A treasury and a place to meet people of all ages with various interests from all over the World
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 20

Author Topic: The Rolling Stones  (Read 26657 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Kevin

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5443
Re: The Rolling Stones
« Reply #40 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."
Logged
don't follow leaders

Sondra

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 6968
Re: The Rolling Stones
« Reply #41 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.
Logged

Kevin

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5443
Re: The Rolling Stones
« Reply #42 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.
Logged
don't follow leaders

BlueMeanie

  • Guest
Re: The Rolling Stones
« Reply #43 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? :-/
Logged

Kevin

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5443
Re: The Rolling Stones
« Reply #44 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)
Logged
don't follow leaders

Sondra

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 6968
Re: The Rolling Stones
« Reply #45 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.
Logged

Sondra

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 6968
Re: The Rolling Stones
« Reply #46 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.
Logged

adamzero

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1410
  • "The dude abides."
    • Phoebe Claire Publishing, LLC
Re: The Rolling Stones
« Reply #47 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.  
Logged

Kevin

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5443
Re: The Rolling Stones
« Reply #48 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.
Logged
don't follow leaders

BlueMeanie

  • Guest
Re: The Rolling Stones
« Reply #49 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?
Logged

Kevin

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5443
Re: The Rolling Stones
« Reply #50 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?
Logged
don't follow leaders

BlueMeanie

  • Guest
Re: The Rolling Stones
« Reply #51 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.
Logged

The End

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 8211
  • Turn off your mind, relax and float down stream...
    • The End
Re: The Rolling Stones
« Reply #52 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!

Mairi

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 7885
  • The owls are not what they seem
Re: The Rolling Stones
« Reply #53 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...  ;)

Logged
I am posting on an internet forum, therefore my opinion is fact.

Sondra

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 6968
Re: The Rolling Stones
« Reply #54 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!
Logged

Sondra

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 6968
Re: The Rolling Stones
« Reply #55 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.
Logged

Mairi

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 7885
  • The owls are not what they seem
Re: The Rolling Stones
« Reply #56 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.
Logged
I am posting on an internet forum, therefore my opinion is fact.

Sondra

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 6968
Re: The Rolling Stones
« Reply #57 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
Logged

harihead

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 2339
  • Keep spreading the love
Re: The Rolling Stones
« Reply #58 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.
Logged
All you've got to do is choose love.  That's how I live it now.  I learned a long time ago, I can feed the birds in my garden.  I can't feed them all. -- Ringo Starr, Rolling Stone magazine, May 2007<br />

Mairi

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 7885
  • The owls are not what they seem
Re: The Rolling Stones
« Reply #59 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.
Logged
I am posting on an internet forum, therefore my opinion is fact.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 20
 

Page created in 0.455 seconds with 27 queries.