Anthony Kiedis from the Red Hot Chili peppers on becoming the next Rolling Stones:

"They've made great music, but they don't seem like something I'd like us to be. They don't seem to have a real band unity. I don't know that they enjoy the process as much."

This is really sad but sounds true. Bono said something to the same effect in his long interview in Rolling Stone magazine a couple of years ago. If I remember correctly, he said that Jagger-Richards didnt really get along and that they would make even greater music if they did.

I think that they don't need to be a band in the sense Kiedis is talking about. When you have that many years as a band on you, there's no need for it. Mick Jagger was asked sometime between 1978 and 1981 what the secret is to stay together for so long. He replied: "Not seeing each other too often". I think Jagger and Richards get along just fine. And by the way: What the @#$%& does Bono and Anthony Kiedis know about it?

JumpingKentFlash

Different strokes.......

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think that they don't need to be a band in the
> sense Kiedis is talking about. When you have that
> many years as a band on you, there's no need for
> it. Mick Jagger was asked sometime between 1978
> and 1981 what the secret is to stay together for
> so long. He replied: "Not seeing each other too
> often". I think Jagger and Richards get along just
> fine. And by the way: What the @#$%& does Bono and
> Anthony Kiedis know about it?


as theyve both been in hugely successful (and very closely bonded) bands for over a quarter of a century and both know Jagger personally, I'd say "quite a lot more than any of us"

There's no doubt that when Jagger and Richards saw more of each other (ie lived in the same country) and worked more as a team, they made better records. However, you could counter that by saying that if they were still in each other's pocket every week of the year the band may not have lasted as long as they have done.

Kiedis' quote seems rather general in nature. I think it's somewhat irresponsible to throw a blanket quote over a 45 year relationship.

well, hes just saying that its a system that wouldnt work for HIS band. The RHCP have always struck me as a very close unit, whereas the Stones tend to have a "band within a band" thing where some members are more on the periphery than others and where the relationship between various personnel down the years has never appeared to be that close (Keith and Bill, for example). As inopeng says, different strokes

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> as theyve both been in hugely successful (and very
> closely bonded) bands for over a quarter of a
> century and both know Jagger personally, I'd say
> "quite a lot more than any of us"

Of course, but that doesn't mean that they should go out in public talking about it. "Becoming the next Rolling Stones" and then talking about it like it was a bad thing. Other musicians are supposed to be so free and all that stuff. In reality they're shit scared for pushing boundaries like The Stones are. That's probably why we hear them mouthing off that they don't want to do it like The Stones. They are afraid of pushing that particular boundry. Pussy ass mofos. (BTW: I think Bono doesn't really care if they go on as long as The Stones, but Kiedis is very concerned about it I think).


> There's no doubt that when Jagger and Richards saw
> more of each other (ie lived in the same country)
> and worked more as a team, they made better
> records. However, you could counter that by saying
> that if they were still in each other's pocket
> every week of the year the band may not have
> lasted as long as they have done.

Agree to both things, but also remember that they have developed as much these years. When they're together (Like back in the day) they go in one direction. When they live apart, and don't work together as a team (As much) as you say, they go in a different direction. Both can be good and bad. They could never make Brown Sugar today, but on the other hand they couldn't make Out Of Control back then either.

JumpingKentFlash

I've got some friendships in which a little goes a long way - in other words, we get along better not seeing each other too often. Some (many maybe) feel the same about me. I'm a Type A person with a high revved engine. Overbearing sometimes.

At this point in time, the guys are very different, but have to realize that there is a strength (magic even) when they work together. I really wish they would sit down at a kitchen table or hotel room and write together, but don't think that happens much anymore.

Oh yeah, Kiedis and Bono are a little too self-important for my taste - good musicians though.

Anthony is from my hometown. I know his dad and a couple other lifelong friends of his. Anthony and Flea are very tight, practically like brothers. They hang out even when they are not recording or touring. When a Stones project ends those guys seem to go months without seeing or talking to one another.

At their most recent homecoming concerting Flea announced from the stage, "I'd like to thank Blackie and Peggy (Anthony's parents) for making my best friend."

Let's see where they (RHCP) are after 40 years. Time will tell.

Chilli Peppers are a B-list band at best. Nobody really cares about them. So what they won a Grammy. Do you remember who won last year or the year before? They play all these awards shows because that is all the exposure they can get.

Anyways playing in your underwear looks pretty stupid anyways.

some things are utterly predictable: the sun will rise in the east, the days will get longer after december 21st, and kent will react irrationally to any "criticism" directed at the stones.

You really can't compare band unity in a newer group like the Chili Peppers and one that's been around as long as the Stones.

Let's see how the Chili Peppers feel about each other in five or ten years if they're still together.

oh god...to even mildly equate The Rolling Stones
with this outfit
in any artistic context
is kooky...
it's like a stink- ant spluterring on and on about a wild stallion...thanx for sharing anthony.
peppaz can stay togther for fifty more years, or even beyond life into death...
and they will not rank even anywhere in outer reaches of the stones huge shadow...

stonesrule Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You really can't compare band unity in a newer
> group like the Chili Peppers and one that's been
> around as long as the Stones.
>
> Let's see how the Chili Peppers feel about each
> other in five or ten years if they're still
> together.


The Red Hot Chili Peppers have been around since 1983. After a few lineup changes, many ups and downs, they delivered in 2006 one of their best albums (my personal favorite anyways, and one of the most successful.) Judging from the way they looked yesterday on TV, they looked like they were getting on quite well thank you very much.

and they won 3 grammys...and yes they looked like they enjoyed each other; sat with each other...seemed very tight amongst themselves as a band of friends.

Yessir! Hats off the the Chiles....they are about as good as rock and roll gets in the mainstream...Glad to see they got the awards that they deserved...they are a HELL of a lot better than sappy U2.

JR

JumpingKentFlash wrote: "I think that they don't need to be a band in the sense Kiedis is talking about. When you have that many years as a band on you, there's no need for it. Mick Jagger was asked sometime between 1978 and 1981 what the secret is to stay together for so long. He replied: "Not seeing each other too often". I think Jagger and Richards get along just fine. And by the way: What the @#$%& does Bono and Anthony Kiedis know about it?"

Well said, JumpingKentFlash. Stones, as "family", have their own "rules", ways and manners to be together. And given that they have been able to use their wrangles as sources of inspiration (remember of "One Hit To the Body"), where on earth the problem is?

I think one of the things you have to give the stones credit for is not breaking up during the eighties as did the Police, Roxy Music, Talking heads etc. While so many bands split up citing "creative differences", the stones just had "affairs"- their respective solo albums and perspective solo careers.I know it sounds like a cliche, but Mick and Keith are like a married couple who have had their respecitve affairs but realize that they need each other. I imagine when they get together to write songs now, they do it naturally and well because they have done it so many times. I like most of the recent material. I think Mick brings a contempory feel to the the music- a blues stylist who manages to update to sound making it sound contemporary and keith brings a more "roots" approach. Mick keeps it modern. Keith keeps it real.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-12 23:18 by voodoocat.

Amen

I did think they were a breath of fresh air on the Grammys.

Also liked the Mayer, Lengend, Corinne segment.

God, please don't let Keith Richards ever wear grills!

just a question, the stones band members have families of their own. does anyone know if the RhCP members do?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-12 23:36 by ryanpow.