Look, I love the Stones. We all do. That's why we're here. At their best, they capture a certain feel that no other band has or probably ever will. But one thing I'm getting tired of is when other bands get dissed on here because they "rock but they don't roll like the Stones", or "they don't swing like the Stones", and whatever else people will throw around to make it seem like the Stones are the only band worth listening to in the world.

There are moments where they "swing". Rip This Joint, for example, is a rockin' tune but it has a swing to it. But notice I said "moments". It's not some trait that is prevelant in everything they do. I'm listening to Hampton '81 right now. It's a cool show...they rock...they have lots of energy...but I must confess I don't hear a whole lot of swing. I hear a rock and roll band playing rock and roll songs. They happen to be the greatest rock and roll band in the world, so it's better rock and roll than you hear from other bands...but I don't hear any "swing". Listen to shows from 1989 - today. At some point, Charlie started playing the same straight forward beat on 90% of the set. The guitarists became more concerned with posing than playing. The backup singers/players roles became more prevelent and the song arrangements got watered down. Where is this "swing" at?

It's just annoying that Mick can do such a cool, rocking performance with Foo Fighters and people still pop up with the "it doesn't swing like the Stones" or "it rocks but has no roll" crap. If Keith hadn't said that "rock with no roll" stuff, so many of you wouldn't even know what to say or be able to come up with your own original thought. At it's heart, rock music is supposed to be an energy release that sweeps you up with it. Don't try to read too much more into it. If it rocks and it sounds good, then it doesn't have to be anything more than that. And as for "rock with no roll", when I listen to latter day Stones, they may roll...but I don't really hear any rock anymore. And between "rock" and "roll", I'll take the rock, thank you.

I love the Rolling Stones. They're my favorite band. But the blind worship is weird, and the idea that there aren't room for any other bands is stupid.

Nuts to "blind worship", it's fact that since the advent
of the so-called "power chord", rock has suffered in the
swing dept. It became "music to be listened to". Well,
that idiom has merit too, but for me, for music to be
called "rock" it's gotta swing.

What's "swing"? Start with Chuck Berry as a reference.

When was the last time The Stones "swang" on a recorded song?

out of control swings pretty good

Rock music makes me tap my foot, with the roll it makes me move my hips.

Nimrod, I agree with you 100% on EVERYTHING you've said. Well done.
And yes, it's blind worship that makes people say stupid things like that.
There's a difference between a 'fan' and a 'fan-boy' - and you've nailed it on the head.

A fan has a unique appreciation, but can be objective and critical about things an artist will release if not up to par. Fans do NOT consider their object of fandom to be any mroe than people doing what they do. No god-like worshipping.

A fan-boy is a different animal altogether. They're the people who wear their fandom like a sheild, a personal status if you will; they actually project their own worth unto their fan subject - and you're quite correct - it's weird. They are unable to be objective of output (you know, the people who feel that Vegas-era albums are worth a damn), they usually latch themselves onto one member (and in the Stones' case it's ,usually Keith - the 'safer', more "macho", less androgynous one even though let's face it, they're all kinda fruity) and say things that emulate what they feel their idols would say - by picking up soundbites and tidbits in books and interviews. This is where you get the baseless cliches you're talking about.

This is the division of fans that I percieve here, and it's very clear who is who if you stick around long enough.

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
TheDailyBuzzherd
Nuts to "blind worship", it's fact that since the advent
of the so-called "power chord", rock has suffered in the
swing dept. It became "music to be listened to". Well,
that idiom has merit too, but for me, for music to be
called "rock" it's gotta swing.

What's "swing"? Start with Chuck Berry as a reference.

Stones music features plenty of power chords.

It´s all about the rhythm section, and whether it makes you move, to put it simply.

If people think sticking to the basics of rock´n´roll is blind worshipping, so be it.

Then I´d say, enjoy your 80s bands, the hair metal wave and Foo Fighters. Good for you!

Quote
TheDailyBuzzherd
Nuts to "blind worship", it's fact that since the advent
of the so-called "power chord", rock has suffered in the
swing dept.

Damn you, Link Wray, for ruining rock and roll way back in.....1958!

Rock is boring. It is devoid of all blues, jazz r&b influences. The reason rock bands suck when they try to play Stones songs is that they don't get that the Stones are not "rock". Charlie Watts has never listened to rock music, and his drumming is not polluted by its influences. That says it all.

I love the Rolling Stones. I dislike mere "rock" music and I will diss those bands all I want, thank you very much.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-23 00:29 by 71Tele.

Quote
71Tele
Rock is boring. It is devoid of all blues, jazz r&b influences. The reason rock bands suck when they try to play Stones songs is that they don't get that the Stones are not "rock". Charlie Watts has never listened to rock music, and his drumming is not polluted by its influences. That says it all.

Like with any genre of music, there are good bands and lousy bands. Isn't Zeppelin a rock band? I can certainly hear the blues influence with them. What about Prog Rock? Jazz is a huge proponent of that style.

Rock with no roll = The Rolling Stones warhorses since 1989.

Quote
Stoneage
Rock with no roll = The Rolling Stones warhorses since 1989.

I'd go even further: rock with no rock.

Or maybe it's just been all roll. You gotta have a little rock in there somewhere...

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
When was the last time The Stones "swang" on a recorded song?

Some come to mind:

"Rough Justice" ( slight )

"Mean Disposition" ( schwings perty hard! SCHWIIING )

Quote
71Tele
Rock is boring. It is devoid of all blues, jazz r&b influences. The reason rock bands suck when they try to play Stones songs is that they don't get that the Stones are not "rock". Charlie Watts has never listened to rock music, and his drumming is not polluted by its influences. That says it all.

I love the Rolling Stones. I dislike mere "rock" music and I will diss those bands all I want, thank you very much.

Exactly. so many bands try to cover the Stones and come from the Marshall stack direction. Stones are all about Blues and Country first.
And Charlie has always been the Stones' master weapon.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
TheDailyBuzzherd
Nuts to "blind worship", it's fact that since the advent
of the so-called "power chord", rock has suffered in the
swing dept. It became "music to be listened to". Well,
that idiom has merit too, but for me, for music to be
called "rock" it's gotta swing.

What's "swing"? Start with Chuck Berry as a reference.

Stones music features plenty of power chords.

EXACTLY, that's why I prefer The Stones Mk1,
it swung the hardest, with some exceptions.
One GIANT exception is much of the fast songs
on "Exile ..." and early '70s material.

Performances got real soft after '73; picked
up again on "B+B", peaked on "Some Girls",
and smatterings here'n'there from thereon out.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-23 01:47 by TheDailyBuzzherd.

Give me Rock n' Roll
Give me just Rock
Give me Hard Rock
Give me Swing Rock
Give me Blues Rock
...I'll take a variety of it all (with a few exceptions).
It must be my A.D.D.!

Too much of one thing and I get sick of it, that's why I cannot listen to Classic Rock radio any more.

Quote
71Tele
Rock is boring. It is devoid of all blues, jazz r&b influences. The reason rock bands suck when they try to play Stones songs is that they don't get that the Stones are not "rock". Charlie Watts has never listened to rock music, and his drumming is not polluted by its influences. That says it all.

I love the Rolling Stones. I dislike mere "rock" music and I will diss those bands all I want, thank you very much.

Hard "rock" and power chords killed the roll in rock. Prog "rock" buried it.
But, rock'n'roll in it's original spirit has never gone away completely.
Volume and studio chicanery replaced swing. The current form of it has more
to do with Zeppelin types and less with Presley, Haley and the like.

Frankly, if you want rock that swings, you'd have to go to some mid-period
Chili Peppers things. There's plenty out there, but I can't think of any
offhand. I gotta say that like it or don't, a lot of songs my kid listens
to swing harder than most anything The Foos or Arcade Fire do. But I don't
like much of it, LoL.

Quote
BluzDude
Give me Rock n' Roll
Give me just Rock
Give me Hard Rock
Give me Swing Rock
Give me Blues Rock
...I'll take a variety of it all (with a few exceptions).
It must be my A.D.D.!

Too much of one thing and I get sick of it, that's why I cannot listen to Classic Rock radio any more.

MAN ain't THAT the truth! And we know why ... pick one band, any band, and the
rotation from that band's rich catalog? Three songs. 45 albums, three songs.
Corporate crap ... fat bandwidth, slight content. Kinda the listening equivalent
of low calorie eating ... gotta eat five hours a day to keep the body up.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
When was the last time The Stones "swang" on a recorded song?

PMS

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
71Tele
Rock is boring. It is devoid of all blues, jazz r&b influences. The reason rock bands suck when they try to play Stones songs is that they don't get that the Stones are not "rock". Charlie Watts has never listened to rock music, and his drumming is not polluted by its influences. That says it all.

Like with any genre of music, there are good bands and lousy bands. Isn't Zeppelin a rock band? I can certainly hear the blues influence with them. What about Prog Rock? Jazz is a huge proponent of that style.

Agree. I like The Who, for example. But I'm not generally a fan of rock. The larger point is that the Stones are often (wrongly, in my view) compared to "rock" bands when the similarity is only superficial. I might add that the Stones are at their weakest for me when they attempt pure rock music, such as "Out Of Control", "Rock and a Hard Place", etc.

Quote
TheDailyBuzzherd

Quote
71Tele
Rock is boring. It is devoid of all blues, jazz r&b influences. The reason rock bands suck when they try to play Stones songs is that they don't get that the Stones are not "rock". Charlie Watts has never listened to rock music, and his drumming is not polluted by its influences. That says it all.

I love the Rolling Stones. I dislike mere "rock" music and I will diss those bands all I want, thank you very much.

Hard "rock" and power chords killed the roll in rock. Prog "rock" buried it.
But, rock'n'roll in it's original spirit has never gone away completely.
Volume and studio chicanery replaced swing. The current form of it has more
to do with Zeppelin types and less with Presley, Haley and the like.

Frankly, if you want rock that swings, you'd have to go to some mid-period
Chili Peppers things. There's plenty out there, but I can't think of any
offhand. I gotta say that like it or don't, a lot of songs my kid listens
to swing harder than most anything The Foos or Arcade Fire do. But I don't
like much of it, LoL.

Yep.

Overall I agree, Nimrod. But the swing factor is there in full force even recently--listen to the closing bars of "Rough Justice". And some here have been talking about Mick doing IORR on SNL. Great performance all around, don't get me wrong, but the ending of the studio version has that swing with some to spare, while the Foo Fighters/Jagger version doesn't, as they didn't even attempt to reproduce it, while successfully replicating the rest of the studio version.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
71Tele
Rock is boring. It is devoid of all blues, jazz r&b influences. The reason rock bands suck when they try to play Stones songs is that they don't get that the Stones are not "rock". Charlie Watts has never listened to rock music, and his drumming is not polluted by its influences. That says it all.

Like with any genre of music, there are good bands and lousy bands. Isn't Zeppelin a rock band? I can certainly hear the blues influence with them. What about Prog Rock? Jazz is a huge proponent of that style.

Agree. I like The Who, for example. But I'm not generally a fan of rock. The larger point is that the Stones are often (wrongly, in my view) compared to "rock" bands when the similarity is only superficial. I might add that the Stones are at their weakest for me when they attempt pure rock music, such as "Out Of Control", "Rock and a Hard Place", etc.

Stones at their weakest, Out Of Control, in the same sentence?

Quote
Nimrod
Look, I love the Stones. We all do. That's why we're here. At their best, they capture a certain feel that no other band has or probably ever will. But one thing I'm getting tired of is when other bands get dissed on here because they "rock but they don't roll like the Stones", or "they don't swing like the Stones", and whatever else people will throw around to make it seem like the Stones are the only band worth listening to in the world.

There are moments where they "swing". Rip This Joint, for example, is a rockin' tune but it has a swing to it. But notice I said "moments". It's not some trait that is prevelant in everything they do. I'm listening to Hampton '81 right now. It's a cool show...they rock...they have lots of energy...but I must confess I don't hear a whole lot of swing. I hear a rock and roll band playing rock and roll songs. They happen to be the greatest rock and roll band in the world, so it's better rock and roll than you hear from other bands...but I don't hear any "swing". Listen to shows from 1989 - today. At some point, Charlie started playing the same straight forward beat on 90% of the set. The guitarists became more concerned with posing than playing. The backup singers/players roles became more prevelent and the song arrangements got watered down. Where is this "swing" at?

It's just annoying that Mick can do such a cool, rocking performance with Foo Fighters and people still pop up with the "it doesn't swing like the Stones" or "it rocks but has no roll" crap. If Keith hadn't said that "rock with no roll" stuff, so many of you wouldn't even know what to say or be able to come up with your own original thought. At it's heart, rock music is supposed to be an energy release that sweeps you up with it. Don't try to read too much more into it. If it rocks and it sounds good, then it doesn't have to be anything more than that. And as for "rock with no roll", when I listen to latter day Stones, they may roll...but I don't really hear any rock anymore. And between "rock" and "roll", I'll take the rock, thank you.

I love the Rolling Stones. They're my favorite band. But the blind worship is weird, and the idea that there aren't room for any other bands is stupid.

The Stones are nearing the end of the long dusty trail. It has been a great run, but fans are going to have to get used to the Stones ending and Mick moving on and performing with younger bands. Who knows, maybe he forms his own band with some young talented musicians. Hope they can keep up, because Mick is going to rock, roll, swing, and sting, like a bee, until he is 75! And don't you forget it!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-23 04:22 by MightyStonesStillRollin50.

Funny, for me Hampton is one of their "swingingest" shows ever, much more swinging than some Taylor era shows.

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
71Tele

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
71Tele
Rock is boring. It is devoid of all blues, jazz r&b influences. The reason rock bands suck when they try to play Stones songs is that they don't get that the Stones are not "rock". Charlie Watts has never listened to rock music, and his drumming is not polluted by its influences. That says it all.

Like with any genre of music, there are good bands and lousy bands. Isn't Zeppelin a rock band? I can certainly hear the blues influence with them. What about Prog Rock? Jazz is a huge proponent of that style.

Agree. I like The Who, for example. But I'm not generally a fan of rock. The larger point is that the Stones are often (wrongly, in my view) compared to "rock" bands when the similarity is only superficial. I might add that the Stones are at their weakest for me when they attempt pure rock music, such as "Out Of Control", "Rock and a Hard Place", etc.

Stones at their weakest, Out Of Control, in the same sentence?

In my opinion Out Of Control is one of the greatest Stones songs ever. I would love to see them do more like it. It is powerful live.

So...I'm confused by this...

Do the Who, circa '69-'76, "swing" and "roll"...or not?

Talk about power chords and bombast!

And, if you say "not",...well...what's the f'in value of swingin' and rollin' to begin with?!

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
71Tele

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
71Tele
Rock is boring. It is devoid of all blues, jazz r&b influences. The reason rock bands suck when they try to play Stones songs is that they don't get that the Stones are not "rock". Charlie Watts has never listened to rock music, and his drumming is not polluted by its influences. That says it all.

Like with any genre of music, there are good bands and lousy bands. Isn't Zeppelin a rock band? I can certainly hear the blues influence with them. What about Prog Rock? Jazz is a huge proponent of that style.

Agree. I like The Who, for example. But I'm not generally a fan of rock. The larger point is that the Stones are often (wrongly, in my view) compared to "rock" bands when the similarity is only superficial. I might add that the Stones are at their weakest for me when they attempt pure rock music, such as "Out Of Control", "Rock and a Hard Place", etc.

Stones at their weakest, Out Of Control, in the same sentence?

In my opinion Out Of Control is one of the greatest Stones songs ever. I would love to see them do more like it. It is powerful live.

Great. In my opinion it's contrived and wretched.

Quote
rocker1
So...I'm confused by this...

Do the Who, circa '69-'76, "swing" and "roll"...or not?

Talk about power chords and bombast!

And, if you say "not",...well...what's the f'in value of swingin' and rollin' to begin with?!

Right on! This swing, roll, rock, etc., is much to do about nothing. And very confusing. I think we need a rock 'n'roll dictionary with clearly defined definitions.