Tell Me :
Talk
Absolutely.
Live muscic is 90% attitude.
(A statistic I just made up.. or the wine did).
No, it makes Jim Keltner a session musician, whereas Grohl is a band leader, so the point you were trying to make gets lost in that essential difference.
But it's nice that, through his appearance with The Stones, he seems to have retracted his trash talk about a few of "those dudes who survived the sixties" and is beginning to understand--and perhaps even respect--what it takes to achieve longevity in rock n roll.
We'll see what kind of a headbanger Grohl is when he gets to be 70.
The "talk trash" code, such that it is, only came into vogue when Johnny Rotten and et al. began mouthing off about their sixties forbearers circa 1976, though perhaps Lennon himself did let the horses out of the gate with his famous Rolling Stone interview.
Jagger and Lennon were pals in the sixties, but not so much in the seventies, particularly in the later part of the decade, where Lennon was turning his back on the music business and embracing middle-aged family life. Right up to 1980, he was faulting The Stones for still huddling together like a youth gang, rather than seeking their individual independent path as mature adults. Jagger and Lennon did not socialize in those later years, as their respective lives held less and less in common.
Recall that with Double Fantasy Lennon essentially recorded rock's first-ever "middle-aged" album, which is something Jagger has still yet to achieve.
Two more, and it's 100%
Bottles?
LOL, thanks but the one below, I think is better:
Couldn't have said it better, the dude is amazing and my guess is some Stones fans can't bear the thought of the Stones becoming less relevant and feel the need to bash any others that have had great success. And don't forget, after Nirvana, DG was asked to join Tom Petty's Heartbreakers as a drummer (after he played w/ them on SNL, and this was well before he was world known (everyone knew Kurt at the time, only hardcore Nirvana fans knew of DG) and he turned that down to take a big chance on headlining his own band...
Eggzactly!! It's all for fun & love of music! I've never liked Dave Matthews but couldn't care less if he appears w/ the Stones - not sure why such hatred for DG. Stones have played the same core songs for 30+ years, I'll take any guest at any time just for some difference.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-20 22:17 by LeonidP.
Like I said, the guy is just amazing ... he simply loves music, everything from pop, punk, rock and metal -- it's always been his whole life and he is very grateful and humble for what he's achieved ... just like the Stones have always loved their roots w/ Black artists and have them as guests etc. Dave does the same with his punk/metal/pop heroes. And as for John Paul Jones, believe it or not, Dave could not believe that LZ members got together again and did not include him, so Dave went out of his way to get him on the next Foo Fighters record - and then included him in subsequent projects thereafter.
I'll agree that DG is not the best singer, guitar player, writer, but I don't think anyone is more passionate, and that comes across in his playing/singing, which is why I love his songs. I've bought every Foo album and have easily listened to them much more than I've listened to my Stones albums over the last 20 years. And considering that I was the biggest Stones fan alive in the late 70s thru the 80s, that is saying a lot!
in your dreams
He's 9' 2"
Grohl is in a band. He does not do session work, he makes guest appearances for other artists, the way Keith has done in recent years, whereas Jim Keltner is quite simply a session musician by trade, like Nicky Hopkins was.
I just wanted to make that distinction clear--the "whoring" argument does not interest me. It just strikes me as odd that one year he's ripping apart The Stones and Keith in particular and then 3 or 4 years later he's onstage with them, as if to just grab a check-mark on his rock n roll résumé.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-20 22:45 by stonehearted.
if not the biggest, I was in a tie. I bought all their albums (in different formats, 8-track, cassette, vinyl -- and finally went to CD in the early 90s), made special road trips just to buy a bootlegged live show, saw them live numerous times, saw Mick & Keith solo multiple times - bought every mag with a feature on them, and listened to them almost exclusively for about 10 years of my life. I can't see there being a Stones fan that loved them more...
we'll consider your application to be placed somewhere in the top 300. thank you for playing.
Smart move.
Do you keep it with the betamax concert videos?
what led you to stop?
This really rocks ... I feel Young, because I have to admit, this is the best Version I ever heard ....
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-20 22:57 by muenke.
You need to get out more.
Party like it's 1978.
I overplayed them, and then started listening to other bands more frequently ... and then the Stones would only release albums every 8 years so that gave me more time to listen to other bands, and then I started to realize that I was listening to many other bands more than the Stones. I still obviously love them, I just don't listen to their stuff nearly as much. I also got tired of their live act -- I felt I was listening more to the extended horn section on every song and no longer could hear the core Stones -- and I can't stand that the vocals have become the Bernard & Lisa show, I much prefer Keith as backing vocalist.
Bitch has always been one of my favorite tracks, so maybe I'm too attached to the way the Stones have always done it. I'll listen to it again GravityBoy, but it just sounds way too frenetic to my ears, not enough roll there. But I can see that it's done with a lot of enthusiasm and Grohl certainly seemed to reeve Jagger up.
And I get out plenty, thank you.
I ain't seen him so reeved since 30 years.
He really went for it.
It was great.
And you can see a moment in the back where Charlie is thinking "oh.. this is different..."
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: The Rolling Stones with Dave Grohl - Bitch
Posted by:
Markdog
()
Date: May 20, 2013 21:44
Grohl's solo and run up the neck was rough and raunchy and the high riff was off key but the energy and pure attitude is was the song sorely needed.
Re: The Rolling Stones with Dave Grohl - Bitch
Posted by:
GravityBoy
()
Date: May 20, 2013 21:45
Quote
Markdog
Grohl's solo and run up the neck was rough and raunchy and the high riff was off key but the energy and pure attitude is was the song sorely needed.
Absolutely.
Live muscic is 90% attitude.
(A statistic I just made up.. or the wine did).
Re: The Rolling Stones with Dave Grohl - Bitch
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: May 20, 2013 21:46
Quote
GumbootCloggerooHave you seen the list of artists Jim Keltner has drummed for? It's very long. Does that make him a whore?Quote
crumbling_mice
Dave whores himself around quite a bit, especially with big names
No, it makes Jim Keltner a session musician, whereas Grohl is a band leader, so the point you were trying to make gets lost in that essential difference.
But it's nice that, through his appearance with The Stones, he seems to have retracted his trash talk about a few of "those dudes who survived the sixties" and is beginning to understand--and perhaps even respect--what it takes to achieve longevity in rock n roll.
We'll see what kind of a headbanger Grohl is when he gets to be 70.
Re: The Rolling Stones with Dave Grohl - Bitch
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: May 20, 2013 21:53
Quote
whitem8
Jeez you guys are reading way too much into a comment made in a documentary. There is an unwritten code in rock n' roll, "TALK TRASH..." Of course rock stars bash each other. Happens all the time and then they get together, hang out, party, and laugh about it. All the stuff that is said...for example, look at all the trash Lennon used to talk about Jagger, and low and behold, they were good mates. Grohl was actually speaking pretty accurately about Keith and the whole jet set. Keith probably agreed with him! But it doesn't change the obvious love Grohl has for the Stones. He clearly adores them, hence such a fanboy full on passionate performance on Bitch and with Jagger on SNL.
I am not a fan of Poo Fighters at all. Practically loath them...just so generic and passionless. However, I deeply respect Grohl. The guy loves music, and is successful, good on him.
The "talk trash" code, such that it is, only came into vogue when Johnny Rotten and et al. began mouthing off about their sixties forbearers circa 1976, though perhaps Lennon himself did let the horses out of the gate with his famous Rolling Stone interview.
Jagger and Lennon were pals in the sixties, but not so much in the seventies, particularly in the later part of the decade, where Lennon was turning his back on the music business and embracing middle-aged family life. Right up to 1980, he was faulting The Stones for still huddling together like a youth gang, rather than seeking their individual independent path as mature adults. Jagger and Lennon did not socialize in those later years, as their respective lives held less and less in common.
Recall that with Double Fantasy Lennon essentially recorded rock's first-ever "middle-aged" album, which is something Jagger has still yet to achieve.
Re: The Rolling Stones with Dave Grohl - Bitch
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 20, 2013 21:54
Quote
GravityBoyQuote
Markdog
Grohl's solo and run up the neck was rough and raunchy and the high riff was off key but the energy and pure attitude is was the song sorely needed.
Absolutely.
Live muscic is 90% attitude.
(A statistic I just made up.. or the wine did).
Two more, and it's 100%
Re: The Rolling Stones with Dave Grohl - Bitch
Posted by:
GravityBoy
()
Date: May 20, 2013 21:55
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
GravityBoyQuote
Markdog
Grohl's solo and run up the neck was rough and raunchy and the high riff was off key but the energy and pure attitude is was the song sorely needed.
Absolutely.
Live muscic is 90% attitude.
(A statistic I just made up.. or the wine did).
Two more, and it's 100%
Bottles?
Re: The Rolling Stones with Dave Grohl - Bitch
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: May 20, 2013 22:01
you guys do realize this whole thing is supposed to be fun and entertaining right?
i know it costs alot of money but none of it really matters that much,the guests come out for one song and are gone in a flash and the show goes on,its no big deal.
anyway,as much trash as keith talks about everyone he shouldnt be too upset about someone taking a shot at him.its kinda true in a way,alot of those guys who survived the 60s got way more credit than they deserve.
i know it costs alot of money but none of it really matters that much,the guests come out for one song and are gone in a flash and the show goes on,its no big deal.
anyway,as much trash as keith talks about everyone he shouldnt be too upset about someone taking a shot at him.its kinda true in a way,alot of those guys who survived the 60s got way more credit than they deserve.
Re: The Rolling Stones with Dave Grohl - Bitch
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: May 20, 2013 22:14
Quote
Max'sKansasCityOne of the best posts of all time here on IORR. Sound logic, perfect explainationQuote
LeonidPQuote
melillo
dave grohl talks shit about keith in the lemmy doc and then goes up there and plays with him, hypocrite!
Not a hypocrite, by any means ... Dave explained this very clearly ... back in the late 90s when Foo opened up for the Stones, Dave was very excited to meet the legends, only to find that they didn't want to meet him. Foos weren't allowed anywhere near the band, had to be in a separate section for parking, did not get to go backstage etc. He was extremely disappointed!
In contrast, Dave Grohl always meets the guys from the opening bands for Foo Fighters, hangs out w/ them before the shows, drinking/doing shots ... and in many cases becomes lifelong friends w/ them.
Anyway, I assume that when he played w/ Mick on SNL, that broke the ice w/ the band and now he has gotten to know them. He was annoyed by the Stones before, he got over it. You call it hypocrisy, I call it moving on...
LOL, thanks but the one below, I think is better:
Quote
24FPS
Dave Grohl is already a legend. He will be remembered as the drummer in Nirvana. That's enough. It doesn't matter what Kurt thought about him, Dave's drumming for that group speaks for itself. In a few decades time Dave Grohl will be remembered for that. And for going from drums to guitar, successfully, and leading a world famous rock group with it. How often has that happened? He doesn't even need everything that came after the Police, which is a lot, and still continues. He's obviously respected among the rock aristocracy. I'd say that along with Fogerty, he's the biggest 'get' of the Guest Stars so far.
Couldn't have said it better, the dude is amazing and my guess is some Stones fans can't bear the thought of the Stones becoming less relevant and feel the need to bash any others that have had great success. And don't forget, after Nirvana, DG was asked to join Tom Petty's Heartbreakers as a drummer (after he played w/ them on SNL, and this was well before he was world known (everyone knew Kurt at the time, only hardcore Nirvana fans knew of DG) and he turned that down to take a big chance on headlining his own band...
Quote
lem motlow
you guys do realize this whole thing is supposed to be fun and entertaining right?
...
Eggzactly!! It's all for fun & love of music! I've never liked Dave Matthews but couldn't care less if he appears w/ the Stones - not sure why such hatred for DG. Stones have played the same core songs for 30+ years, I'll take any guest at any time just for some difference.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-20 22:17 by LeonidP.
Re: The Rolling Stones with Dave Grohl - Bitch
Posted by:
GumbootCloggeroo
()
Date: May 20, 2013 22:18
Yes, Dave is in bands but he also does session work with no intention of leading the band he's recording with. I wouldn't consider that "whoring".Quote
stoneheartedQuote
GumbootCloggerooHave you seen the list of artists Jim Keltner has drummed for? It's very long. Does that make him a whore?Quote
crumbling_mice
Dave whores himself around quite a bit, especially with big names
No, it makes Jim Keltner a session musician, whereas Grohl is a band leader, so the point you were trying to make gets lost in that essential difference.
Re: The Rolling Stones with Dave Grohl - Bitch
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 20, 2013 22:28
Quote
GravityBoyQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
GravityBoyQuote
Markdog
Grohl's solo and run up the neck was rough and raunchy and the high riff was off key but the energy and pure attitude is was the song sorely needed.
Absolutely.
Live muscic is 90% attitude.
(A statistic I just made up.. or the wine did).
Two more, and it's 100%
Bottles with attitude
Bottles?
Re: The Rolling Stones with Dave Grohl - Bitch
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: May 20, 2013 22:30
Quote
GumbootCloggerooYes, Dave is in bands but he also does session work with no intention of leading the band he's recording with. I wouldn't consider that "whoring".Quote
stoneheartedQuote
GumbootCloggerooHave you seen the list of artists Jim Keltner has drummed for? It's very long. Does that make him a whore?Quote
crumbling_mice
Dave whores himself around quite a bit, especially with big names
No, it makes Jim Keltner a session musician, whereas Grohl is a band leader, so the point you were trying to make gets lost in that essential difference.
Like I said, the guy is just amazing ... he simply loves music, everything from pop, punk, rock and metal -- it's always been his whole life and he is very grateful and humble for what he's achieved ... just like the Stones have always loved their roots w/ Black artists and have them as guests etc. Dave does the same with his punk/metal/pop heroes. And as for John Paul Jones, believe it or not, Dave could not believe that LZ members got together again and did not include him, so Dave went out of his way to get him on the next Foo Fighters record - and then included him in subsequent projects thereafter.
I'll agree that DG is not the best singer, guitar player, writer, but I don't think anyone is more passionate, and that comes across in his playing/singing, which is why I love his songs. I've bought every Foo album and have easily listened to them much more than I've listened to my Stones albums over the last 20 years. And considering that I was the biggest Stones fan alive in the late 70s thru the 80s, that is saying a lot!
Re: The Rolling Stones with Dave Grohl - Bitch
Posted by:
GRNRBITW
()
Date: May 20, 2013 22:40
Quote
LeonidP
And considering that I was the biggest Stones fan alive in the late 70s thru the 80s
in your dreams
Re: The Rolling Stones with Dave Grohl - Bitch
Posted by:
GravityBoy
()
Date: May 20, 2013 22:41
Quote
GRNRBITWQuote
LeonidP
And considering that I was the biggest Stones fan alive in the late 70s thru the 80s
in your dreams
He's 9' 2"
Re: The Rolling Stones with Dave Grohl - Bitch
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: May 20, 2013 22:42
Quote
GumbootCloggerooYes, Dave is in bands but he also does session work with no intention of leading the band he's recording with. I wouldn't consider that "whoring".Quote
stoneheartedQuote
GumbootCloggerooHave you seen the list of artists Jim Keltner has drummed for? It's very long. Does that make him a whore?Quote
crumbling_mice
Dave whores himself around quite a bit, especially with big names
No, it makes Jim Keltner a session musician, whereas Grohl is a band leader, so the point you were trying to make gets lost in that essential difference.
Grohl is in a band. He does not do session work, he makes guest appearances for other artists, the way Keith has done in recent years, whereas Jim Keltner is quite simply a session musician by trade, like Nicky Hopkins was.
I just wanted to make that distinction clear--the "whoring" argument does not interest me. It just strikes me as odd that one year he's ripping apart The Stones and Keith in particular and then 3 or 4 years later he's onstage with them, as if to just grab a check-mark on his rock n roll résumé.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-20 22:45 by stonehearted.
Re: The Rolling Stones with Dave Grohl - Bitch
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: May 20, 2013 22:49
Quote
GRNRBITWQuote
LeonidP
And considering that I was the biggest Stones fan alive in the late 70s thru the 80s
in your dreams
if not the biggest, I was in a tie. I bought all their albums (in different formats, 8-track, cassette, vinyl -- and finally went to CD in the early 90s), made special road trips just to buy a bootlegged live show, saw them live numerous times, saw Mick & Keith solo multiple times - bought every mag with a feature on them, and listened to them almost exclusively for about 10 years of my life. I can't see there being a Stones fan that loved them more...
Re: The Rolling Stones with Dave Grohl - Bitch
Posted by:
GRNRBITW
()
Date: May 20, 2013 22:50
Quote
LeonidPQuote
GRNRBITWQuote
LeonidP
And considering that I was the biggest Stones fan alive in the late 70s thru the 80s
in your dreams
if not the biggest, I was in a tie. I bought all their albums (in different formats, 8-track, cassette, vinyl -- and finally went to CD in the early 90s), made special road trips just to buy a bootlegged live show, saw them live numerous times, saw Mick & Keith solo multiple times - bought every mag with a feature on them, and listened to them almost exclusively for about 10 years of my life. I can't see there being a Stones fan that loved them more...
we'll consider your application to be placed somewhere in the top 300. thank you for playing.
Re: The Rolling Stones with Dave Grohl - Bitch
Posted by:
GravityBoy
()
Date: May 20, 2013 22:51
Quote
LeonidP
8-track
Smart move.
Do you keep it with the betamax concert videos?
Re: The Rolling Stones with Dave Grohl - Bitch
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: May 20, 2013 22:52
Quote
LeonidPQuote
GRNRBITWQuote
LeonidP
And considering that I was the biggest Stones fan alive in the late 70s thru the 80s
in your dreams
if not the biggest, I was in a tie. I bought all their albums (in different formats, 8-track, cassette, vinyl -- and finally went to CD in the early 90s), made special road trips just to buy a bootlegged live show, saw them live numerous times, saw Mick & Keith solo multiple times - bought every mag with a feature on them, and listened to them almost exclusively for about 10 years of my life. I can't see there being a Stones fan that loved them more...
what led you to stop?
Re: The Rolling Stones with Dave Grohl - Bitch
Posted by:
hbwriter
()
Date: May 20, 2013 22:55
having been there for this i have to tell ya - it was EXHAUSTING to experience- in the best of ways. Thunderous, wild and without a net - a freaking rollercoaster - the one time all night the comfort zone was left for parts unknown - the band felt it- we felt it - this was nothing short of thrilling - a fiery, speed-fueled kick in the ass. Will never forget this.
Re: The Rolling Stones with Dave Grohl - Bitch
Posted by:
muenke
()
Date: May 20, 2013 22:56
Quote
elunsi
This is a good version, from last year, or even better:
This really rocks ... I feel Young, because I have to admit, this is the best Version I ever heard ....
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-20 22:57 by muenke.
Re: The Rolling Stones with Dave Grohl - Bitch
Posted by:
latebloomer
()
Date: May 20, 2013 23:17
Back in town and just getting caught up and I gotta say..no, no, no folks...sorry, but I do not like this one at all. Loud, heavy, thrashing is not the way I like the Stones and that's what Grohl brings to this Bitch.
Re: The Rolling Stones with Dave Grohl - Bitch
Posted by:
GravityBoy
()
Date: May 20, 2013 23:18
Quote
latebloomer
Back in town and just getting caught up and I gotta say..no, no, no folks...sorry, but I do not like this one at all. Loud, heavy, thrashing is not the way I like the Stones and that's what Grohl brings to this Bitch.
You need to get out more.
Party like it's 1978.
Re: The Rolling Stones with Dave Grohl - Bitch
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: May 20, 2013 23:24
Quote
sonomastoneQuote
LeonidPQuote
GRNRBITWQuote
LeonidP
And considering that I was the biggest Stones fan alive in the late 70s thru the 80s
in your dreams
if not the biggest, I was in a tie. I bought all their albums (in different formats, 8-track, cassette, vinyl -- and finally went to CD in the early 90s), made special road trips just to buy a bootlegged live show, saw them live numerous times, saw Mick & Keith solo multiple times - bought every mag with a feature on them, and listened to them almost exclusively for about 10 years of my life. I can't see there being a Stones fan that loved them more...
what led you to stop?
I overplayed them, and then started listening to other bands more frequently ... and then the Stones would only release albums every 8 years so that gave me more time to listen to other bands, and then I started to realize that I was listening to many other bands more than the Stones. I still obviously love them, I just don't listen to their stuff nearly as much. I also got tired of their live act -- I felt I was listening more to the extended horn section on every song and no longer could hear the core Stones -- and I can't stand that the vocals have become the Bernard & Lisa show, I much prefer Keith as backing vocalist.
Re: The Rolling Stones with Dave Grohl - Bitch
Posted by:
latebloomer
()
Date: May 20, 2013 23:27
Quote
GravityBoyQuote
latebloomer
Back in town and just getting caught up and I gotta say..no, no, no folks...sorry, but I do not like this one at all. Loud, heavy, thrashing is not the way I like the Stones and that's what Grohl brings to this Bitch.
You need to get out more.
Party like it's 1978.
Bitch has always been one of my favorite tracks, so maybe I'm too attached to the way the Stones have always done it. I'll listen to it again GravityBoy, but it just sounds way too frenetic to my ears, not enough roll there. But I can see that it's done with a lot of enthusiasm and Grohl certainly seemed to reeve Jagger up.
And I get out plenty, thank you.
Re: The Rolling Stones with Dave Grohl - Bitch
Posted by:
GravityBoy
()
Date: May 20, 2013 23:31
Quote
latebloomer
and Grohl certainly seemed to reeve Jagger up.
I ain't seen him so reeved since 30 years.
He really went for it.
It was great.
And you can see a moment in the back where Charlie is thinking "oh.. this is different..."
Guest Artist Chat: Dave Grohl a Bit Over the Top?
Posted by:
paulm
()
Date: May 20, 2013 15:16
I get the Nirvana legend, and the high energy he brings, but does anyone else find the Grohler's incessant leg stomping, head banging, interminable power chord noise too much?
Re: Guest Artist Chat: Dave Grohl a Bit Over the Top?
Posted by:
GravityBoy
()
Date: May 20, 2013 15:19
No.
Re: Guest Artist Chat: Dave Grohl a Bit Over the Top?
Posted by:
runrudolph
()
Date: May 20, 2013 15:20
No, Great stuff.
jeroen
jeroen
Re: Guest Artist Chat: Dave Grohl a Bit Over the Top?
Posted by:
roryg
()
Date: May 20, 2013 15:20
Thought it worked just fine
Re: Guest Artist Chat: Dave Grohl a Bit Over the Top?
Posted by:
seitan
()
Date: May 20, 2013 15:36
i liked it..but there is a question:
Should the Rolling Stones play like a heavy metal band
or should the special heavy metal guest play like the Stones.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-20 15:50 by seitan.
Should the Rolling Stones play like a heavy metal band
or should the special heavy metal guest play like the Stones.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-20 15:50 by seitan.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
BeastyBurdeny , detroitken , domonono , EddieByword , JordyLicks96 , letitloose6 , llsbsk , ManuelStones , Stonesfan2146 , TumblinDice76
Guests:
1726
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10