%20Jagger.jpg)
(http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p219/sam_cucuo/MickJagger2.jpg)
He's so purty!


Evidence!  :X
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t110/99shadesofgrey/Exceptional%20Others/Musicians/DavidBowie_MickJagger1.jpg)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Geoff on August 02, 2008, 04:04:10 AM
Quote from: 216
I'm listening to Wild Horses right now, and while I LOVE Mick's style, his delivery just cracks me up sometimes. I mean, he really goes overboard with the southern accent thing. If that was in fact what he was trying to emulate.

It's not the idiom that does him in, it's his utter inability to project (or convincingly fake) the "sincerity" the song requires. He's swinging away at emotions he knows about from other songs but doesn't particularly feel himself. Callow, callow, callow.  8)

Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on August 02, 2008, 02:15:24 PM
What? Are you implying that Mick doesn't really have any soul? No depth? You mean, that was all just an illusion? ??)


 ;)

Hey all I own from them is a best of CD. I have a sneaking suspicion that they might be slightly overrated. Although, Gimme Shelter is a masterpiece of a song.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: HeatherBoo on August 02, 2008, 03:55:24 PM
I love Gimme Shelter
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Geoff on August 02, 2008, 05:05:56 PM
Quote from: 216
What? Are you implying that Mick doesn't really have any soul? No depth?

 ;D

Mick has all the depth of a guy who would get married in Bali so he could later try to have the marriage annulled in order to cheat his wife out of a divorce settlement. ("What, me married? No way, that was just a thing, you know?")  ;D

Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on August 02, 2008, 09:07:53 PM
I absolutely can`t agree with the above! Mick is very profound in his songs! Please, listen to A Bigger Bang album, to the song Biggest Mistake in particular. It seems as if he had experienced the situation himself and had felt the song in and out and through.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Mr. Mustard on August 02, 2008, 11:16:20 PM
Sandra, if you want to branch out from the compilation CD (which one is it, by the way?  Hot Rocks or something else?), consider these 5 albums:  Beggars Banquet (Nineteen Sixty-eight), which besides Sympathy has great tracks like Stray Cat Blues, Parachute Woman, Street Fighting Man, Salt of the Earth (Keith's first vocal, I think, and he screeches out the first verse like some kind of constipated junky -- great moment);  Let it Bleed (1969) -- Shelter, the title track, You Can't Always Get What You Want, Midnight Rambler, You Got the Silver, Monkey Man; Get Yer Ya-Yas Out! ('70) -- the 1969 live show from Madison Square Garden, one of the great live records in rock, and the best live Stones recording; Sticky Fingers ('71), with Brown Sugar, B*tch, Wild Horses (I like this one myself), Sister Morphine, Dead Flowers, Moonlight Mile; and the Stones' true masterpiece, Exile on Main Street ('72).  A double album with not a weak moment on it.

These five consecutive LPs are the peak of the Stones' career.  I don't think that even the Beatles or Led Zeppelin strung together five straight albums of such high quality.

However -- it may take more than one listening to appreciate these records' greatness.  Exile on Main Street, which usually is ranked in the top 5 or 10 albums of all time (in various magazines/books/polls), was actually panned by many critics when it was released.  The Stones aren't as easily accessible as the Beatles; you may listen to one of these records and think 'eh, not that impressed,' but if you put in the time, it'll be worth it.  They'll grow on you.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on August 03, 2008, 07:00:27 PM
Agree with Mr. Mustard. Well said - "They`ll grow on you."
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on November 10, 2008, 04:53:30 AM
ODAQ7F8ePIs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODAQ7F8ePIs)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: aspinall_lover on November 12, 2008, 08:27:45 PM
^^^^^^^^Alright Marshall...........you got me "jones-ing" for some "Jones".............
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: mysterymagic on November 14, 2008, 06:00:53 PM
The Rolling Stones are a truly awesome band.  Ladies And Gentleman The Rolling Stones is the best concert film ever made!  The Beggar's to Exile period of there music will never be equaled imo.

I don't think I could ever choose one song as my favorite because there are so many, maybe Jumping Jack Flash if I had to pick just one.  I always get the chills listening to Mick sing I Got the Blues from Sticky Fingers.  Great stuff.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Mairi on November 18, 2008, 11:47:04 PM
right now I'm just obsessed with Miss Amanda Jones. I can't stop listening to it!
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on November 19, 2008, 01:37:07 AM
Quote from: 1333
Sandra, if you want to branch out from the compilation CD (which one is it, by the way?  Hot Rocks or something else?), consider these 5 albums:  Beggars Banquet (Nineteen Sixty-eight), which besides Sympathy has great tracks like Stray Cat Blues, Parachute Woman, Street Fighting Man, Salt of the Earth (Keith's first vocal, I think, and he screeches out the first verse like some kind of constipated junky -- great moment);  Let it Bleed (1969) -- Shelter, the title track, You Can't Always Get What You Want, Midnight Rambler, You Got the Silver, Monkey Man; Get Yer Ya-Yas Out! ('70) -- the 1969 live show from Madison Square Garden, one of the great live records in rock, and the best live Stones recording; Sticky Fingers ('71), with Brown Sugar, B*tch, Wild Horses (I like this one myself), Sister Morphine, Dead Flowers, Moonlight Mile; and the Stones' true masterpiece, Exile on Main Street ('72).  A double album with not a weak moment on it.

These five consecutive LPs are the peak of the Stones' career.  I don't think that even the Beatles or Led Zeppelin strung together five straight albums of such high quality.

However -- it may take more than one listening to appreciate these records' greatness.  Exile on Main Street, which usually is ranked in the top 5 or 10 albums of all time (in various magazines/books/polls), was actually panned by many critics when it was released.  The Stones aren't as easily accessible as the Beatles; you may listen to one of these records and think 'eh, not that impressed,' but if you put in the time, it'll be worth it.  They'll grow on you.

I think the Rolling Stones are much more accessible than the Beatles. They're way more straight forward and stick to pretty much one genre. Rarely do they branch out like the Beatles did. And branching out sometimes throws fans off. Which is why I find the Stones to be more mainstream and bland overall. Pretty much just one singer, same formula, and a lot of show. I like them a lot when I'm in the mood and have been listening to them for years and years. Used to be more obsessed with them in my teen years. I have or have had most of those songs in some form or another over the year, so it's nothing new really. So I guess if they haven't grown on me in all these years, they're probably not going to ever. I mean, again, I like them, but only when I'm in the mood. I'm tired of most of their stuff. Hear it too much. Unlike the Beatles. Never get sick of them. And I've been a fan since I was like eight. Just a matter of personal taste I guess.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on November 19, 2008, 01:39:01 AM
Quote from: 218
right now I'm just obsessed with Miss Amanda Jones. I can't stop listening to it!

That song always reminds me of that old eighties movie with Eric Stoltz. Cool song though. Cool movie too.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: on December 22, 2008, 12:33:37 PM
My Fave song at the moment seems to be (worryingly), Paint it black. My favourite part is the Rocky chorus, not the indian style verses.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: on December 22, 2008, 01:40:27 PM
well I always used to hate to step in this thread, because I think The Rolling Stones became more sell-outs than I thought

makes me puke...
nZBmhEMFdl0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZBmhEMFdl0)

mick and keith are just bigheaded rock stars. what they are made good for music over the last thirty years? through those 30 years their highest song in charts was a "start me up"! wtf that song is weak and weird, lol. Brian Jones got kicked out of the stones though actually he had named and formed the rolling stones. what a bullsh*t, mick was jealous of him. anyway the stones used to be great, but it was somewhere in the 60s, after that (after The Beatles breakup) they started to regress in music and especially in rock music, they weren't a rock band already. what a shame...
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: on December 22, 2008, 01:56:52 PM
ouch
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on December 22, 2008, 09:47:49 PM
Have just seen Shine The Light about the Rolling Stones again. Love it.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: python on December 22, 2008, 10:39:37 PM
i much prefer the early Stones albums .Aftermath and Out of our Heads are magnificent.But i dont know what happened with Between the Buttons.Theres a couple of ok tracks like Yesterdays Papers but as a follow up to Aftermath,it just doesnt do it.
And then theres Brian.The most talented Stone by far.Bless him.He plays Dulcimer on Lady Jane.Oh,so good.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Geoff on December 22, 2008, 11:46:31 PM
Quote from: 1610
i much prefer the early Stones albums .Aftermath and Out of our Heads are magnificent.But i dont know what happened with Between the Buttons.Theres a couple of ok tracks like Yesterdays Papers but as a follow up to Aftermath,it just doesnt do it.

The US version of Buttons plays better because it has the single "Let's Spend The Night Together"/"Ruby Tuesday" instead of "Backstreet Girl" and "Please Go Home." The same goes for Out Of Our Heads: it has "Satisfaction," "The Last Time," and "Play With Fire," all of which appeared on singles in the UK. Redundancy would still make the UK albums preferable if you have a good singles collection, though.  :)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on December 23, 2008, 12:49:01 AM
you got robbed on stones albums and us on beatle album...fair trade i'd say... ;D
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on December 23, 2008, 12:55:13 AM
Quote from: 1588
My Fave song at the moment seems to be (worryingly), Paint it black. My favourite part is the Rocky chorus, not the indian style verses.

i love that tune and this one...E3DBRbrbHnc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3DBRbrbHnc)
heart of stone is another cool one...lL7vh74bx7c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL7vh74bx7c)i too love the old stones..more creative than the beatles too by far in the early period....that is only in the early period the beatles far surpassed them after 66...i think brian jones and john could have made great music together..
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on December 23, 2008, 01:10:14 AM
how can you not dig mick?????!!!!!!
f5HNk5adESE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5HNk5adESE)0adgEdCdWvA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0adgEdCdWvA)
funky dancer funny how that got old tho isn't it??
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: aspinall_lover on December 23, 2008, 01:18:08 AM
I LOVE the videos with Brian!!!!  THAT was the best Stones.........with Brian.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: aspinall_lover on December 23, 2008, 01:31:31 AM
Yeah, Marshall...............John and Brian could have made some "devilishly temping" music............
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on December 23, 2008, 08:35:49 PM
Oh, another round with the Rolling Stones with me...I am enjoying their music. They are great! By the way, is it just a myth that they were jealous of Brian and his talent and did their best to oust him from the band? I remember reading something about it.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: aspinall_lover on December 23, 2008, 09:46:11 PM
^^^^^^I think so Jane.  They.........Mick and Keith..........were jealous of his talent AND his looks, I believe is what I heard.  I read/heard something somewhere when the Stones were starting out and living is less desireable conditions, Brian would have to wash his hair every day, even if no running hot water and he just had to have his hair perfect.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on December 23, 2008, 10:22:45 PM
A neat guy this Brian was! And yes, he was handsome. It is not very clever to be jealous of somebody from your own band, it is better to use the talent to the band`s advantage. And good looks are surely a great contribution too! To attract more fans. Cause whatever people say looks do matter. For somebody on stage. What a pity! But as far as I remember Brian died of drinking and drugs?
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: python on December 23, 2008, 11:35:21 PM
Quote from: 1393
A neat guy this Brian was! And yes, he was handsome. It is not very clever to be jealous of somebody from your own band, it is better to use the talent to the band`s advantage. And good looks are surely a great contribution too! To attract more fans. Cause whatever people say looks do matter. For somebody on stage. What a pity! But as far as I remember Brian died of drinking and drugs?

Brian was alledgedlgy murdered in his pool at his home in Sussex.I cant remember if it was his driver or one of the builders who was working on his house at the time.Im sure someone will correct me on that one.The book,Who Killed Cock Robin ? is worth a read.

Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: aspinall_lover on December 23, 2008, 11:51:47 PM
^^^^^I think it was the builder Brian had hired to remodel some stuff.  Ask Marshall......."pc31".........he'd know more.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on December 24, 2008, 12:36:18 AM
Quote from: 1255
^^^^^I think it was the builder Brian had hired to remodel some stuff.  Ask Marshall......."pc31".........he'd know more.


Here's a link to some info. Deathbed confessions and all that. But it's so convoluted.

Janet Lawson was the person who found Rolling Stones star Brian Jones dead at the bottom of his swimming pool on July 2, 1969.
Officially, Jones, aged just 27, drowned while under the influence of drink and drugs. A verdict of death by misadventure was recorded at his inquest.
For almost 40 years, Janet Lawson kept her true identity and story private. But earlier this year, shortly before her death from cancer, she broke her silence and provided me with sworn testimony that threatens to turn the official version on its head.

The rest of the story here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1090439/Has-riddle-Rolling-Stone-Brian-Joness-death-solved-last.html

Also:

On June 8th 1969,Mick Jagger,Keith Richards and Charlie Watts arrived at Brian's brand new mansion in Hartfield,Sussex,England,to fire him from the band. On July 3rd,1969 Brian was found by his girlfriend Anna Wolen and friend Frank Thourogood dead at the bottom of his own swimming pool. There has been many speculations as to what killed Brian. Was he murdered? There was a rumor that Frank had accidentaly drowed Brian in a alcohol induced argument,claims Brian's assistant,that Frank made a deathbed confession, almost 25 years later. Or did Brian get an asthma attack while swimming?? He was often called a great swimmer. We will never know how Brian died,even though there was Barbituates were found in his blood,which were prescribed to help Brian sleep. To this day,it still remains a mystery.


And here's a youtubeaudio clip of Frank Thorogood's deathbed confession. Apparently, authorities never really took it seriously. Strange.

3MmoBfGMbr (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MmoBfGMbr)

Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: aspinall_lover on December 24, 2008, 01:44:52 AM
^^^^^Sandra...........ever watched that "so called" movie on Brian called "Stoned"?????  Pretty damn good.  Marshall's got me hooked on it.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on December 24, 2008, 02:44:07 AM
rubbish...frank killed a beautiful soul receptacle....end of story...
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on December 24, 2008, 02:48:33 AM
well not totally it seems..i think brian used people up..that's the reasons people tired of this reclusive g-nus...
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on December 25, 2008, 01:35:38 PM
(http://www.morethings.com/music/rolling_stones/images/1964/brian_jones-1964-Beatles_party.jpg)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: python on December 25, 2008, 02:30:09 PM
thats a great pic.lovely
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: on December 25, 2008, 03:47:13 PM
I wan't Stones fan for a long time, but recently I started to listen to their music more. Well, OK, my favourite songs are still Angie, Wild Horses and Out of Tears. I assume their earlier stuff is something I'd like a lot, so I'll have to find their albums.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on December 25, 2008, 07:49:55 PM
good choice le kim...i do like the earlier stones for the bluesy guitar work on them....they sort of toned it down after the 80s...
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: python on December 26, 2008, 09:24:29 AM
Aftermath is a great album.Full of fantastic tunes.Lady Jane is superb as is Mothers Little Helper.1966 was their finest year,in my opinion.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on December 26, 2008, 08:25:50 PM
Quote from: 1610
Aftermath is a great album.Full of fantastic tunes.Lady Jane is superb as is Mothers Little Helper.1966 was their finest year,in my opinion.

Thanks for the prompt very much! Since I don`t know them that well, I think I have to listen to this particular album. What do you think of the album A Bigger Bang?
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: python on December 26, 2008, 10:37:35 PM
Quote from: 1393

Thanks for the prompt very much! Since I don`t know them that well, I think I have to listen to this particular album. What do you think of the album A Bigger Bang?


I think you will enjoy Aftermath,Jane.Great album.I havent actually heard A Bigger Bang.Havent got that much interest in the Stones music today,to be honest.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: aspinall_lover on December 26, 2008, 11:25:33 PM
I love the early Stones with Brian..............totally different than what they are today............
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: python on December 27, 2008, 12:50:20 AM
Quote from: 1255
I love the early Stones with Brian..............totally different than what they are today............

Have to agree with you there,100%

Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: aspinall_lover on December 27, 2008, 02:10:48 AM
^^^^Thank you python!!!  Just "roll the Stones out on wheel chairs" now on stage......and like I stated, I think a couple of times, just "prop" Keith's mummy body up on stage and there you go........
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on December 27, 2008, 03:21:38 PM
stones home site....http://www.rollingstones.com/home.php
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on January 03, 2009, 02:50:07 AM
Lucky woman. What, the Beatles weren't enough for her!!

(http://www.morethings.com/music/rolling_stones/images/1964/pattie_boyd-rolling_stones-1964.jpg)

Nervous Mick:
(http://www.morethings.com/music/rolling_stones/images/jagger-watches-altamont_stabbing.jpg)

Never understood why they called Brian the good looking one. I don't see it. Before or after the drugs and alcohol.
(http://www.morethings.com/music/rolling_stones/images/brian_jones234234.jpg)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on January 03, 2009, 09:40:31 PM
Yes, Sandra, you seem to be right. And also - when you want everything you get nothing, the thing that happened to her in the end, unfortunately. :(
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Mairi on January 05, 2009, 03:50:32 AM
Quote from: 1393
Yes, Sandra, you seem to be right. And also - when you want everything you get nothing, the thing that happened to her in the end, unfortunately. :(

Well, you can't always get what you want.

Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on January 05, 2009, 03:32:01 PM
my little one from jimi and brian hOOqmyL8LvE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOOqmyL8LvE)
Rqqaw9iN0Js (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rqqaw9iN0Js)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on January 05, 2009, 03:39:07 PM
9HdiJ1Y7SUg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HdiJ1Y7SUg)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on January 05, 2009, 03:41:18 PM
5JQHA7H8l2w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JQHA7H8l2w) studio stones Sympathy For The Devil
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on January 05, 2009, 03:46:34 PM
the stones from ready steady go doing off the hook and little red rooster...pMVS-6a60fA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMVS-6a60fA)
and then a beatles fer.....
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on January 05, 2009, 03:51:53 PM
for the chicks....r54Y_kWyD6Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r54Y_kWyD6Y)ztB_sJLC5Ew (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztB_sJLC5Ew)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on January 14, 2009, 03:14:15 AM
I've read on here somewhere that Keith wrote most of the Stone's songs. Where does this come from and how do we know? I've googled this, but can't find any info. Why the Jagger/Richards credit then? Just wondering.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on January 16, 2009, 06:42:27 PM
keith?????no i haven't heard this but it could be true....i know they didn't write alot of thier stuff...
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on January 16, 2009, 08:23:28 PM
I could have sworn someone around here said that at some point so I wss just wondering if it were true. I have no idea. So was it Mick and Keith then evenly? Come on Stone's fans!
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Mr. Mustard on January 17, 2009, 02:30:26 AM
Hello all!

Keith is most definitely considered the musical visionary of the Stones.  He wrote the riff for Satisfaction and hasn't looked back since.  Mick is more of a lyricist than anything.  As most of you probably know, it was Lennon/McCartney that spurred Mick and Keith to write their own songs -- the Beatles visited the Stones' recording studio and the Glimmer Twins watched John and Paul working together, composing I Wanna Be Your Man, which they gave to the Stones to record.  Impressed, Mick and Keith realized, "We should try that."  Which was probably the first nail in Brian Jones's coffin -- once Mick and Keith united, Brian was no longer the leader of the band.

Had Brian been able to write songs, the Stones probably wouldn't have kicked him out for his drug abuse.  When the Stones recorded Exile on Main Street in '72, the band and all their side musicians had to wait an interminable amount of time, sometimes till long after midnight, for Keith to come out of the bathroom due to his heroin "naps."  The hired musicians wondered why they couldn't just start without Keith;  "Keith's got the music," was the general response.

And I don't get why some posters are jabbing at the Stones, saying they have to be propped up onstage, etc.  Nonsense!  I saw them in Nov. '06 in Oakland and they wore out the crowd for 3 hours.  Mick Jagger could put out a fitness video, the guy's so in shape.  We should all be that fit when we hit our 60s!
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Deb on January 17, 2009, 03:19:46 AM
I'm a big Brian-era Stones fan, too.  The Stones manager, Andrew Loog Oldman, really pushed Mick and Keith to start writing their own stuff.   Brian played great slide guitar on I Wanna Be Your Man.....and he also played dulcimer, mellotron, recorder, xylophone, sitar, marimbas, etc.  He was good friends with John and George and used to hang out with George at Kinfauns. I've visited Brian's grave in Cheltenham twice.  
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on January 17, 2009, 02:09:22 PM
i think after they left brian out they hit and missed more often...
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: python on January 17, 2009, 02:13:16 PM
Brian ,for me,WAS the Stones.After all,it was his band.And he was such a talent.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on January 17, 2009, 02:16:55 PM
oh no python...that's awful...lol
i wonder when they will have a steel wheelchair concert??
brian was ahead of them musically,still is as far as i can hear...it is hard to believe they have lasted and live this long... ;)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: python on January 17, 2009, 02:31:57 PM
it is amazing,PC.they shouldve given up the ghost a long time ago.Of course,the Stones did make sone fine tunes after Brian but ,and I think Im in the majority here,1965/66 with Brian were their best years.And he loved Elmore James,too.What a man.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on January 17, 2009, 02:44:57 PM
it was the blues/jazz influences that spawned the stones concept...thier name comes directly from a blues song...to give up your basic building block is not wise...they could have maintained that without brian and have discovered more about themselves...
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on January 17, 2009, 02:49:09 PM
i think howling wolf is who wrote the tune...damn sometimes in these discussions i would rather be in a chat room for intant responses..the forum doesn't post them right away sometimes or an idea flees while i am typing...
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Deb on January 17, 2009, 02:51:51 PM
Yes, Brian did love Elmore James.....he even went by the name "Elmo Lewis" when he was performing in the London clubs.   The Stones were never the same after he died.   Brian started the band, named it, and pushed them to the forefront of the British music scene.....while Mick was still studying economics and Keith was lying around their flat all day.  

Quote from: 1610
it is amazing,PC.they shouldve given up the ghost a long time ago.Of course,the Stones did make sone fine tunes after Brian but ,and I think Im in the majority here,1965/66 with Brian were their best years.And he loved Elmore James,too.What a man.

Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: python on January 17, 2009, 02:57:56 PM
Rolling Stone was by Muddy Waters.and ,yes,a chat room would be great,PC.What do you think,Sandra?

Brian was the man,Deb.No doubt about it.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on January 17, 2009, 03:37:37 PM
ok muddy...i was cornfused because i just watched that movie cadalliac records...great movie did you see it?the stones hooked muddy up...made it possibler for him to keep playing...that an interesting venue to explore lets....GPbGNx4n3zc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPbGNx4n3zc)
the craze they created for the blues in europe help the blues live....
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on January 17, 2009, 03:41:03 PM
1mujaxzs3X4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mujaxzs3X4) buddy guy helping here....i like this group of vids....
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on January 17, 2009, 03:43:29 PM
mick does play a better mouth harp than john too...i always felt that way....see this is thier element....i love it...i wonder if it an available media disc....
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on January 17, 2009, 03:44:35 PM
Quote from: 1610
Rolling Stone was by Muddy Waters.and ,yes,a chat room would be great,PC.What do you think,Sandra?

Brian was the man,Deb.No doubt about it.
actually i do have a chat room i sometimes try to herd people too...i wasn't herd just now tho....was i?

Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on January 17, 2009, 03:46:52 PM
live link here incase you wanna stumble thru more of this preformance...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgaUFP8nW0s&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLjqY-6l5gY&feature=related
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on January 17, 2009, 03:54:45 PM
-LHoD0CZmJE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LHoD0CZmJE)  ;D a little short on soul bobby...i like my blues but look bob...
1VlRUIHwygc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VlRUIHwygc) this aussie got more going on than you...
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on January 17, 2009, 03:55:23 PM
i wonder who she is???!!! ;D ;D
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on January 17, 2009, 07:07:26 PM
Quote from: 284
-LHoD0CZmJE ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LHoD0CZmJE[/url])  ;D a little short on soul bobby...i like my blues but look bob...
1VlRUIHwygc ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VlRUIHwygc[/url]) this aussie got more going on than you...




I love AC/DC, but no way in HELL Bon Scott's got more soul than Bob Dylan!! Bob sings it from a different place all together. As if he actually gets it. Just sayin'.   8)

And I guess the idea of having both a school boy and a school girl in the band was short lived. Thank GOD! Leave the glam to Bowie I say. He at least looked like a real girl.   ;)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Mr. Mustard on January 17, 2009, 09:16:00 PM
As great as the early Stones were, their greatest musical output was between '68 and '72: Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Get Yer Ya-Yas Out, Sticky Fingers, Exile.

Brian's musical experimentation and versatility were admirable, but unfortunately he kind of played himself out of the band.  By Beggars Banquet, the band was done trying to jump on the acid rock bandwagon and they were returning to their bluesy roots.  At that point, Brian was off in his own world, playing exotic instruments and contributing very little to the Keith/Mick vision.  Had he lived, it would have been interesting to see what he would have done musically on his own.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Deb on January 17, 2009, 10:25:01 PM
Brian considered the Stones his band and as time went on he resented Mick and Keith's control more and more.  It got to the point where he didn't want to go the studio anymore.  Had he lived he may have written another film soundtrack, became more interested in world music or started a new band of his own.  It's hard to tell!
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on January 17, 2009, 10:36:21 PM
I think people make Brian Jones out to be more than what he was. The Stone's evolved without him, and did a pretty good job of it too. He was one of those artists that sort of peaked too soon and then can't handle it. Like a Syd Barrett. It's easy to blame the drugs/alcohol though.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: alexis on January 18, 2009, 12:07:19 AM
Say, I'm still wondering about Sandra's question earlier ... I've also heard that Keith Richards wrote most of their tunes, with Mick helping with the vocals ... any confirmation?
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Geoff on January 18, 2009, 12:59:48 AM
Quote from: 216
I think people make Brian Jones out to be more than what he was. The Stone's evolved without him, and did a pretty good job of it too.

Mick and Keith learned how to write songs, something Brian never managed to do, and that changed the balance of power in the band and was largely responsible for Brian being elbowed aside. He was a wonderful instrumentalist until he got bogged down in drugs, though, and the Stones' early records are much the better for it.  :)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: aspinall_lover on January 18, 2009, 01:18:51 AM
^^^^^I agree, Geoff..........not to mention.........Brian was the most attractive of all.....even "woman like".....
(http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc65/aspinall_2007/7732_3.jpg)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on January 18, 2009, 01:21:39 AM
Quote from: 1161

Mick and Keith learned how to write songs, something Brian never managed to do, and that changed the balance of power in the band and was largely responsible for Brian being elbowed aside. He was a wonderful instrumentalist until he got bogged down in drugs, though, and the Stones' early records are much the better for it.  :)

I'm probably a bit biased. I prefer the Stones' later stuff when they got a bit darker and edgier. Yeah, Brian was hugely talented, but his not being in the band wasn't the great tragedy people make it out to be. Now try to have the Rolling Stones without Mick. But this is all my opinion. My knowledge of the Rolling Stones is limited to say the least.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on January 18, 2009, 01:23:46 AM
Quote from: 1255
^^^^^I agree, Geoff..........not to mention.........Brian was the most attractive of all.....even "woman like".....
([url]http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc65/aspinall_2007/7732_3.jpg[/url])


His taste in clothing was awful! Never understood why people thought he was so hot. Mick has more sexual charisma in one finger than Jone's does in his entire being as far as I'm concerned!! But then, it's all personal taste right? That's what makes the world go round. I'm obviously not a huge Brian Jones devotee.  :)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Geoff on January 18, 2009, 01:28:44 AM
Quote from: 216

I'm probably a bit biased. I prefer the Stones' later stuff when they got a bit darker and edgier.

A lot of people would probably say the Stones peaked between Beggar's Banquet and Exile On Main Street. I think I'd agree with that provided I could kick aside let's-shock-grandma cheese like "Midnight Rambler."

Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Geoff on January 18, 2009, 01:32:00 AM
Quote from: 1255
([url]http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc65/aspinall_2007/7732_3.jpg[/url])


The picture on the top left really reminds me of somebody (female). Can't for the life of me think who, though.

Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: BlueMeanie on January 18, 2009, 01:37:18 AM
Quote from: 1161

The picture on the top left really reminds me of somebody (female). Can't for the life of me think who, though.


Dusty Springfield.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on January 18, 2009, 01:40:56 AM
Quote from: 1161

A lot of people would probably say the Stones peaked between Beggar's Banquet and Exile On Main Street. I think I'd agree with that provided I could kick aside let's-shock-grandma cheese like "Midnight Rambler."


They did pretty well throughout the seventies and into the early eighties. Maybe they didn't have as many great songs per album, but they were still putting out some great stuff. For a band together that long, that's pretty good. Most of them burn out a lot sooner I think. But then, I became way interested in them through Tattoo You and MTV, so I'm not really one to talk. Before that, it was all Beatles all the time. I've never taken the time to really go through the history of the Rolling Stones. I know what songs I like, but have no idea what album they came from. Pathetic, I know. They never intrigued me to that point like other bands tend to do.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on January 18, 2009, 01:41:22 AM
Quote from: 483

Dusty Springfield.

I was gonna say Judi Dench.  :X
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Geoff on January 18, 2009, 01:45:28 AM
^ Dunno. I'm probably just having (another) weird mental aberration.  ;D
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Deb on January 18, 2009, 02:10:29 AM
A friend of mine (who is also a Brian fan) lives in New York City and met Pattie Boyd a couple of months ago at her Morrison Gallery photo exhibit.  He showed Pattie the picture below of Brian and George at Kinfauns and wanted to know who took it.  Patti immediately recognized Kinfauns......but said she wasn't there that day and didn't take the photo.   George could have taken the photo himself......or it may have been snapped by Michael Cooper, who took the photo for the Sgt. Pepper's album cover.

(http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g19/debz_1767/kinfaunsfisheye1967.jpg)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on January 18, 2009, 03:02:51 PM
great photo thanks for sharing..
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Mairi on January 18, 2009, 06:10:39 PM
Quote from: 1161

The picture on the top left really reminds me of somebody (female). Can't for the life of me think who, though.


Julie Christie?

Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on January 18, 2009, 06:49:09 PM
cyn lennon...when she missed the train..http://www.jamd.com/image/g/56170600
(http://beatles.ncf.ca/cyn.jpg)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on January 18, 2009, 06:56:29 PM
I have read that Brian cared much about his appearance and was nicknamed Mr. Shampoo for his washing his hair twice a day. Look at his hair, look at his clothes, it was not at all random, but very well-thought out. And of all the Stones the Beatles distinguished Brian most. I have also read that at first the Stones were a blues band to Brian`s delight.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on January 18, 2009, 06:57:08 PM
was it chair she wore fur??????(http://trendliest.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/sonnychersl1.jpg)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: aspinall_lover on January 18, 2009, 07:00:22 PM
^^^^^^Huh??????
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on January 18, 2009, 07:46:43 PM
Quote from: 1393
I have read that Brian cared much about his appearance and was nicknamed Mr. Shampoo for his washing his hair twice a day. Look at his hair, look at his clothes, it was not at all random, but very well-thought out. And of all the Stones the Beatles distinguished Brian most. I have also read that at first the Stones were a blues band to Brian`s delight.

Well, it makes sense. His hair always looked too dried out and his clothes were ridiculous. Too flamboyant with all that fur and mixed patterns. Even for the sixties. He definitely marched to a different beat. I guess a lot of them do though.  
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: aspinall_lover on January 18, 2009, 08:57:15 PM
Quote from: 1848
A friend of mine (who is also a Brian fan) lives in New York City and met Pattie Boyd a couple of months ago at her Morrison Gallery photo exhibit.  He showed Pattie the picture below of Brian and George at Kinfauns and wanted to know who took it.  Patti immediately recognized Kinfauns......but said she wasn't there that day and didn't take the photo.   George could have taken the photo himself......or it may have been snapped by Michael Cooper, who took the photo for the Sgt. Pepper's album cover.

([url]http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g19/debz_1767/kinfaunsfisheye1967.jpg[/url])


^^^^^I've got a couple more photos like these from that visit and Neil Aspinall is sitting poolside reading.  It could have been Neil that took the picture.................now I got to find the book I have that it's from and post.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Deb on January 18, 2009, 08:59:55 PM
A Flamboyant Brian:

(http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g19/debz_1767/MickBrian.jpg)

(http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g19/debz_1767/OlympicStudios5-19-67.jpg)

(http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g19/debz_1767/BrianJerrySchatzberg66-1.jpg)




Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Deb on January 18, 2009, 09:14:24 PM
Quote from: 1255

^^^^^I've got a couple more photos like these from that visit and Neil Aspinall is sitting poolside reading.  It could have been Neil that took the picture.................now I got to find the book I have that it's from and post.

That would be great!   Thanks!

Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on January 18, 2009, 09:40:49 PM
I don't know, but I think he had some tendencys. Not unlike Mick.  :X
(http://www.gibson.com/Files/aaFeaturesImages/brian%20jones.jpg)

He even makes Hendrix look conservative.
(http://www.bside-rock.com/IMG/jpg/jimi_hendrix_brian_jones.jpg)

Complete opposite of the Beatles in every way. Even when the Beatles had all that hair they still somehow managed not to look like complete dregs.  ??)
(http://www.pitt.edu/~bon/stones69group.jpg)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Deb on January 18, 2009, 10:19:56 PM
The Stones used to be called the "dregs of society" by the press.   Although I've been a big Beatles fan for many years, I used to be a moderator on Brian Jones messageboard.  A friend of mine has been investigating Brian's death for the past few years.  He sometimes works with Scott Jones, the guy who wrote the Daily Mail article about Janet Lawson that was posted earlier in this thread.   Brian sometimes wore makeup....and women's blouses, hats and jewelry.  There has been a persistant rumor over the years that he had a fling with Mick Jagger during the early days of the Stones.  Brian had quite a wild "love" life.......he was into S&M and used to dress up like a woman with one of his girlfriends so they could switch masculine and feminine roles.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Geoff on January 19, 2009, 12:22:59 PM
Quote from: 218
Julie Christie?

I think that's it, actually. Thanks.  :)

Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Penny Lane on January 19, 2009, 12:55:29 PM
I wonder if my mother-in-law harbors a secret crush on Mick Jagger...hehe.  He's not conventionally handsome but I definitely see his animal sex appeal. ;)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on January 19, 2009, 03:32:24 PM
I`ve read that Brian used to go out on very eccentric sprees with dressing-up and so on. The name of his girlfriend with whom he had "fun" was Anita Pallenberg (spelling?), who was absolutely crazy and unbalanced, with whom Brian used to have "fist debates" and who had a perverted influence on Brian. It was she who had some original ideas to dress Brian like an SS-officer or the French female-singer Fr. Ardi (spelling?). But she left Brian for Keith R., which was one of the reasons Brian distanced himself from the guys and went into drinking and drug bouts even more. He had very many girl-friends and admitted that the main thing in his life was "booze, girls and something else".
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Deb on January 19, 2009, 03:49:51 PM
Quote from: 1393
I`ve read that Brian used to go out on very eccentric sprees with dressing-up and so on. The name of his girlfriend with whom he had "fun" was Anita Pallenberg (spelling?), who was absolutely crazy and unbalanced, with whom Brian used to have "fist debates" and who had a perverted influence on Brian. It was she who had some original ideas to dress Brian like an SS-officer or the French female-singer Fr. Ardi (spelling?). But she left Brian for Keith R., which was one of the reasons Brian distanced himself from the guys and went into drinking and drug bouts even more. He had very many girl-friends and admitted that the main thing in his life was "booze, girls and something else".

Yeah, it was Anita!  She was a German/Italian model who was, as you say, crazy.  She brought out the worst in Brian and was a bad influence on Keith, too.  Keith ended up leaving her after 12 years because he was trying to get off heroin and she wouldn't kick the habit with him.  The French singer was Francoise Hardy.

Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on April 18, 2009, 05:47:31 PM
I`ve just seen the film Stoned about Brian Jones. The film is good, shows the atmosphere and the actors are great, especially Brian. However, I didn`t like the fact that the action goes on only in Brian`s house and hardly anywhere else and you don`t feel the width of life. London is not shown at all. Crazy Anita is shown as a very reasonable girl who urges Brian to be careful with drugs and to learn to handle them. And the film tells us that Brian was killed in the pool, was drowned.
What do you think of the movie?
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on April 21, 2009, 07:50:38 PM
I`ve just read that Brian died in the pool by himself. Where`s the truth? The film (Stoned) seems to lie...
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: pc31 on April 22, 2009, 12:03:45 AM
no stoned is true...the contractor admitted it on his deathbed....
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Penny Lane on April 22, 2009, 01:55:31 AM
Does anyone know if the Rolling Stones may tour America again someday?
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on April 22, 2009, 06:33:35 PM
Quote from: 284
no stoned is true...the contractor admitted it on his deathbed....

Ahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  So cruel!
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: rizlaplus on April 24, 2009, 12:02:14 PM
QabrvaygGzE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QabrvaygGzE)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on April 13, 2010, 08:09:16 PM
Guys, unexpectedly to myself, I have become a Rolling Stones fan! I am listening to everything they have produced and I find it amazing! And I want more and more. What`s that?  ;)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: emmi_luvs_beatles on April 13, 2010, 08:41:51 PM
The Rolling Stones = Epicness.

Mick Jagger = Sexy.

(http://images.wolfgangsvault.com/images/catalog/detail/MSG691127-28-VP.jpg)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: I_Will on April 13, 2010, 09:13:25 PM
So I just read this entire thread, and... aww come on, am I the only one here who's a fan of Emotional Rescue? ;D

Probably.

I've got that album on vinyl though and it's just so... funky. I love it (Dance Pt. 1 is my favorite)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on April 15, 2010, 07:14:48 PM
I`ve been listening to December`s Children recently and like it so much! As Tears Go By stands aside, it`s perfect. The next is Blue Turns to Grey for me.  And Get Off of My Cloud keeps playing in my mind all day long. And The Singer not the Song is also great...  :)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on April 16, 2010, 06:33:14 PM
Guys, unexpectedly to myself, I have become a Rolling Stones fan! I am listening to everything they have produced and I find it amazing! And I want more and more. What`s that?  ;)

OCD




;)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on April 17, 2010, 07:08:43 PM
What is it? I hope it is something decent?
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on April 17, 2010, 07:11:11 PM
I love the song Blue Turns to Grey. Blue means sad. Does turn to grey mean that it got even sadder?  2ch
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: sgt. peppie on April 18, 2010, 11:08:30 PM
^^
I always thought grey meant neutral.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on May 01, 2010, 09:05:12 PM
Could you, please, anyone tell me what religion was Brian Jones?  :)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: tkitna on May 02, 2010, 12:50:12 AM
Could you, please, anyone tell me what religion was Brian Jones?  :)

Pretty sure he was Catholic. He was a choir boy growing up. When he died he was buried at Cheltnham cemetary where they had the service at St. Marys.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on May 02, 2010, 03:18:45 PM
Tkitna, thank you very much! None of my friends know the answer, even fans. But you know everything!  :)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: tkitna on May 03, 2010, 12:58:28 AM
Not hardly, but thanks. It took some digging, but the credit goes to Google. Lol
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Kevin on May 27, 2010, 08:17:25 AM
Just watched Martin Scorceses excellent documentary on the making of Exile On Main Street. It amazes me how loosing the seemingly irreplaceable Brian Jones and gaining Mick taylor gave the band such a shot in the arm.
It makes you wonder....
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: An Apple Beatle on May 27, 2010, 01:19:32 PM
Bands always turn it on with a new member aboard...trust me! lol
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Bobber on May 27, 2010, 01:20:27 PM
Especially if the new member is an attractive lady.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: AngeloMysterioso on May 27, 2010, 03:50:02 PM
Just watched Martin Scorceses excellent documentary on the making of Exile On Main Street. It amazes me how loosing the seemingly irreplaceable Brian Jones and gaining Mick taylor gave the band such a shot in the arm.
It makes you wonder....
Such a shot in the arm. Indeed, judicious choice of words, Kevin. ha2ha
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on May 27, 2010, 07:57:24 PM
Just watched Martin Scorceses excellent documentary on the making of Exile On Main Street. It amazes me how loosing the seemingly irreplaceable Brian Jones and gaining Mick taylor gave the band such a shot in the arm.
It makes you wonder....

The truth is that there are no irreplaceable people. Which Rolling Stones do you like more: with or without Brian?
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on May 27, 2010, 07:59:48 PM
Especially if the new member is an attractive lady.

Ladies spoil bands! As a rule...
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Kevin on May 28, 2010, 07:07:40 AM
The truth is that there are no irreplaceable people. Which Rolling Stones do you like more: with or without Brian?
Definately without Brian and with Mick Taylor. They stopped trying to be The beatles and really came into their own. From 69 to 74 they really were the greatest rock and roll band in the world. Great sound, great image, everything that makes up an excellent band.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Kevin on May 28, 2010, 07:11:52 AM
Ladies spoil bands! As a rule...

Don't know about spoil, but definately changes thing. This young bloke at work is starting a band and was auditioning female vocalists. I don't pretend to be an expert, but my advise to him was DON'T. Every guy in the band will instantly be relegated to the role of a backing musician (ie Blondie) and you'll forever be stuck with the image of some quirky student band.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Bobber on May 28, 2010, 08:42:49 AM
They stopped trying to be The beatles and really came into their own. From 69 to 74 they really were the greatest rock and roll band in the world. Great sound, great image, everything that makes up an excellent band.

But then there were no Beatles anymore to copy.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Kevin on May 28, 2010, 09:10:10 AM
But then there were no Beatles anymore to copy.

True. as confuscious should have said "flowers only bloom when the shadow has been removed."
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Bobber on May 28, 2010, 10:25:36 AM
Confucius? Are you sure? I thought Lao Tse. Or you. ha2ha  But you're right: they did have a great period around that time and really were the greatest rock-'n-rollband in the world. A pity they started to realize that.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Kevin on May 28, 2010, 10:49:02 AM
Yep. Exile was definately a high point. Funny how so many classic albums are made under arduous conditionds. After that they seemed to become a parody of what they thought their audience wanted them to be.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on May 28, 2010, 08:42:57 PM
Definately without Brian and with Mick Taylor. They stopped trying to be The beatles and really came into their own. From 69 to 74 they really were the greatest rock and roll band in the world. Great sound, great image, everything that makes up an excellent band.

Kevin! I have never associated them with the Beatles. Even the early Stones. Brian tried to make the band more blusie and they do have some great songs of that period, which do not resemble the Beatles. To my mind.
And what do you think of the Stones of the after-Taylor period? Repetition? I think there is to some extent...
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Bobber on May 29, 2010, 10:10:37 AM
Doh! Have you never associated The Stones with The Beatles? How is that possible?
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Kevin on May 29, 2010, 12:45:03 PM
Kevin! I have never associated them with the Beatles. Even the early Stones. Brian tried to make the band more blusie and they do have some great songs of that period, which do not resemble the Beatles. To my mind.
And what do you think of the Stones of the after-Taylor period? Repetition? I think there is to some extent...

I know musical trends can rarely be creditted to one act, and it's usually many making small contributions that cause change, but The Beatles influence on The stones seems undeniable.
The Stones started off as a blues band, but by 1965 were knocking off self penned pop songs.I don't know how you can look at the artwork and content of albums like Between the Buttons and Satanical Magesties, or songs like lady Jane and ruby tuesday, and not see and hear a clear Beatles influence. I normally take what Lennon says with a pinch of salt, but I agree with him when he says that whatever The Beatles did The Stones did it six months later.
But by 68 they were comming into their own, and i think post-White album were more in touch with youth culture, and a much more "vital" band than The beatles. With the intoduction of Taylor they developed their own unique sound and were untouchable.
Post taylor they became parodies of themselves and too self indulgent, and like all the great sixties acts - McCartney, Lennon, Harrison, Dylan, Clapton, the were getting old and by the late seventies pretty much irrelevant to what was going on. Like all the others their day had been and gone.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Bobber on May 29, 2010, 07:34:01 PM
I normally take what Lennon says with a pinch of salt, but I agree with him when he says that whatever The Beatles did The Stones did it six months later.

This was even admitted by Mick Jagger, I believe recently.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Sondra on May 29, 2010, 08:35:23 PM
Mick admitted that?? Where? He must be going senile.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on May 30, 2010, 03:17:23 PM
Doh! Have you never associated The Stones with The Beatles? How is that possible?

The fact is that I am into Stones quite recently. And I am enjoying them very much. Though I have certainly known their most famous songs. Now I am looking into their music more thoroughly. And I think that all the bands of the 60s resemble the Beatles more or less. Of course the Stones do too, but not too much for me. Then guys I do not know all their early records, I admit.  :-[
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Bobber on May 31, 2010, 07:19:11 AM
Mick admitted that?? Where? He must be going senile.

I had to look it up. On Larry King's show, Monday 17th May:

KING: Were the Beatles rivals? How did you view them?

JAGGER: They were both rivals and they were also -- how do you -- what was a good word to choose? I mean, they were also showing the way, because they were the first of this kind of --

KING: So you kind of admired them?

JAGGER: Admired them for that because they were sort of trailblazers in a lot of ways. And, you know, they went to the United States first. You know, they showed the way. They were big international stars. They showed -- because in England, most English people have never really been stars outside of England. It would be that you had your little patch and that was it. And the Beatles kind of showed that you could be big internationally.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on November 03, 2010, 03:21:23 AM
She's A Rainbow (Take 1)

Rolling Stones - She's A Rainbow (Take 1) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZII3JhIUhU#)


(http://www.nickyhopkins.com/wp-content/gallery/albums/n2-400.jpg)

Nicky Hopkins



(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa301/schillid/TSMR_01.jpg)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on November 03, 2010, 04:55:16 AM
(http://i55.tinypic.com/2prwfuo.jpg)


Left to right:  Paul, George, John and Ringo


(http://i417.photobucket.com/albums/pp254/Deltics_photos/Paulsm.jpg)

(http://i417.photobucket.com/albums/pp254/Deltics_photos/Georgesm.jpg)

(http://i417.photobucket.com/albums/pp254/Deltics_photos/Johnsm.jpg)

(http://i417.photobucket.com/albums/pp254/Deltics_photos/Ringosm.jpg)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on November 03, 2010, 05:04:21 AM
(http://i417.photobucket.com/albums/pp254/Deltics_photos/Paulsm.jpg)

Uh-oh!  Is that another "clue?"  Look at the top of Paul's head.  Some of his hair is missing.

You were in a car crash and you lost your hair


;)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on November 03, 2010, 05:29:46 AM
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa301/schillid/TSMR_01.jpg)

Their Satanic Majesties Request



She's A Rainbow

She's A Rainbow by The Rolling Stones (full length album version) [The Daily Vinyl music video #02] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl3arNBLcHE#)

On vinyl, the way it was meant to be heard


:)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Bobber on November 03, 2010, 07:17:57 AM
On vinyl, the way it was meant to be heard

I always doubt that. I remember reading an interview with someone (Justin Hayward) and there were always frustrated. Everybody in the studio and the musicians did their best to make the sound as good as possible. After that it was destroyed on a piece of vinyl. But it was the best material they had, until the cd.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Kevin on November 03, 2010, 09:11:17 AM
Never liked the idea of Their Satanic Majesties. It's just not the Rolling Stones. Peace and love isn't their thing. Give me Beggars Banquet and Sympathy For The Devil any day.
But this when The Stones bug me. The cover of TSMR is wayyyyy too much like Pepper. And a little obvious with it's "we take dugs" imagery.
And then their next album has a white cover.
Then they call their next album Let It Bleed.
I think maybe the Stones really needed The Beatles to go before they could really shine.
ps - according to Wiki the cake decoration on Let It Bleed was made by Delia Smith.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Bobber on November 05, 2010, 08:15:31 AM
Plus those clothes look really ridiculous on them.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: glass onion on November 05, 2010, 03:36:33 PM
Never liked the idea of Their Satanic Majesties. It's just not the Rolling Stones. Peace and love isn't their thing. Give me Beggars Banquet and Sympathy For The Devil any day.
But this when The Stones bug me. The cover of TSMR is wayyyyy too much like Pepper. And a little obvious with it's "we take dugs" imagery.
And then their next album has a white cover.
Then they call their next album Let It Bleed.
I think maybe the Stones really needed The Beatles to go before they could really shine.
ps - according to Wiki the cake decoration on Let It Bleed was made by Delia Smith.
i like satanic majesties,although it is a patchy album.it does seem true that the stones seemed to be copying the beatles a bit,especially on what kev has written(above).i really do not see why they felt the need to copy-when you compare the two bands side-by-side they were so,so different.i like the stones,66'-71' period.some very good material in there.the stones were also trailblazers in the way of jagger being such a charismatic frontman,topping the likes of percy plant and freddie mercury by a good number of years.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Kevin on November 05, 2010, 04:38:38 PM
i really do not see why they felt the need to copy-when you compare the two bands side-by-side they were so,so different.i like the stones,66'-71' period.

I wouldn't say copy. Well, maybe I would. Firstly though I'll say that I think many sixties acts were contributing to the new sounds and looks, and it's hard to pin down who was influencing who. Everyone was pushing the boundaries.
But the Stones started as a blues band and switched to pop when The Beatles arrive. There's the whole Jagger/Richards thing, songs like "As Tears Go By" and "Lady Jane", them picking up on the riffing thing, the Satanical Majesties fiasco, Rock and Roll Circus coming straight after Magical Mystery Tour blah blah blah.
Like I said, everyone was doing their bit, but The Stones seem to have been unduly influenced bu the Beatles. To balance things out though I find Lennon's Dylan infatuation a bit embarrassiong. He even bought the hat. but then everyone was wearing that hat. And on it goes.
but I still do think The Stones had to wait for The Beatles to wane before they could really shine.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on November 05, 2010, 04:53:05 PM
Plus those clothes look really ridiculous on them.


It was the late 60s...


(http://i56.tinypic.com/rsc2mu.jpg)


;)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on November 05, 2010, 09:59:13 PM
On vinyl, the way it was meant to be heard


:)


I always doubt that. I remember reading an interview with someone (Justin Hayward) and there were always frustrated. Everybody in the studio and the musicians did their best to make the sound as good as possible. After that it was destroyed on a piece of vinyl. But it was the best material they had, until the cd.

Cor, I was being a little sarcastic there.  I remember listening to that album and looking at the 3D cover rightside up, upside down, sideways and every which angle looking for other stuff in there.

Yes, vinyl is all we had at the time.  Sometimes reel-to-reel tape which really sounded good!
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on November 05, 2010, 10:05:17 PM
Never liked the idea of Their Satanic Majesties. It's just not the Rolling Stones. Peace and love isn't their thing. Give me Beggars Banquet and Sympathy For The Devil any day.
But this when The Stones bug me. The cover of TSMR is wayyyyy too much like Pepper. And a little obvious with it's "we take dugs" imagery.
And then their next album has a white cover.
Then they call their next album Let It Bleed.
I think maybe the Stones really needed The Beatles to go before they could really shine.
ps - according to Wiki the cake decoration on Let It Bleed was made by Delia Smith.


Yeah, Kevin, but you gotta admit the 3D cover was pretty neat.

And let's not forget Sticky Fingers...



(http://welovecreative.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/sticky-fingers.jpg)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on November 05, 2010, 10:10:21 PM

([url]http://www.nickyhopkins.com/wp-content/gallery/albums/n2-400.jpg[/url])

Nicky Hopkins


It's a shame we never see Nicky Hopkins in any of the Revolution videos.  But here he is playing with The Spongetones

Revolution - The Spongetones with Nicky Hopkins on piano - http://www.myspace.com/spongetones (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AakWAZtGA4k#)


If only they had a microphone on the piano.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on November 05, 2010, 11:14:10 PM
But this when The Stones bug me. The cover of TSMR is wayyyyy too much like Pepper. And a little obvious with it's "we take dugs" imagery.


I can remember virtually nothing of those sessions. It's a total blank. We were pretty much the way we look on the cover! The thing I remember most about making Satanic Majesties is that cover. We went to New York with Michael Cooper and met a Japanese guy who had a camera that could produce a 3-D effect. We built the set on acid, went all round New York getting the flowers and the rest of the props; we were painting it, spraying it. We were just loony, and after the Beatles had done Sgt. Pepper, it was like, Let's get even more ridiculous.

- Keith Richards, 2003



We were on acid doing the cover picture. I always remember doing that. It was like being at school, you know, sticking on the bits of colored paper and things. It was really silly. But we enjoyed it. (laughs)

- Mick Jagger, 1995



http://www.timeisonourside.com/lpMajesties.html (http://www.timeisonourside.com/lpMajesties.html)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Bobber on November 07, 2010, 07:29:29 PM
It was the late 60s...

I know I know. But still...
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: nimrod on November 17, 2010, 10:52:13 PM
I always thought the Stones were a great band.......... until Ronnie Wood joined, then it just all fell apart for me. Never even remotly as talented as The Beatles but still a great band who had their heyday in the 60's, I think in the 70's they were more relevant to older people (not teenagers) and they kinda got left behind (at least theyre blues rock did) by Prog Rock bands like Yes, Floyd, King Crimson, ELP, Roxy Music, ELO etc...

Prog Rock which I actually think was kind of 'introduced' by Abbey Road, especially side 2
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Kevin on November 18, 2010, 09:38:09 AM

Prog Rock which I actually think was kind of 'introduced' by Abbey Road, especially side 2
I take it you mean the medley. That had already been done by Zappa in 66, and was cited by The Beatles as a big influence on Pepper. I don't think medleys were an especially innovative idea by 1969, just that The Beatles, like most things, did them so much better than most people.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: nimrod on November 18, 2010, 11:48:21 AM
I take it you mean the medley. That had already been done by Zappa in 66, and was cited by The Beatles as a big influence on Pepper. I don't think medleys were an especially innovative idea by 1969, just that The Beatles, like most things, did them so much better than most people.

No Kevin, medleys were never used in prog rock, I was referring more to tracks, like, You Never Give Me Your Money, which has extended length, varius melody and tempo changes, classical influences, Mellotron.
Theres quite a bit of prog leanings on side 2, Because utilizes multi part counterpoint and classical overtones in the moog solo (moog became a very 'prog' instrument)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Kevin on November 18, 2010, 12:06:22 PM
No Kevin, medleys were never used in prog rock, I was referring more to tracks, like, You Never Give Me Your Money, which has extended length, varius melody and tempo changes, classical influences, Mellotron.
Theres quite a bit of prog leanings on side 2, Because utilizes multi part counterpoint and classical overtones in the moog solo (moog became a very 'prog' instrument)

Fair enough, but all this "The Beatles invented the wheel" stuff always gets me on my guard. Most musical trends seem to come about through a stream of influences, rather than one singular moment. Prog rock had many elements, and while I can accept Abbey Road might have contributed to that I find it a bit of a quantum leap to say it "introduced" prog rock to the world.
Hadn't all that classical blending stuff already been done by bands like The Moody Blues? And surely Zappa, The Who, The Byrds and God knows who else had a hand in it. Just don't see how you can pinpoint Abbey Road as some kind of defining moment. Surely they gave the Prog Rock Baby a cuddle and a bottle, not gave birth to it.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: nimrod on November 19, 2010, 01:48:22 PM
Fair enough, but all this "The Beatles invented the wheel" stuff always gets me on my guard. Most musical trends seem to come about through a stream of influences, rather than one singular moment. Prog rock had many elements, and while I can accept Abbey Road might have contributed to that I find it a bit of a quantum leap to say it "introduced" prog rock to the world.
Hadn't all that classical blending stuff already been done by bands like The Moody Blues? And surely Zappa, The Who, The Byrds and God knows who else had a hand in it. Just don't see how you can pinpoint Abbey Road as some kind of defining moment. Surely they gave the Prog Rock Baby a cuddle and a bottle, not gave birth to it.

well were way offf topic here so I wont debate, I'll just say its IMO  ;)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on November 27, 2010, 06:31:57 AM
Miss You

Miss you - The Rolling Stones (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6KIyxQ46Es#)



...and their disco version...

ROLLING STONES - MISS YOU ( DISCO VERSION !!!! ) , 1978 , 12 INCH , HQ AUDIO+++++ . (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_Q6Ez9HNaw#ws)


...and, I think, their best live version...

Rolling Stones - Miss You - Live '95 Tokyo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xr49ZHMZc0#)



The Rolling Stones have soul!
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Mairi on December 06, 2010, 03:09:16 AM
oooh oooh hoooo oooh hoooo!
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Musicfan67 on December 06, 2010, 05:09:05 PM
Fair enough, but all this "The Beatles invented the wheel" stuff always gets me on my guard. Most musical trends seem to come about through a stream of influences, rather than one singular moment. Prog rock had many elements, and while I can accept Abbey Road might have contributed to that I find it a bit of a quantum leap to say it "introduced" prog rock to the world.
Hadn't all that classical blending stuff already been done by bands like The Moody Blues? And surely Zappa, The Who, The Byrds and God knows who else had a hand in it. Just don't see how you can pinpoint Abbey Road as some kind of defining moment. Surely they gave the Prog Rock Baby a cuddle and a bottle, not gave birth to it.

The structure of the Abbey Road Medleys was so unique at the time people wondered what to make of it's structure. It's not really a medly but a long suite of songs with a bunch of short songs with two segments attached with fade ins  basically unrelated even it does have a recurring theme from "You Never Give Me Your Money" and "Carry That Weight". As for classical musical influences for the Beatles it went back as "Not A Second Time" back in 1963. The Beatles influence on prog basically starts with songs like "Elenoaor Rigby and "A Day in the Life". There is actually a book on the Abbey Road Medleys.

The Beatles' Abbey Road Medley: Extended Forms in Popular Music
Author: Thomas MacFarlane
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: nyfan(41) on December 07, 2010, 12:13:22 AM
Doesn't A Quick One While He's Away by the Who (1966) satisfy alot of the criteria people are saying was introduced by abbey road medley?
it's just that as opposed to frank zappa, or the who.. or even forever changes by love,,,,,, the music on abbey road was just BETTER
-
-
and as far as being a 'medley'... they just left out the 3 seconds of silence that usually separate songs on albums and butted them up next to eachother . .
-
 aren't there are early demos of some of the medley songs that attest to the fact that this was leftovers thrown together,,,,more than- a
'preconcieved' peice of rock art ?
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on December 07, 2010, 05:43:42 AM
oooh oooh hoooo oooh hoooo!


...and a bunch of woo woos here:

rolling stones-sympathy for the devil (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRGrKGFB2DY#)

...along with a great guitar solo by Keith.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Musicfan67 on December 07, 2010, 08:07:16 PM
Doesn't A Quick One While He's Away by the Who (1966) satisfy alot of the criteria people are saying was introduced by abbey road medley?
it's just that as opposed to frank zappa, or the who.. or even forever changes by love,,,,,, the music on abbey road was just BETTER
-
-
and as far as being a 'medley'... they just left out the 3 seconds of silence that usually separate songs on albums and butted them up next to eachother . .
-
 aren't there are early demos of some of the medley songs that attest to the fact that this was leftovers thrown together,,,,more than- a
'preconcieved' peice of rock art ?

Geo
a

George Harrison said they rehearsed the tracks as one. The Who track you are talking about and the Abbey Road Medley are different. 

McCartney & Martin agree to try to link the last 8 songs on side two into a larger integrated formal unit. Uses song fragments from both McCartney and Lennon; repeats some melodies at strategic points. Starting with "You Never Give Me Your Money" "McCartney was playing with loops again and assembled a collection of Moog and other sounds for use on the album. “Paul took a plastic bag containing a dozen loose strands of mono tape into Abbey Road,” The effects—sounding like bells, birds, bubbles and crickets chirping allowed for a perfect cross fade in the medley from "Sun King" into "You Never Give Me Your Money". The melodies are repeated it flows, and it’s progressive rock like.


Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: nyfan(41) on December 07, 2010, 09:11:40 PM
i hear u. didn't know all of that  :)
-
i still contend despite how it was rehearsed - songs like polythene pam and mean mr mustard were written in india and basically leftovers that didnt make the white album - & therefore the sun king medley has elements of being a thrown together afterthought. unlike something like tommy which was actually more conceived as one "oeuvre" ( i think, lol)
-
i guess my only point was that prog rock or art rock (?) like any music genre must have multiple influences / starting points / milestones (in my opinion)
--
 :-\
kinda getting off topic with this medley discussion........ the thing is though, the sun king . . . sunking. . . . sunkin . .(*insert transitional bells and birds sounds) . . . sunken facial features of keith richards really reflect his hard lifestyle -> which he puts into his music! the stones RAWK!  ha2ha
hey, when the 70's kicked in and everyone went arty prog-rock... the stones went country western ! how great is that?  ;yes
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: nimrod on December 07, 2010, 11:48:30 PM
a

George Harrison said they rehearsed the tracks as one. The Who track you are talking about and the Abbey Road Medley are different. 

McCartney & Martin agree to try to link the last 8 songs on side two into a larger integrated formal unit. Uses song fragments from both McCartney and Lennon; repeats some melodies at strategic points. Starting with "You Never Give Me Your Money" "McCartney was playing with loops again and assembled a collection of Moog and other sounds for use on the album. “Paul took a plastic bag containing a dozen loose strands of mono tape into Abbey Road,” The effects—sounding like bells, birds, bubbles and crickets chirping allowed for a perfect cross fade in the medley from "Sun King" into "You Never Give Me Your Money". The melodies are repeated it flows, and it’s progressive rock like.


Aha, someone else see's it !! 8)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on December 08, 2010, 12:23:49 AM

hey, when the 70's kicked in and everyone went arty prog-rock... the stones went country western ! how great is that?  ;yes


Right...

Rolling Stones, Country Honk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQKaATBsPAc#)

Dead Flowers Rolling Stones (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YRdxHHFKvQ#)



Then, in 1974, they entered their drunken sailor phase...

It's only Rock'n'Roll (but I like it) by The Rolling Stones,,' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOMTnLHDWRA#)


(http://img.youtube.com/vi/BhHODhTIvgo/0.jpg)


Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on December 08, 2010, 04:59:07 AM
(http://i56.tinypic.com/29wpd05.jpg)

(http://i51.tinypic.com/2it4je0.jpg)

(http://i52.tinypic.com/x4jg9u.jpg)

(http://i54.tinypic.com/ipcq6t.jpg)

(http://i54.tinypic.com/308ikoj.jpg)

(http://i51.tinypic.com/2cnto4w.jpg)


Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Kevin on December 08, 2010, 01:33:20 PM

i guess my only point was that prog rock or art rock (?) like any music genre must have multiple influences / starting points / milestones (in my opinion)

i think that sums it up. Abbey Road may have been prog-like (and the general consensus seems to be it is) but that's a long way from calling it the origins of prog rock. Like Nyfan says, new genres generally stem from many influences.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Musicfan67 on December 09, 2010, 02:59:55 AM
i think that sums it up. Abbey Road may have been prog-like (and the general consensus seems to be it is) but that's a long way from calling it the origins of prog rock. Like Nyfan says, new genres generally stem from many influences.


The Beatles influence on prog is like their influence on heavy metal. The Beatles weren't exactly a small-time band no one had heard of. Take a song like “Helter Skelter” brutal arrangement and sound.  Saying it is inventing metal, that's a bit much. I think that it influenced the people who invented metal. Both Ozzy Osbourne and Lemmy Kilmister cite the Beatles as their favorite band of all time, and the reason they originally got into playing music. Between Black Sabbath and Motorhead, we have the entire genre of heavy metal pretty much at the trunk.

As for music, the Beatles touched on so many styles that it’s more like they shot off tangents song by song. Think about  “Hard Day’s Night” jangle pop/folk rock , Beatles For Sale  country rock, “Hide Your Love Away” contributing to the emergence of singer/songwriter, “Drive My Car” and power/pop, “Day Tripper” and hard rock, Tomorrow Never Knows” and psychedelic/modern electronic music, Sgt Pepper and concept albums, and on and on and on..

They were in the vanguard, and the mainstream followed them. Most of those groups you say you don't hear a Beatles influence on would tell you just how much they were influenced by the Beatles. Read these remarks by two members of King Crimson and then you will get what I am saying.

What sparked that original creative spark that
became prog rock?

Bill Buford:
The Beatles. They broke down every barrier that ever existed. Suddenly you could do anything after The Beatles. You could write your own music, make it ninety yards long, put it in 7/4, whatever you wanted.

Robert Fripp on Sgt Pepper
Robert Fripp- "When I was 20, I worked at a hotel in a dance orchestra, playing weddings, bar-mitzvahs, dancing, cabaret. I drove home and I was also at college at the time. Then I put on the radio (Radio Luxemburg) and I heard this music. It was terrifying. I had no idea what it was. Then it kept going. Then there was this enormous whine note of strings. Then there was this colossal piano chord. I discovered later that I'd come in half-way through Sgt. Pepper, played continuously. My life was never the same again".
Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys
"Upon first hearing Rubber Soul in December of 1965, Brian Wilson said, “I really wasn’t quite ready for the unity. It felt like it all belonged together. Rubber Soul was a collection of songs…that somehow went together like no album ever made before".
Pete Townshend of the Who   
"In a 1967 interview Pete Townshend of the Who commented "I think "Eleanor Rigby" was a very important musical move forward. It certainly inspired me to write and listen to things in that vein


Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: nimrod on December 09, 2010, 03:13:54 AM
I think the remark by Bill Bruford is very very interesting, Ive heard Chris Squire from Yes say a similar thing, many early prog rock guys credit The Beatles for  creating the spark that became prog, difering time signatures, mellotron, the intro to Fixing A Hole.
Another thing Fripp said was that the wall of Guitars on 'I Want You" which slowly builds in intensity inspired the early sound of Crimson and in some tracks you can plainly hear that.
Title: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Xylifrost on January 11, 2011, 11:08:11 PM
I just got a DSD remastered CD of the UK version of The Rolling Stones "AFTERMATH". It is actually a very nice recording .... 'course I am a Stones fan
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on January 15, 2011, 08:18:51 PM
Aftermath UK is much better than Aftermath US! )))
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on January 16, 2011, 12:07:56 AM
Right, Jane.  They left out a few good songs on the US album.

Welcome back!
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on January 16, 2011, 12:21:17 AM
They left out a few good songs on the US album.


Like...

Rolling Stones - Mothers Little Helper - Honolulu- July 28, 1966 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhGD-zGhSHc#)




and...

rolling stones,out of time (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inzCOWDKJVY#)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on January 16, 2011, 05:21:48 AM
Mother's Little Helper The Rolling Stones (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13olfeD026g#)


The Rolling Stones - Out Of Time (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFe78Cm0YCE#)


;)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on January 16, 2011, 05:39:54 AM
Out Of Time....one great song by The Rolling Stones.  But it was Chris Farlowe who took it to #1

Chris Farlowe - Out Of Time [Excellent quality] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxerdh-3tc4#)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on January 16, 2011, 05:40:51 AM
Hey!  This bossa nova version is pretty good...

Bossa n Stones - Out of Time (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=896g9456pLM#)


 ;D
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: emmi_luvs_beatles on January 16, 2011, 03:42:20 PM
Mother's Little Helper The Rolling Stones ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13olfeD026g#[/url])



This is probably in my top 5 favorite RS songs :)

But my favorite has to be either Angie or Wild Horses....
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on January 30, 2011, 05:17:10 AM
Dig this...

The Rolling Stones on SHINDIG! - #2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlF0mjs3jw4#)

The Rolling Stones on Shindig!   Suzie Q and Heart Of Stone


No Shindig Dancers though   :(
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on January 31, 2011, 05:07:26 AM
It's All Over Now / The Rolling Stones (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtSRD9i1Vyg#)

Go Keith!
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on January 31, 2011, 05:14:38 AM
The Last Time

Rolling Stones - The Last Time (1965) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzZHmHqEE7k#)

Oh No!
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on June 18, 2011, 04:30:01 AM
I like almost all of the big 60s bands, but somehow I just can't get into the Stones, even though I really tried. I even got the 40 Licks double CD and tried to enjoy it, but I just really don't like the Rolling Stones.

I felt the same way about the Stones until last year, when I decided to give their classic albums the chance of be listened several times. Now I can say they are one of my favourite bands, though not at the level of the Beatles and the Who, but I'm glad that I finally dig them, especially what they did from 1965 to 1972. I consider Let It Bleed to be their truly masterpiece.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on June 18, 2011, 04:41:42 AM
It took you long enough to find out, Nowhere Man!    ;D   
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on June 18, 2011, 04:48:10 AM
It took you long enough to find out, Nowhere Man!    ;D   

Yeah, really! I've always given other 60's bands a space in my heart and mind, but somehow the Stones didn't get that from me. Maybe they are too big and there was only space for one big band, but I opened my mind and heart and now they're there too! ;D
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on June 18, 2011, 05:00:49 AM
Yeah, really! I've always given other 60's bands a space in my heart and mind, but somehow the Stones didn't get that from me. Maybe they are too big and there was only space for one big band, but I opened my mind and heart and now they're there too! ;D


Hallelujah, brother!!!

Johnny Cash - I saw the Light (1974, Columbo: Swan song) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vouJBurjOM#)


;)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on June 18, 2011, 02:34:18 PM
;D

Or in Stones' words: "May the good Lord shine a light on you, make every song your favorite tune. May the good Lord shine a light on you, warm like the evening sun."

THE ROLLING STONES - Shine A Light (Live) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oE2t2efDRcU#ws)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on June 23, 2011, 10:00:26 PM
Or in Stones' words: "May the good Lord shine a light on you, make every song your favorite tune. May the good Lord shine a light on you, warm like the evening sun."


Amen!  You've truly seen the light!


 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f68TdgErXkE#)


;)

Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on June 23, 2011, 10:11:41 PM
Rolling Stones-Gimme Shelter at Altamont (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CG1rbUdHKg#)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on June 23, 2011, 10:51:57 PM
Rolling Stones - Gimme Shelter - London - Sept 9, 1973 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2etPYnI718#)

Mick Taylor
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on June 24, 2011, 02:50:44 AM
"Gimme Shelter" is probably the very best Stones' song. The line "love, sister, is just a kiss away" is just awesome.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: In My Life on June 24, 2011, 03:03:12 AM
Quote from: Hello Goodbye
Amen!  You've truly seen the light!

Give me that old time religion Gary Cooper & Walter Brennan 1941

It was good enough for Sgt. York
It's good enough for me!



 
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on June 24, 2011, 03:05:02 AM
It was good enough for Sgt. York
It's good enough for me!


Hallelujah, sister!!!




 

Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on June 24, 2011, 03:07:03 AM
"Gimme Shelter" is probably the very best Stones' song. The line "love, sister, is just a kiss away" is just awesome.


And that 1973 performance, Nowhere Man, is my favorite.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on June 24, 2011, 03:07:23 AM
Sing this all together, haha!
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on June 24, 2011, 03:08:06 AM
And that 1973 performance, Nowhere Man, is my favorite.

Mick Taylor is great there.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on June 25, 2011, 01:25:07 AM
Yesterday...

Rolling Stones - Sympathy for The Devil ( Live 1969 Altamont (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt0ipUCfdlU#)



...and today...

The Rolling Stones - Sympathy For The Devil [High Definition] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfT32z4JFQE#ws)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on July 16, 2011, 12:25:55 AM
Sympathy For The Devil

Sympathy For The Devil (Live) by The Rolling Stones (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-PZZug0DSE#)

Mick Taylor and Keith Richards   1970
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on July 16, 2011, 07:36:58 PM
I absolutely adore The Rolling Stones! Mick Taylor used to be such a sweet guy! Brain Jones was so intriguing. Mick Jagger has always been so sexy. Keith is such a philosopher! Charlie is impossibly good, Bill was very attractive and more so with every passing year and Ronnie... he just loves women and can`t help it - and younger ones with every passing year! )))
Honestly I do love them!
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on July 17, 2011, 02:52:20 AM
Keith is such a philosopher!


A short interview with Keith Richards (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0Ax0ogkiOM#)


 ;D

Yeah, but I know what you mean there, Jane.

Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: nimrod on July 17, 2011, 04:17:29 AM
Sympathy For The Devil

Sympathy For The Devil (Live) by The Rolling Stones ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-PZZug0DSE#[/url])

Mick Taylor and Keith Richards   1970


confirmation that Mick Taylor was too good a musician for them..
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on July 17, 2011, 04:21:54 AM
confirmation that Mick Taylor was too good a musician for them..


Aye, mate! 



(http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/7864635/Mick+Taylor+mick+70s.jpg)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on July 17, 2011, 04:41:26 AM
Mick Taylor Solo From 'Time Waits For No One' (1974) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9aV92n_st4#)

Mick Taylor
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on July 17, 2011, 05:05:43 AM
Gimme Shelter

Gimmie Shelter 1972 Live (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7vLY-kZsAI#)
Mick Taylor   1972
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Jane on July 17, 2011, 10:37:25 PM

Yeah, but I know what you mean there, Jane.

Yes? I mean that! )))
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on July 18, 2011, 12:05:06 AM
confirmation that Mick Taylor was too good a musician for them..


Rolling Stones - Street Fighting Man - 1973 live (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_O_wRuxu14#)

Mick Taylor   1973

Too bad the camera is trained on Mick Jagger
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on July 18, 2011, 12:27:49 AM
confirmation that Mick Taylor was too good a musician for them..


Rolling Stones - Happy (From "Ladies & Gentlemen") (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSyNUAzPofI#ws)

Mick Taylor   1972

Too bad the camera is trained on Mick Jagger
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Badgirl66 on July 18, 2011, 09:23:51 AM
mick was toooooo good ;D
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on July 31, 2011, 01:03:44 AM
I can't think of a song with more rhythm than this one:

The Rolling Stones - b**** (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkxqIw17IC0#)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: BeatlesForever on July 31, 2011, 01:44:42 AM
How's it going Beatles fanatics? I LOVE THE STONES! I am not exaggerating when I say that I have seen The Stones live 40 times! The last time I saw them live was at the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas, Nevada on Saturday, 4 March 2006 which was their last tour (A Bigger Bang Tour). I spent nearly $1000.00 per ticket but it was near the stage. As for CD's, I have so many bootleg CD's on The Stones that you guessed it, I wouldn't even know where to begin. WOW, I really like this forum. Take care. 
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on August 11, 2011, 02:28:25 AM
The Rolling Stones - LIVE (?) - "Under My Thumb" - '66 - HQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxarN-c-Z6U#)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: tkitna on August 11, 2011, 04:06:11 AM
I am not exaggerating when I say that I have seen The Stones live 40 times!

Damn!!!

That is seriously impressive.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: BeatlesForever on August 11, 2011, 05:07:03 AM
Damn!!!

That is seriously impressive.

How's it going tkitna? I hope all is well with you. Looking through all of my ticket stubs, I saw the following shows (In no particular order):

(1.) 15 July 1975 at The Cow Palace, San Francisco, California
(2.) 23 July 1978 at Anaheim Stadium, Anaheim, California
(3.) 26 July  1978 at the Oakland Coliseum, Oakland, California
(4.) 7 October 1981 at San Diego Stadium, San Diego, California
(5.) 9 October 1981 at  the L.A. Memorial Coliseum, Los Angeles, California
(6.) 17 October 1981 at Candlestick Park, San Francisco, California
(7.) 22 October 1989 at the L.A. Memorial Coliseum, Los Angeles, California (With Guns N' Roses)
(8.) 5 November 1989 at the Oakland Stadium, Oakland, California
(9.) 11 November 1989 at the Cotton Bowl, Dallas, Texas
(10.) 14 October 1994 at the MGM Grand Garden Arena, Las Vegas, Nevada
(11.) 15 October 1994 at the MGM Grand Garden Arena, Las Vegas, Nevada
(12.) 17 October 1994 at Jack Murphy Stadium, San Diego, California
(13.) 31 October 1994 at the Oakland Stadium Coliseum, Oakland, California
(14.) 16 October 1997 at Giants Stadium, San Francisco, California
(15.) 1 November 1997 at Texas Motor Speedway, Fort Worth, Texas
(16.) 9 November 1997 at Dodger Stadium, Los Angeles, California
(17.) 10 November 1997 at Dodger Stadium, Los Angeles, California
(18.) 19 November 1997 at the Oakland Stadium, Oakland, California   
(19.) 22 November 1997 at the MGM Grand Garden Arena, Las Vegas, Nevada
(20.) 25 January 1999 at the Oakland Arena, Oakland, California
(21.) 27 January 1999 at The Arco Arena, Sacramento, California
(22.) 30 January 1999 (Rescheduled for 20 April 1999) at the San Jose Arena, San Jose, California
(23.) 6 February 1999 at the Arco Arena, Sacramento, California
(24.) 31 October 2002 at the Staples Center, Los Angeles, California
(25.) 9 November 2002 at Pacific Bell Park, San Francisco, California
(26.) 12 November 2002 at the Oakland Arena, Oakland, California
(27.) 13 November 2005 at SBC Park, San Francisco, California
(28.) 4 March 2006 at the MGM Grand Garden Arena, Las Vegas, Nevada 

I know that I have more ticket stubs on The Stones, I'm actually looking through hundreds and hundreds of ticket stubs. I'll post the remainder of the stubs (12 more shows) as soon as I find them. I've seen many concerts in my lifetime, I even have some wild stories to tell. Take care.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: tkitna on August 11, 2011, 06:34:03 AM
I've seen Kansas like 15 times and thought that was insane. Good stuff.

Tell some of those concert stories too. I'd love to hear them. Make a new thread for them.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: BeatlesForever on August 11, 2011, 10:43:08 PM
I've seen Kansas like 15 times and thought that was insane. Good stuff.

Tell some of those concert stories too. I'd love to hear them. Make a new thread for them.

How's it going tkitna? Here are more ROLLING STONES concerts that I saw, they are as follows:

(1.) 31 October 1981 at the Cotton Bowl, Dallas Texas
(2.) 8 November 1989 at the Astrodome, Houston, Texas
(3.) 19 October 1994 at the Rose Bowl, Pasadena, California
(4.) 5 November 1994 at the Alamodome, San Antonio, Texas
(5.) 18 November 1994 at  the Cotton Bowl, Dallas, Texas

I have to find 7 more shows, they are hiding somewhere in hundreds and hundreds of ticket stubs. My two (2) true stories that took place at both LED ZEPPELIN concerts on 23 June 1977 (For Badgeholders Only bootleg) at The Forum in Los Angeles, California and one month later on 23 July 1977 at the Oakland Coliseum in Oakland, California are on the LED ZEPPELIN website at ledzeppelin.com. I'll get the link and post it on here. I am not exaggerating when I say that those are two of the wildest stories that anyone will ever read. Take care.   
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: BeatlesForever on September 16, 2011, 11:38:47 PM
How's it going tkitna? I hope all is well with you and your family. I'm still looking through my hundreds and hundreds of ticket stubs but I did manage to find four (4) more ROLLING STONES ticket stubs as follows:

(1.) 14 October 1994 at the MGM Grand Garden Arena, Las Vegas, Nevada
(2.) 13 November 1994 at the Astrodome, Houston, Texas
(3.) 14 November 1997 at the Oakland Stadium, Oakland, California
(4.) 16 April 1999 at the MGM Grand Garden Arena, Las Vegas, Nevada

Now I have to find three (3) more ticket stubs which I feel confident that I will find soon. I have not forgotten about my two stories on ledzeppelin.com, I will be posting the link this weekend. Take care tkitna.   
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: tkitna on September 17, 2011, 02:24:42 AM
Hey BeatlesForever. I'm fine and hope the same for you. Cant wait to read your stories.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Klang on September 17, 2011, 11:04:48 AM
Quote
(3.) 14 November 1997 at the Oakland Stadium, Oakland, California

I was at that one.

 8)

Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: BeatlesForever on September 17, 2011, 12:02:12 PM
I was at that one.

 8)

How's it going Klang? I hope all is well with you. C-O-O-L!!!!!!! The Stones definitely know how to put on a great show, I never get tired of seeing them live. Take care.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Klang on September 17, 2011, 12:17:42 PM

Doing well, thanks.

Yes, I never caught a Stones show that I didn't enjoy thoroughly. Saw them again at a 'No Security' tour show in Boston. Very cool as it was a much smaller venue and one felt very close to the band.

Cheers!

 :)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: BeatlesForever on September 17, 2011, 01:05:55 PM
Doing well, thanks.

Yes, I never caught a Stones show that I didn't enjoy thoroughly. Saw them again at a 'No Security' tour show in Boston. Very cool as it was a much smaller venue and one felt very close to the band.

Cheers!

 :)

I always loved it when they performed "Midnight Rambler" live! Keith and Ronnie's guitar interactions during that song is breathtaking. Take care.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Ovi on September 29, 2011, 04:37:32 PM
How about everyone's favourite songs and albums?  ;D
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on September 29, 2011, 05:30:41 PM
How about everyone's favourite songs and albums?  ;D

Ok, this is my favourite Rolling Stones' albums list:

1. Let It Bleed
2. Sticky Fingers
3. Beggars Banquet
4. Aftermath (US)
5. Between The Buttons (US)
6. Exile On Main Street
7. Out Of Our Heads (US)
8. Their Satanic Majesties Request
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Ovi on September 29, 2011, 05:48:25 PM
Ok, this is my favourite Rolling Stones' albums list:

1. Let It Bleed
2. Sticky Fingers
3. Beggars Banquet
4. Aftermath (US)
5. Between The Buttons (US)
6. Exile On Main Street
7. Out Of Our Heads (US)
8. Their Satanic Majesties Request

Wow, it's weird to see "Exile" so down on your list. It's my favourite one from the Stones.I've only listened to their 4 well-known albums "Let It Bleed", "Sticky Fingers" and "Beggars Banquet", but in my book "Exile" is superior to all of them. I don't see a bad song there.

My list would be something like this :
01.Exile On Main St.
02.Let It Bleed
03.Sticky Fingers
04.Beggars Banquet
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on September 29, 2011, 06:49:07 PM
Wow, it's weird to see "Exile" so down on your list. It's my favourite one from the Stones.I've only listened to their 4 well-known albums "Let It Bleed", "Sticky Fingers" and "Beggars Banquet", but in my book "Exile" is superior to all of them. I don't see a bad song there.

Actually I love Exile, I just love more the other records I put above it. I think that Aftermath and especially Between The Buttons are quite underrated, maybe because it's the Stones ripping off the Beatles, but they sound great anyway.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: BeatlesForever on September 29, 2011, 09:15:16 PM
Ok, this is my favourite Rolling Stones' albums list:

1. Let It Bleed
2. Sticky Fingers
3. Beggars Banquet
4. Aftermath (US)
5. Between The Buttons (US)
6. Exile On Main Street
7. Out Of Our Heads (US)
8. Their Satanic Majesties Request

How's it going Hombre_de_ningun_lugar? Here's my list as follows (In no particular order):

(1.) Sticky Fingers
(2.) Let It Bleed
(3.) Their Satanic Majesties Request
(4.) Exile On Main Street
(5.) Goats Head Soup
(6.) Flowers
(7.) Out Of Our Heads
(8.) Decembers Children
(9.) 12 X 5
(10.) The Rolling Stones Now!
(11.) Beggars Banquet
(12.) It's Only Rock n' Roll
(13.) Some Girls
(14.) Tattoo You
(15.) Black And Blue

Take care.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Klang on September 29, 2011, 10:10:10 PM

I like how most people are putting 'Sticky Fingers' above 'Exile...'. The latter is often cited as their masterwork but the former is the case for me. Every single track a classic.

List? OK, I'll try...

1. Sticky Fingers
2. Exile On Main Street
3. Let It Bleed
4. Goats Head Soup
5. Bridges To Babylon
6. Voodoo Lounge
7. It's Only Rock And Roll
8. Their Satanic Majesties Request
9. Aftermath
10. Tattoo You

 8)

Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: BeatlesForever on September 29, 2011, 10:46:05 PM
I like how most people are putting 'Sticky Fingers' above 'Exile...'. The latter is often cited as their masterwork but the former is the case for me. Every single track a classic.

List? OK, I'll try...

1. Sticky Fingers
2. Exile On Main Street
3. Let It Bleed
4. Goats Head Soup
5. Bridges To Babylon
6. Voodoo Lounge
7. It's Only Rock And Roll
8. Their Satanic Majesties Request
9. Aftermath
10. Tattoo You

 8)

How's it going Klang? I hope all is well with you. I should have listed the following albums to my list:

(1.) Emotional Rescue
(2.) Dirty Work
(3.) Steel Wheels
(4.) Voodoo Lounge
(5.) Bridges Of Babylon
(6.) A Bigger Bang

In reality, these albums are not bad at all! Take care.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: BeatlesForever on October 17, 2011, 01:00:47 AM
How's it going tkitna? I hope all is well with you and your family. I'm still looking through my hundreds and hundreds of ticket stubs but I did manage to find four (4) more ROLLING STONES ticket stubs as follows:

(1.) 14 October 1994 at the MGM Grand Garden Arena, Las Vegas, Nevada
(2.) 13 November 1994 at the Astrodome, Houston, Texas
(3.) 14 November 1997 at the Oakland Stadium, Oakland, California
(4.) 16 April 1999 at the MGM Grand Garden Arena, Las Vegas, Nevada

Now I have to find three (3) more ticket stubs which I feel confident that I will find soon. I have not forgotten about my two stories on ledzeppelin.com, I will be posting the link this weekend. Take care tkitna.

Hi tkitna! How are you? I hope all is well with you. I found two more ROLLING STONES ticket stubs as follows:

9 February 1999 at Arrowhead Pond Of Anaheim in Anaheim, California (Los Angeles area)
11 February 1999 at Arrowhead Pond Of Anaheim in Anaheim, California (Los Angeles area)

I just need to find one more ROLLING STONES ticket stub and that will complete the 40 times that I've seen THE STONES live! Take care tkitna.

 
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: BeatlesForever on October 21, 2011, 08:57:30 PM
How's it going tkitna? I hope all is well with you. At last, I found my last ROLLING STONES ticket stub, it is as follows:

15 February 1998 at The Joint, Hard Rock Hotel/Casino, Las Vegas, Nevada

That completes all 40 times that I've seen THE STONES live! Take care.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: BeatlesForever on October 27, 2011, 09:17:24 PM
Here's one from THE STONES! Enjoy!

The Rolling Stones Monkey Man (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNY8eYmzdH4#)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: stevie on October 27, 2011, 09:52:04 PM
I like how most people are putting 'Sticky Fingers' above 'Exile...'. The latter is often cited as their masterwork but the former is the case for me. Every single track a classic.

List? OK, I'll try...

1. Sticky Fingers
2. Exile On Main Street
3. Let It Bleed
4. Goats Head Soup
5. Bridges To Babylon
6. Voodoo Lounge
7. It's Only Rock And Roll
8. Their Satanic Majesties Request
9. Aftermath
10. Tattoo You

 8)

You seemed to have forgotten Beggars Banquet... ;D
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: BeatlesForever on October 27, 2011, 11:27:35 PM
Here's another from THE STONES! Enjoy!

The Rolling Stones - Miss You (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOf0FsA0Fio#)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: BeatlesForever on October 30, 2011, 11:05:39 PM
Here's one from THE STONES! Enjoy!

The Rolling Stones ~ Midnight Rambler. In concert 1969 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gB5ez6_MjVI#)

Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: nimrod on November 15, 2011, 04:57:02 AM
I like how most people are putting 'Sticky Fingers' above 'Exile...'. The latter is often cited as their masterwork but the former is the case for me. Every single track a classic.

List? OK, I'll try...

1. Sticky Fingers
2. Exile On Main Street
3. Let It Bleed
4. Goats Head Soup
5. Bridges To Babylon
6. Voodoo Lounge
7. It's Only Rock And Roll
8. Their Satanic Majesties Request
9. Aftermath
10. Tattoo You

 8)

No's 1 & 2 are called the Mick Taylor effect....
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: BeatlesForever on November 15, 2011, 11:17:09 AM
No's 1 & 2 are called the Mick Taylor effect....

Indeed mate!
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: BeatlesForever on November 22, 2011, 04:38:01 AM
Here's one from THE STONES!

The Rolling Stones - Mercy, Mercy (1965) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_V2ESk8ASeM#)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: BeatlesForever on November 30, 2011, 04:11:49 AM
Here's one from THE STONES!

The Rolling Stones - Memory Motel (with Lyrics) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE96fz6BWqk#)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: BeatlesForever on November 30, 2011, 11:39:03 PM
Here's another from THE STONES!

The Rolling Stones 100 Years Ago (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrciVFFw3iQ#)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: BeatlesForever on December 23, 2011, 04:10:31 AM
Here's one from THE STONES!

Winter - The Rolling Stones (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e25-N-2tJeo#)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: BeatlesForever on December 27, 2011, 10:58:37 PM
Here's another from THE STONES! NOTE: Mick and Keith were not getting along during the making of this video. JIMMY PAGE played guitar on this song.

The Rolling Stones - One hit to the body (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUy8Ydq-oUA#ws)

Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: BeatlesForever on January 05, 2012, 01:41:57 AM
Here's one from THE STONES! Keith is so wasted in this video!

Rolling Stones - Happy - LA Forum '75 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FodY0phDU0g#)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on January 05, 2012, 04:10:51 AM
I think Mick is singing Street Fighting Man here...

Rolling Stones - Street Fighting Man - 1973 live (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_O_wRuxu14#)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on January 05, 2012, 06:01:35 AM
You Can't Always Get What You Want


Rolling Stones - You Can't Always Get What You Want (The David Frost Show 1969) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM_p1Az05Jo#)
The David Frost Show  16 June 1969
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: BeatlesForever on January 06, 2012, 03:21:58 AM
Here's another from THE STONES!

midnight rambler " the rolling stones live texas 1972 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNaAEJv_sDQ#ws)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: BeatlesForever on January 10, 2012, 03:57:11 AM
Here's one from THE STONES!

Time Waits For No One - Rolling Stones (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26_OYCbPyxc#ws)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on January 17, 2012, 06:54:51 AM
Tumbling Dice

Tumbling Dice #1 -- The Rolling Stones -- Live 1972 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftk32FKD4Io#)
1972




Linda Ronstadt - Tumbling Dice (Summit in Houston 1978) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s4_teISos0#)
1978
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: In My Life on March 15, 2012, 03:44:09 AM
Look how young they are in this picture!

(http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee372/KelMar1963/1964-London.jpg)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Ovi on March 15, 2012, 05:10:04 PM
Look how young they are in this picture!

([url]http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee372/KelMar1963/1964-London.jpg[/url])


That's a great picture.

And for Hello Goodbye, those are great versions, but here's my favourite performance of 'Thumbling Dice' :

Rolling Stones - Tumbling Dice (From "Ladies & Gentlemen" DVD & Blu-Ray) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ1CRKiwdho#ws)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on March 22, 2012, 04:08:48 AM
19th Nervous Breakdown

The Rolling Stones - "19th Nervous Breakdown" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pQqYG9YQW4#)
Ed Sullivan Show   13 February 1966
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on March 22, 2012, 04:11:01 AM
Gimme Shelter

The Rolling Stones Gimme Shelter Live Pop Go The Sixites 1969 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBva-z1AsGk#)
Pop Go The Sixites 1969
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: In My Life on March 22, 2012, 06:27:25 AM
Ed Sullivan was great but I never understood the censorship with this song. I mean, they could sing "I'll satisfy your every need, and  now I know you will satisfy me" but they couldn't say "Let's spend the night together"? Oh well; it's fun watching Mick roll his eyes and the look on Bill Wyman's face is really funny too.

The Rolling Stones Let's spend the night (some time) together (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzP1LVmaIT0#)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on March 22, 2012, 08:34:30 PM
^

That's how it was playing a Sullivan gig in the 60s...


The Doors Movie - Light My Fire Ed Sullivan Show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61m_Dm44RHA#noexternalembed)



The Doors - Light My Fire   Ed Sullivan Show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvVCCMG-JoQ#ws)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on March 22, 2012, 08:40:25 PM
Jim Morrison didn't co-opt.  Backstage, the show's producer was furious and told the band "Mr. Sullivan wanted you for six more shows, but you'll never work The Ed Sullivan Show again." To which Morrison purportedly replied, "Hey, man.  We just did the Sullivan show."

Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on March 23, 2012, 10:45:48 PM
I like that little grin on Robby Krieger's face when Jim Morrison sings "higher."
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on March 23, 2012, 10:46:45 PM
(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction

The Rolling Stones - "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9PfrqU9-Ik#)
The Ed Sullivan Show   13 February 1966
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: In My Life on March 26, 2012, 03:30:22 AM
Look at little Julian's face. He looks like he just wants to go home.


(http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee372/KelMar1963/yoko_john_brian_jones.jpg)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: In My Life on March 26, 2012, 03:35:33 AM
I like that little grin on Robby Krieger's face when Jim Morrison sings "higher."

Ha! I didn't notice that at first.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Ovi on March 02, 2013, 09:03:38 AM
The Stones are one of the few "classic" bands that I don't think were as good as made out to be. True, I only own albums from their '65-'72 era and even though I love 'Between The Buttons' and 'Sticky Fingers' to death, the stuff in between just hasn't managed to catch my attention. I like a good deal of songs from each 'Satanic Majesties', 'Let It Bleed' and 'Beggars Banquet', but as a whole, I just don't think they're that good. However, I decided to listen today to all those albums (Aftermath to Exile) in sequence for a better perspective. Things might change, who knows.

The Rolling Stones - Let's Spend the Night Together (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAOQkSFTKMw#)

This still remains my favourite Stones song.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Tor_Hershman on March 04, 2013, 08:22:24 AM
a couple of Stones parodies I made
(http://www.amiright.com/photoshops/images/album_1193377878.png)
(http://www.amiright.com/photoshops/images/album_1143633094.jpg)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Hello Goodbye on July 05, 2014, 02:57:06 AM
The Last Time


The Rolling Stones The Last Time 1965 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rfL0_ORFdw#ws)
1965



Rolling Stones 'The Last Time' 5-3-13 Staples Center (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqK4teMg98#ws)
2013
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: oldbrownshoe on August 14, 2014, 03:43:52 PM
Just done my tri-monthly trawl of the internet, and there's still no sign of The Stones' first two British LPs coming out on CD. I don't get it, is it a conspiracy (seriously) against Brian Jones?
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: ibanez_ax on August 14, 2014, 05:11:30 PM
Just done my tri-monthly trawl of the internet, and there's still no sign of The Stones' first two British LPs coming out on CD. I don't get it, is it a conspiracy (seriously) against Brian Jones?



Only pirated needledrop CDs exist from Doctor Ebbetts. 

http://www.jagamart.com/newdrebcdtro.html (http://www.jagamart.com/newdrebcdtro.html)

http://www.jagamart.com/drebarsecdrs.html (http://www.jagamart.com/drebarsecdrs.html)
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: oldbrownshoe on October 01, 2014, 08:28:36 AM
On the back of the George reissues it would be nice if London/RSR/abkco/Polydor/Virgin/Decca/Sony/Universal put out a reissue of Brian Jones's 'Pipes of Pan at Jajouka'.....unless, of course, there's a really exciting and important live concert by The Rolling Stones from 1986 to put in a lavish box set instead.

Ooo, bit political!
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: oldbrownshoe on October 10, 2014, 09:08:29 AM
BBC 6 Music repeated their Stones at the BBC documentary last night.
Quite apart from the age of the recordings, this programme itself has to be about 25 years old as the chief interviewee is Bill Wyman and it is narrated by Andy Peebles.
The doc played in full 16 of their 42 recordings for the Beeb.

It's incredible that no one has seen fit to put this stuff on a CD when EVERY major 60s act (and even some minor ones!) has had a BBC CD released in the last two decades.

Imagine a Beatles CD collection without 'Live at the BBC', 'Live at the BBC Volume 2', 'Please Please Me' AND 'With The Beatles' and one can start to appreciate the awful state of the Stones back catalogue in 2014.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: Moogmodule on October 10, 2014, 09:13:50 AM
BBC 6 Music repeated their Stones at the BBC documentary last night.
Quite apart from the age of the recordings, this programme itself has to be about 25 years old as the chief interviewee is Bill Wyman and it is narrated by Andy Peebles.
The doc played in full 16 of their 42 recordings for the Beeb.

It's incredible that no one has seen fit to put this stuff on a CD when EVERY major 60s act (and even some minor ones!) has had a BBC CD released in the last two decades.

Imagine a Beatles CD collection without 'Live at the BBC', 'Live at the BBC Volume 2', 'Please Please Me' AND 'With The Beatles' and one can start to appreciate the awful state of the Stones back catalogue in 2014.

It is extraordinary. Whether it's because the Stones are maintaining the pretence of being a current band and so don't want to start trawling the back catalogue or simple neglect, I'm surprised that more effort to promote the early stones stuff hasn't happened.   
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: oldbrownshoe on October 10, 2014, 05:03:35 PM
I've just found out that one Decca group are getting a wonderful reissue next month on November 24th.....

'The Magificent Moodies' by The Moody Blues with Denny Laine is coming out as a 2-CD Deluxe set with 43 bonus tracks (29 of them unreleased!).

The price?
£11.99.

It seems that other Decca groups can do it.....shame on the Stones.
Title: Re: The Rolling Stones
Post by: In My Life on July 15, 2015, 04:53:38 AM
I sure wish I could have made it to this concert!

http://youtu.be/L_3EAtlVoFU (http://youtu.be/L_3EAtlVoFU)