Reading through the GNR forum I'm apart of and saw this post that I thought was pretty funny and wondering how people would dissect it over here. For some context, it was in a thread about whether the new members of GNR (the band Axl Rose has been touring with since the classic lineup broke up in the 90s) are considered "real members" now after so many years in the band. One of the posters started talking about relationships within a band and it drifted to the Stones and it just made me think of stuff over here and how people would react to this accusation (I bolded the Stones portion but the whole post is there for context):

Quote
Val22
Having seen this nu GNR in concert twice, I'd say yes. It does confirm these members as GNR. Axl wouldn't tour with a band that he felt wasn't superior in everyway.

Live these guys kick ass and have fun too!

Axl was happy both times I saw him and interacted with his fellow bandmates.

No matter what people say, if you don't have a good off stage relationship with your band members, you can't do an excellent show.

Yeah, you can put on good shows, but fans will pick up on the tension.

I just saw the new Rolling Stones video for Doom and it was like there were four different people on the set never interacting with each other. MIck was the only one animated and he's still got it.

Everyone knows now that he and Keith don't like each other much and it would be a surprise if they do tour together again and believe me this video shows it.

The Stones can still kick ass on record, but I'm curious to see how they are onstage now after so much time and Keith's book has passed.

It's better to perform with people you like than people you really don't want to be with anymore.

Personally, it seems like someone thats a fan and isn't just speaking generally or in a mean way. They say "the Stones can still kick ass on record" so its not really a knock against them, just an observation about their relationship. I wonder since people think their possible negative relationships have hurt their onstage performance after we just saw some great shows for their 50th.

The stones have probably always been in varying degrees of tension.

"No matter what people say, if you don't have a good off stage relationship with your band members, you can't do an excellent show."
That statement is an opinion, hardly a fact. I disagree with it.

I agree, the Stones can tour without this...they don't need the MJ/KR interaction.

In fact, from what I heard, it went down like this in the tour discussion:

Mick to Keith, "you're now Bill Wyman to me".

Quote
treaclefingers
I agree, the Stones can tour without this...they don't need the MJ/KR interaction.

In fact, from what I heard, it went down like this in the tour discussion:

Mick to Keith, "you're now Bill Wyman to me".

If you wouldn't mind, what's the source for this quote? Not that it would surprise me, as theirs is just a working rather than social relationship at this point--and Bill Wyman to Mick Jagger always represented nothing more than a pure working relationship. But, if true, that quote in such a context would mean that Mick wouldn't mind if Keith just quit or retired. After all, they no longer write together, and for the last 20 years Mick has done the lion's share of the writing on Stones records.

So what do you think? It's obvious that Mick has several years more of performing in him, and, despite his focused playing recently onstage, Keith has aged far more than his 69 years and continues to wither visibly with each passing year. Do you think Mick would take The Stones on the road without KR? And, if so, who would replace him? Perhaps Blondie Chaplin would be given a more prominent sideman role onstage beside Darryl Jones. I'll bet they would still attract an audience. Mick would be Mick and the fans would still get all the hits.

Sorry Stonehearted, I had arranged for a rimshot to be delivered after that 'quote'.

MAX?!?!

Quote
doubledoor
"No matter what people say, if you don't have a good off stage relationship with your band members, you can't do an excellent show."
That statement is an opinion, hardly a fact. I disagree with it.

Yeah, there have been bands that hated each other but got shit done. The Who rarely got along, Cream had a lot of tension, the period that is considered Pearl Jam's best both creatively and as a live band is also when they were having internal problems.

Tensions only become a problem if it boils over to the point where they can't work together anymore. Life on the road is probably easier if you get along with the people in the band, but it doesn't automatically translate into success or failure. Individuals handle it differently, some are able to maintain a professional relationship even if they dislike each other.

Quote
treaclefingers
Sorry Stonehearted, I had arranged for a rimshot to be delivered after that 'quote'.

MAX?!?!

Well, I'm no StonesTod, am I?

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
doubledoor
"No matter what people say, if you don't have a good off stage relationship with your band members, you can't do an excellent show."
That statement is an opinion, hardly a fact. I disagree with it.

Yeah, there have been bands that hated each other but got shit done. The Who rarely got along, Cream had a lot of tension, the period that is considered Pearl Jam's best both creatively and as a live band is also when they were having internal problems.

Tensions only become a problem if it boils over to the point where they can't work together anymore. Life on the road is probably easier if you get along with the people in the band, but it doesn't automatically translate into success or failure. Individuals handle it differently, some are able to maintain a professional relationship even if they dislike each other.

The same could pretty much be said about classic GNR period, where they HATED each other and still did excellent 3 hour shows. They got along enough onstage to not let it affect the shows.

I just thought it was funny that this person thinks it would be very surprising if they tour, given that they don't have a good relationship anymore, and we're sitting here just waiting for the confirmation it'll happen.

And no, to answer the question, I don't think Mick would tour as the Stones without Keith, and even if he did, I think fans would take notice it and it would affect the tour if it were to happen.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
treaclefingers
Sorry Stonehearted, I had arranged for a rimshot to be delivered after that 'quote'.

MAX?!?!

Well, I'm no StonesTod, am I?

Is that a rhetorical question?

Quote
RollingFreak
The same could pretty much be said about classic GNR period, where they HATED each other and still did excellent 3 hour shows.

Ah. See, GNR are one of those bands who I enjoy their music, but don't know much about behind the scenes/off-stage stuff. I knew in the end they hated each other, but didn't know how they got along during their prime. I know a few things, like about the riot, but that's about it. From the limited information I know about Axl, I kind of figured he might not have got along with anybody at all, but didn't know for sure if that ego developed later or if he was always that way.

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
RollingFreak
The same could pretty much be said about classic GNR period, where they HATED each other and still did excellent 3 hour shows.

Ah. See, GNR are one of those bands who I enjoy their music, but don't know much about behind the scenes/off-stage stuff. I knew in the end they hated each other, but didn't know how they got along during their prime. I know a few things, like about the riot, but that's about it. From the limited information I know about Axl, I kind of figured he might not have got along with anybody at all, but didn't know for sure if that ego developed later or if he was always that way.

Yeah, it pretty much happened in the early 90s. I'm a huge fan, and I hate reading about it because I'm naive and like to think everything was ok, but apparently the whole band only REALLY liked each other on the Appetite For Destruction tour from 87-88. After that, its all not so friendly.

89-90: the band all hate drummer Steven Adler because of his drug use

90-93: Axl and the rest of the band don't really get along for a number of reasons. Axl is upset with Slash and Duff's drug and alcohol use, Slash is upset with Axl's temper tantrums and controlling of the band. Izzy Stadlin gets sick of the band and leaves in 91 (and to my knowledge, everyone liked Izzy so that was a big blow because Axl lost his childhood friend and Slash lost his guitar partner).

But yeah, alot of backstage shit went on during GNR's prime Use Your Illusion tour and the band hated each other (but for the public tolerated each other) for alot of that time. So GNR still continued and would seem onstage like they liked each other, but when backstage it may not be as bad as I'm making it out to be, but it certainly wasn't friendly. Slash and the other band members really got pissed off about stuff you mention like the riots.

I think in some ways the Stones have always fed off of the tension that has always been there to some degree.

If Mick ever takes the band on the road without KR, I don't think Charlie would go and it is NOT THE ROLLING STONES. You can not have this band and call it the Stones without the four principal members at this point.

GNR performing without Slash and Izzy is like the Stones going out without Keith and Ronnie. What in the world are we comparing here. GNR's legacy lies within the original band. Stones legacy is the 50 years of them remaining as a band. You are able to look at the Stones as the Stones. Is GNR really GNR? No, it's the current batch of musicians willing to put up with Axl for now.

Quote
RollingFreak
Slash and the other band members really got pissed off about stuff you mention like the riots.

The riot strikes me as odd, because it seemed like such a silly thing to start a riot over. Unless the reason I've always heard was incorrect. But wasn't he pissed somebody in the crowd was taking his picture? It's not like they were bootlegging the concert or something that was cutting into their revenue. Taking still photos shouldn't be a big enough deal to walk off stage over. Even if the flash was what bothered him, with all the lights in their face on stage, a camera flash probably wasn't all that distracting. But maybe I'm missing some info.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
treaclefingers
Sorry Stonehearted, I had arranged for a rimshot to be delivered after that 'quote'.

MAX?!?!

Well, I'm no StonesTod, am I?

Is that a rhetorical question?

Without question.

I disagree with the premise that a band can't put on a great show if there's tension or dislike among members. The Who put on great shows and they had a lot of tension. The GNR fan says, "like there were four different personalities..." that's The Who in their heyday.

Quote
slew
I think in some ways the Stones have always fed off of the tension that has always been there to some degree.

If Mick ever takes the band on the road without KR, I don't think Charlie would go and it is NOT THE ROLLING STONES. You can not have this band and call it the Stones without the four principal members at this point.

Yes, good point. Charlie genuinely enjoys playing with Keith, admires his "jazzy" bohemian spirit, and playing with someone else in Keith's place would be just another rock band to Charlie, and he would never have the patience for that.

However, is Woody's position in the band entirely secure? Suppose he went back on the Guinness and his playing onstage were to suffer as a result? He almost got tossed out of the band in the 80s for his excesses.

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
RollingFreak
Slash and the other band members really got pissed off about stuff you mention like the riots.

The riot strikes me as odd, because it seemed like such a silly thing to start a riot over. Unless the reason I've always heard was incorrect. But wasn't he pissed somebody in the crowd was taking his picture? It's not like they were bootlegging the concert or something that was cutting into their revenue. Taking still photos shouldn't be a big enough deal to walk off stage over. Even if the flash was what bothered him, with all the lights in their face on stage, a camera flash probably wasn't all that distracting. But maybe I'm missing some info.

I BELIEVE, could be wrong, that the fan was taking video and not picture. Either way, it shouldn't have been that big a deal at all, but it bothered Axl. Its alittle more understandable when people are throwing rocks and bottles at the stage (which was regular at a GNR show) and Axl got pissed and stopped or ended the shows because of it. In terms of pictures/video riot incident, it seems Axl was pissed off that the guy got past security with it and also that Axl thought he shouldn't be doing it either. Either way, it was an idiotic reason to end and leave the show, and despite the band not looking pissed at the end (Slash seems to give off the appearance he's agreeing with Axl by giving the finger to the crowd), it was stuff like that that really upset them. They just wanted to play music, and when Axl said something was wrong, the show was over and all day waiting to play a show and then waiting for Axl to show up to the gig, all for naught.

Here's the riot incident you are probably talking about:





(Incident starts at 1:20)

Maybe it was a video camera. According to Wikipedia (which I know can have discrepancies so I'm not taking it as gospel) it was still pictures. But yeah, he kind of overreacted. I've seen bands deal with being bottled by the crowd (as apparently GNR was sometimes) and STILL not lose it. I was at a music festival and Matchbox Twenty were one of the bands, and they were getting bottled. I'm not proud of it, because it's kind of childish (since they didn't really do anything to deserve it), but I threw one as well, but hey, I was 17. Anyway, Rob got kind of mad, and threatened to quit the set or whatever, but they stuck it out and finished their set. But I wouldn't have blamed them for walking off, we were being huge dicks. But to punish the whole crowd because one person is taking pictures or filming is kind of childish.

Luckily all this stuff doesn't affect my appreciation of the music. They're not one of my top bands or anything, but I enjoy them from time to time. If I refused to listen to every rock band that had a douchebag or two in the lineup my music collection would be pretty small.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
treaclefingers
Sorry Stonehearted, I had arranged for a rimshot to be delivered after that 'quote'.

MAX?!?!

Well, I'm no StonesTod, am I?

Is that a rhetorical question?

Without question.

In that case, are you quite sure you're not StonesTod?

Legend says that if you're bitten by a StonesTod, you become one.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
treaclefingers
Sorry Stonehearted, I had arranged for a rimshot to be delivered after that 'quote'.

MAX?!?!

Well, I'm no StonesTod, am I?

Is that a rhetorical question?

Without question.

In that case, are you quite sure you're not StonesTod?

Uhm... if I am going to be expected to open GNR labeled post, then I am going to need a pay raise..... but I am willing to do this one at regular scale. Lucky for you I clicked lookingUP.... AND hit on the wrong thread... or Id never seen this...

RIMSHOT!!!

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
treaclefingers
Sorry Stonehearted, I had arranged for a rimshot to be delivered after that 'quote'.

MAX?!?!

Well, I'm no StonesTod, am I?

Is that a rhetorical question?

Without question.

In that case, are you quite sure you're not StonesTod?

Uhm... if I am going to be expected to open GNR labeled post, then I am going to need a pay raise..... but I am willing to do this one at regular scale. Lucky for you I clicked lookingUP.... AND hit on the wrong thread... or Id never seen this...

RIMSHOT!!!

Thank you MAX!

Stoneage was on a bit of an attack there, and I needed some percussive assistance!

I did very much like the "new" Stones performance. Laid back Keith focusing on his playing, Ronnie NOT performing as a clown and Mick stnading still sometimes to give us a killer version of Wild horses f.e.
In the early years Keith was a pretty shy guy in Brian's shadow and not too much interaction with Mick.

Quote
leatherjacket
I did very much like the "new" Stones performance. Laid back Keith focusing on his playing, Ronnie NOT performing as a clown and Mick stnading still sometimes to give us a killer version of Wild horses f.e.
In the early years Keith was a pretty shy guy in Brian's shadow and not too much interaction with Mick.

Well, he did clown, as well as playing good, that is

wha , somebody call a whambulance

Quote
RollingFreak
Reading through the GNR forum I'm apart of and saw this post that I thought was pretty funny and wondering how people would dissect it over here. For some context, it was in a thread about whether the new members of GNR (the band Axl Rose has been touring with since the classic lineup broke up in the 90s) are considered "real members" now after so many years in the band. One of the posters started talking about relationships within a band and it drifted to the Stones and it just made me think of stuff over here and how people would react to this accusation (I bolded the Stones portion but the whole post is there for context):

Quote
Val22
Having seen this nu GNR in concert twice, I'd say yes. It does confirm these members as GNR. Axl wouldn't tour with a band that he felt wasn't superior in everyway.

Live these guys kick ass and have fun too!

Axl was happy both times I saw him and interacted with his fellow bandmates.

No matter what people say, if you don't have a good off stage relationship with your band members, you can't do an excellent show.

Yeah, you can put on good shows, but fans will pick up on the tension.

I just saw the new Rolling Stones video for Doom and it was like there were four different people on the set never interacting with each other. MIck was the only one animated and he's still got it.

Everyone knows now that he and Keith don't like each other much and it would be a surprise if they do tour together again and believe me this video shows it.

The Stones can still kick ass on record, but I'm curious to see how they are onstage now after so much time and Keith's book has passed.

It's better to perform with people you like than people you really don't want to be with anymore.

Personally, it seems like someone thats a fan and isn't just speaking generally or in a mean way. They say "the Stones can still kick ass on record" so its not really a knock against them, just an observation about their relationship. I wonder since people think their possible negative relationships have hurt their onstage performance after we just saw some great shows for their 50th.

Geez, what a load of crap that is.

As soon as a band changes a member then it has to have a difference.

The drummer after Adler drummed in a different way because he wasn't Adler.

When Brian dropped off, the Stones changed a bit and when Taylor joined they changed a bit again and when Wood joined it changed a bit again.

Just listen to "Jamming with Edward" with no Keith and see what a difference Ry makes instead of Keith being in the line up.

GnR is just Axl with some other players that are not Slash, Duff, Adler, Izzy and they have to sound different because no one is a clone of someone else.

Bands are really no different to any workplace except that band members might have more behaviour problems due to wild ways or whatever.

Does everyone get on with everyone else at workplaces around the world?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-04 14:19 by howled.

Quote
howled

The drummer after Adler drummed in a different way because he wasn't Adler.

Yup Izzy Stradlin said they moved from a hard-rock band to a heavy-metal sound with the change of drummers.