2nd February, 1979. The day the music really died.

Yeah, The Ghost of Good Taste of Music, this IS great fun, and I enjoy it a lot! When I wrote that first rant I really hoped that someone would 'challange' me because there is something, one could say, a bit controversial there what I wrote... and I have American audience in my mind... So thanks for your reply!

I just comment something over our "Dylan controversy" - not much Sid Vicious here, but what a hec - I agree that that there might have been some American influences there behind his "Judas-thing" - especially taking the success of "Mr Tambourine Man" by the Byrds. But my theory is that Bob was really affected by the success of these British rock bands, and I think - taking the little Chuck Berry in his heart - that was the area he wanted to reach as well. He was incredibly succesfull as a folk star, but I think he - at least in this stage of his career - WANTED to be a main stream rock star. I think the success of the British band gave him the inspiration or courage to take that route as well. In his sense I think the example these bands - their music AND their cool image and success - had on him had a important part in crucial decision in his career.

I think listening the records The Animals, The Stones etc. were doing might have been a great surprise to ears of Dylan as it was many of his contemporaries in America. I think many of them knew the music, perhaps even liked it, but what can be out of it was something unhearable. A true black music without the filter and still topping the charts - I take the comment of Dylan in that famous concert of "American music" not just to riducule the expectations of his folk audience, but also ironical in the sense to remind that in fact this kind of stuff is originally American-made, even though it is nowadays most played by the British kids.

I hope Bob confesses this in his next volume of Chronicles...

- Doxa

Quote
Barn Owl
...The streets.

Where the faces shine.

Quote
Barn Owl
I would assert that a great many UK bands, in the sixties particularly, where responsible for authenticating whatever american influences they could lay their hands upon, and giving that music a purpose and attitude that it was crying out for. In doing so, they provided a type of music that kids the world over could identify with; hence the popularistion of bands such as the Beatles and the Stones.

Where did that attitude come from?

The streets.

...and still does.

Man, you nail it.

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
...I hope Bob confesses this in his next volume of Chronicles...

- Doxa

I just hope there is a next volume. The first one was such a fun read.

Hey Baxlap,

You unleashed a monster. Congrats on a great thread.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Mathijs

The Stones reached stardom long before they started to become a really good band. They reached stardom because they had long hair and were a threat to our daughters, they were rebelious and nothing else.


ps it must be said that punk always is and has been very European, it's not not American in any way. Went it reached America it became violent and then it was over.

Two distinct claims, a false and a true one.

First: The Stones were a really good band before their stardom. The "nothing else" is the best possible chemistry between the drummer, the bass player, the guitars and the vocals ever to be found. That's their magic and all the rest is just build up on that foundation. I am sure the best possible gigs The Stones EVER did was in their Richmond days. The performances in 1964/65 NME poll winners concerts are among the most exciting ones ever captured. Even today, when the band very rarely 'clicks' that is to find the special vital chemistry they used to have in their very early days (see, for example, the opening number of "Little Queenie" in Double Door '97). That is which makes this band as great as it is: to excite their audience by the noise of their group effort. The good songs Mick and Keith wrote or the classical recordings they achieved in studio, would be nothing without this foundation.

- Doxa

I disagree. Of course the Stones and the Beatles were good bands starting from the early days. But both groups stardom was not evoked by their music but by their image. When they played live nobody bothered to even listen -if you could hear the music at all. For both bands it wasn't until '65 that the music started to become important.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs

I disagree. Of course the Stones and the Beatles were good bands starting from the early days. But both groups stardom was not evoked by their music but by their image. When they played live nobody bothered to even listen -if you could hear the music at all. For both bands it wasn't until '65 that the music started to become important.

Mathijs

I disagree. I think both of these bands were incredible bands and tight rocking combos in their club days, before they reached the stardom (that was, I agree, much to do with the image) - then both of the bands really suffered from their huge success, and of the fact they couldn't hear other selves due the poor technology of the day (and, of course, knowing that they didn't need to prove anything anymore, just to turn up and mime few numbers, made them lazy). I think that can be heard, for example, listening the BBC recordings of the Stones - first they were very tight group, but by '65 during thetr last recordings, they seem to be out of synch totally. Also, comparing the performances in Poll Winner's concert '64 and '65 tell the same story of the group cohesiviness going downhill. I think they played the '66 and '67 tours just by the help of their natural energy of the time, but I think it took until 1969 American tour the band really re-maked their tightness again. Of course, it helped much to have a guitarist ace in the band, but also the others really improved as well, found each other again.

The Beatles - they never remade their live tightness again.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-04 22:22 by Doxa.

>Hey Glam Descendant, dont copy my posts

Great minds, etc.

Quote
Silver Dagger
Hey Baxlap,

You unleashed a monster. Congrats on a great thread.

No problem, even if it was more like the scene in Caddyshack when the poop shows up in the swimming pool. "Dried fecal remnant," indeed.

Actually, I was and remain a huge Pistols fan. Never Mind the Bollocks is one of my very favorite records. Steve Jones was spectacularly good on that record.

But Sid was a total buffoon! Any idiot could have done a better job than him. He only played on one song on the album and his "playing" on every boot I've heard is horrible. Replacing Matlock with him was when they pretty much ceased to be a creative band. Compare any Sid show with the 9/24/76 100 Club boot or the original demos to see what I mean. They were a cracking little band until this twit joined up!

I was taking a public speaking course at George Washington University, here in DC, two years after he died. On the second anniversary of his death, I did a speech on his role as a dance pioneer based on his inventing the pogo. Got a few good yuks.

For the Stones and the Beatles (in particular) the music obviously was inportant from the start. Remember, radio was the main media in those days, and nobody had heard anything like Please Please Me (the song) before. The music was obviously very important for them breaking through! The most important thing. The image obiously contributed, along with the music, for them to become enormously famous.

Anyway, imagewise the Stones have always been much better than the Beatles!

Lets at least agree on one thing:

Sid Vicious died 2/2/79

Quote
Mathijs
Musically not very talented no, but together with McLaren, Westwood and Rotten he created THE image of punk and punk music, and image that still lasts. It has become a classic image, much like Marylin Monroe, James Dean and Marlon Brando.

That alone earns him all respect.

Mathijs, that's got to be one of your dumbest quotes ever. Sid Vicious was a lucky bum who happened to be at the right place at the right time. Glen Matlock, the Pistol's original bass player, deserves far more 'respect' than Sid for co-writing most of the band's material and for probably being the best bassist of the UK punk movement. Steve Jones played the bass track on nine of the Pistol's released tracks. Sid Vicious? LOL.

Have to jump in to defend Mathtijs.
He was & is one of the greatest ICONS.

Good to have you back, Baboon.

- Doxa

Not for mine he didn't.

But at least he never advertised butter like that other twit.

I find it very interesting that every time a Sex Pistols thread starts on IORR, that it gets very heated. Interesting. I think this says far more about the nature of IORR members than the Sex Pistols themselves.

Also, 4 pages in 5 days?? That alone speaks volumes.

I think they were, and apparently still are, some kind of a threat to the Stones or the then- "rock establishment" in the minds of many.

As for Sid, I love this interchange which went something like:

Someone to Sid: "You can't play."

Sid: "So??!!"

classic Pistols attitude, tho he did not have the intelligence and intellectual bent of Johnny. And yes, I mean that -- see beyond the outlandish statements and you will find a real thinker there in Johnny -- see The Filth and the Fury.

I loved the Pistols and always will. And the Stones too. Loving both bands is not necessarily mutually exclusive (did I phrase that right?)


p

Steve Jones was Keith Richards on steroids with the guitar. And if it wasn't for rock n' roll, both of them probably would have ended up in prison.

Quote
timbernardis
I find it very interesting that every time a Sex Pistols thread starts on IORR, that it gets very heated. Interesting. I think this says far more about the nature of IORR members than the Sex Pistols themselves.

Also, 4 pages in 5 days?? That alone speaks volumes.

I think they were, and apparently still are, some kind of a threat to the Stones or the then- "rock establishment" in the minds of many.

As for Sid, I love this interchange which went something like:

Someone to Sid: "You can't play."

Sid: "So??!!"

classic Pistols attitude, tho he did not have the intelligence and intellectual bent of Johnny. And yes, I mean that -- see beyond the outlandish statements and you will find a real thinker there in Johnny -- see The Filth and the Fury.

I loved the Pistols and always will. And the Stones too. Loving both bands is not necessarily mutually exclusive (did I phrase that right?)


p

You're right Tim. It generates a similar furore to U2, Led Zeppelin and occasionally Oasis threads. Oh and Mick Taylor threads!

a furore, a furor, or a Fuhrer?