Tell Me :
Talk
Hmm, I can't recall you or kleerie praising the Jones era as a live band which is where a band really shows how it is right? So I wonder how high you actually rate them as a band during that time.
Their live performances were dog rough cos they were quite amateurish as live musicians. This is part of the charm of the original band of course, very engaing and exciting for me. Going by the availale live recordings from 1963 - 1967 many of the things present in their live performances are mostly things you two, especially kleerie, criticise the Wood era for having.
There's very little actual melody in the guitar department during 1963 - 1967, there are breaks from the onslaught via Lady Jane and in 1967 Ruby Tuesday, but even then it's shakey.
The boy Taylor made a musical man out of the live band perhaps, certainly he enabled them to be able to stand tall with the more guitar wizard orientated bands of that time, but given that the majority of their career has been something very different to that, how authentic does that make the Taylor era?
His talent and influence is undeniable, but his era is more of an anomaly than a definite reading of The Rolling Stones feel and sound. A change in band name really would have been quite fitting.
Comparing Rock & Roll Circus Rolling Stones with Apple rooftop Beatles, they are quite similar in their shaky, slightly amateur sound and feel, both distinctive features of their sound... Someone like Taylor joining either band drastically changes that and IMO makes them in to a different band.
By the time Ronnie joined the song writing had unfortunately took a dive, IMO of course, and he sometimes mistakenly tried to play like replacement 1, but generally speaking the band did return closer to the more amateur feel and sound of the original band.
It still isn't the real thing though.
You're a true romantic, and I like that, but it goes beyond me to compare Brian Jones to Ron Wood. I respect the musician Jones too much for that.
As for your romantic distinction between the 'amateurish' RS with Jones and the 'professional' RS with Taylor, that's not realistic. Taylor was just as much an amateur (and a very young one too!) when he entered the Stones as a 20 years old boy. But he added some magic to their sound and gave their music some depthness we never had heard before on stage. And just like during the Jones-era, the RS music developed both in the studio and on stage during the Taylor-era. To compare the Taylor-Stones with the hard rock bands of that time (Led Zeppelin and the likes) goes beyond me. Taylor wasn't a hard rocking guitarist but a tasty, bluesy and rather refined one, whose sound never dominated the band nor the songs (though I must admit that during that famous 1973 concert he was pretty present!).
Jagger and Richards wrote great songs and they came up with a live sound that was never heard before. There were almost no bands at the time that put down a similar groove. I liked it very much, simple as that. They sounded quite amateurish, but like you stated, that was part of their charm. The circumstances they had to function in were more primitive than the Wood era, we have to count that in.
Regarding Brian Jones, he was a founding member, his musical spirit was a part of the Rolling Stones dna, he added something very essential, just like Taylor became a part of the Stones dna and added something essential. I think Jones was a great slide and harp player, the guy digged rhythm and blues, he definitely was a very talented and creative member, but he limited himself. He could have grown as a musician, just a pity he got wasted at a very young age, a victim of his own succes.
I disagree that the band with Taylor was just an anomaly. Mick played with the Stones for only 5 years, but the Taylor era spirit still lives on in the hearts of most Stones fans, count me in. It's just that he isn't a member anymore. Wait a minute.... the recent tour proved his influence again.
So Jones and replacement 1 added something fundamental while replacement 2... No doubt he joined with the best intentions. I posted about him this morning. The show must go on after '74. Let's leave it at that..
Given that you seem to have been more impressed by some of the other guest guitarists I think it's best you don't use the recent tour as a supportive point.
This tour proved that what's left of the original Rollong Stones could still pull together and with their backing musicians come back and provide a good show. Also that when guest musicians joined them they were open and able enough to go with the flow of the more inspiring guests.
Dissing is your own wrong interpretation. I said I prefer the Stones live with Taylor. That's all. Taylor was in the first place a blues influenced player and not a rocker, not technically so good, but musically and as for feel and emotion he was essential, especially regarding the non rock songs (LIV, YCAGWYW, Stray Cat Blues, Dead Flowers etc). He 'got' the Stones music, resulting in great songs only Dandie disagrees on he had a big hand in, Moonlight Mile among others.
Deepening the songs and adding so much feel and emotion to them is not the same as dominating them. Try to be more nuanced.
Most people seemed to like Taylor as a guest. That's what I'm referring to.
My own opinion about his recent efforts and these Stones are well known to you and not relevant, statistically.
I'm not dissing Jones, I don't know why that pops up in your brain.
As far as you want me to compare Wood and Jones: I think Jones had more talent. Listen to their playing and you can hear it, the difference in feeling when they are playing slide or rhythm guitar for example. Like Miles Davis said: "Just play me one note".
I like the Stones on stage most without backing musicians, with the exception of Price, Stu and Keys.
With Jones they sounded genuine, with Taylor grown up and more professional, and with Wood a parody of their former selves, at least nothing groundbreaking.
And please notice that Kleermaker and me are two separate posting individuals, we both like Taylor a lot, but I also do like Jeff Beck, he would have been a dream replacement for Taylor to me. Holdsworth and John McLaughlin make me green with envy though. That are just a few differences between Kleermaker and me.
Yes, you are far less pretentious than kleerie and also, it seems, better equipped or not so damaged by self titled, supposed intelligence to be able to appreciate more primitive music.
Whoever suits your Brian worshipping the most
But I think it's dissing Brian when comparing him with our friend Woody (bless his heart).
Thank you for the "music"...
Worship wold be the wrong word, but whatever it is, it extends to all of the original band.
I always have to laugh when I read your posts. Because you know for you it's all history, but for me it was a part of my daily life. I really think you can't imagine how it was in those days. The Stones were an important part of 'those days', but when time went by they weren't that any longer, but relics of a heroic and unique past. That's what makes them special now, not their shows. They're shadows of a gone past.
Were you around when Mozart was alive? It's all history for you eh.
Wasn't the original band history by the time you really got in to them? They certainly were by 1973.
As for being part of daily life, erm, the music has very much been a part of my daily life for years.
Their music and spirit defies the ages.
The young Mozart's music isn't that much interesting to me either, except some exceptions. But it were all his own compositions, he never did cover songs.
Mozart's music stands on its own, even though his operas were revolutionary during is lifetime. Similarity with the Stones is that they also were (a passive-active) part of some sort of cultural revolution. They weren't praised (not even by their first fans) because of the splendid music they made: it was especially their behaviour that did the trick. But that so important aspect of the history of the Rolling Stones seems to pass you by, fascinated as you are by concepts as true, original and not to forget by the role of the mellotron. But you better see the RS in a historical perspective.
A part of their music might defy the ages, but it won't be the live music you posted here (those covers).
Their image was for sure important and if you think that's passed me by you haven't been paying attention. Fans very much loved their music, that you think otherwise once again shows how ridiculous and clueless you can be.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-04 22:34 by His Majesty.
Of course they liked it, especially Satisfaction, because that appealed to a feeling many teenagers had at that time. It was new, it was rebellious, it was against the strangling morale of the petty bourgeois, the class Jones and Jagger came from. It's for an important part for that special reason that it's such an iconic song, however nice the riff might be (but musically not orgiasticly exciting). Don't forget that I was one of those fans and also knew the others at first hand.
But go on ranting, steadily looking more and more like Mathijs, and that's not a compliment, I assure you. But funny though. Be glad we have to write here in a language I only master a tiny little bit and which is your mother tongue.
Still try that poll and let me know.
Back in the Brian-days, albums weren't really that important.
Try a poll for most popular song, and you'll quickly find that 4 or 5 of the 10 most popular tunes are with Brian - something the setlist on this tour proved.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-05 10:00 by DandelionPowderman.
no need to poll.
itunes lists the most popular stones songs.
1 Paint It Black
2 (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction
3 Wild Horses
4 Gimme Shelter
5 Beast of Burden
6 Sympathy for the Devil
7 Honky Tonk Women
8 You Can't Always Get What You Want
9 Start Me Up
10 Miss You
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-05 10:23 by sonomastone.
4-5 wasn't that badly guessed, then
EDIT: However, I refuse to belive that JJF is not on that list...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-05 10:31 by DandelionPowderman.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Who's your favorite Rolling Stone?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: August 4, 2013 14:46
Quote
svt22
I do think that people also want to see Ron play, that's 80% of his game. Many Rolling Stones fans are very sensitive for the visual part of the act, I am not. Wood looks and behaves like a genuine rocker, just like Keith, who looked and played like a 100% rocker though. I'm not discussing Wood's an Richards' drug messing up here btw. I'm just of the opinion that a unique band like the Rolling Stones deserved a more talented / musical replacement 2 player -he even affected their overall musical creativity or at least made them sound two dimensional imo, but the Stones certainly didn't need a more technical player. Woods technique was adequate for the job when awake. Anyway, to me replacement 2 made the Rolling Stones a less interesting band to listen to, actually it made me stop listening entirely, although for most Stones fans Ron was the perfect man, so that's just me.
Hmm, I can't recall you or kleerie praising the Jones era as a live band which is where a band really shows how it is right? So I wonder how high you actually rate them as a band during that time.
Their live performances were dog rough cos they were quite amateurish as live musicians. This is part of the charm of the original band of course, very engaing and exciting for me. Going by the availale live recordings from 1963 - 1967 many of the things present in their live performances are mostly things you two, especially kleerie, criticise the Wood era for having.
There's very little actual melody in the guitar department during 1963 - 1967, there are breaks from the onslaught via Lady Jane and in 1967 Ruby Tuesday, but even then it's shakey.
The boy Taylor made a musical man out of the live band perhaps, certainly he enabled them to be able to stand tall with the more guitar wizard orientated bands of that time, but given that the majority of their career has been something very different to that, how authentic does that make the Taylor era?
His talent and influence is undeniable, but his era is more of an anomaly than a definite reading of The Rolling Stones feel and sound. A change in band name really would have been quite fitting.
Comparing Rock & Roll Circus Rolling Stones with Apple rooftop Beatles, they are quite similar in their shaky, slightly amateur sound and feel, both distinctive features of their sound... Someone like Taylor joining either band drastically changes that and IMO makes them in to a different band.
By the time Ronnie joined the song writing had unfortunately took a dive, IMO of course, and he sometimes mistakenly tried to play like replacement 1, but generally speaking the band did return closer to the more amateur feel and sound of the original band.
It still isn't the real thing though.
Re: Who's your favorite Rolling Stone?
Posted by:
Rollin92
()
Date: August 4, 2013 15:56
Each one of the Stones was crucial during their respective era and tenure.IMO Woody and Taylor are both fantastic, I don't wish that either one would step back as it were. I have always believed though that the Watts Wyman rhythm section was the best in British rock, two non-technical musicians coming together to create pure music magic.
Re: Who's your favorite Rolling Stone?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: August 4, 2013 16:59
Quote
His MajestyQuote
svt22
I do think that people also want to see Ron play, that's 80% of his game. Many Rolling Stones fans are very sensitive for the visual part of the act, I am not. Wood looks and behaves like a genuine rocker, just like Keith, who looked and played like a 100% rocker though. I'm not discussing Wood's an Richards' drug messing up here btw. I'm just of the opinion that a unique band like the Rolling Stones deserved a more talented / musical replacement 2 player -he even affected their overall musical creativity or at least made them sound two dimensional imo, but the Stones certainly didn't need a more technical player. Woods technique was adequate for the job when awake. Anyway, to me replacement 2 made the Rolling Stones a less interesting band to listen to, actually it made me stop listening entirely, although for most Stones fans Ron was the perfect man, so that's just me.
Hmm, I can't recall you or kleerie praising the Jones era as a live band which is where a band really shows how it is right? So I wonder how high you actually rate them as a band during that time.
Their live performances were dog rough cos they were quite amateurish as live musicians. This is part of the charm of the original band of course, very engaing and exciting for me. Going by the availale live recordings from 1963 - 1967 many of the things present in their live performances are mostly things you two, especially kleerie, criticise the Wood era for having.
There's very little actual melody in the guitar department during 1963 - 1967, there are breaks from the onslaught via Lady Jane and in 1967 Ruby Tuesday, but even then it's shakey.
The boy Taylor made a musical man out of the live band perhaps, certainly he enabled them to be able to stand tall with the more guitar wizard orientated bands of that time, but given that the majority of their career has been something very different to that, how authentic does that make the Taylor era?
His talent and influence is undeniable, but his era is more of an anomaly than a definite reading of The Rolling Stones feel and sound. A change in band name really would have been quite fitting.
Comparing Rock & Roll Circus Rolling Stones with Apple rooftop Beatles, they are quite similar in their shaky, slightly amateur sound and feel, both distinctive features of their sound... Someone like Taylor joining either band drastically changes that and IMO makes them in to a different band.
By the time Ronnie joined the song writing had unfortunately took a dive, IMO of course, and he sometimes mistakenly tried to play like replacement 1, but generally speaking the band did return closer to the more amateur feel and sound of the original band.
It still isn't the real thing though.
You're a true romantic, and I like that, but it goes beyond me to compare Brian Jones to Ron Wood. I respect the musician Jones too much for that.
As for your romantic distinction between the 'amateurish' RS with Jones and the 'professional' RS with Taylor, that's not realistic. Taylor was just as much an amateur (and a very young one too!) when he entered the Stones as a 20 years old boy. But he added some magic to their sound and gave their music some depthness we never had heard before on stage. And just like during the Jones-era, the RS music developed both in the studio and on stage during the Taylor-era. To compare the Taylor-Stones with the hard rock bands of that time (Led Zeppelin and the likes) goes beyond me. Taylor wasn't a hard rocking guitarist but a tasty, bluesy and rather refined one, whose sound never dominated the band nor the songs (though I must admit that during that famous 1973 concert he was pretty present!).
Re: Who's your favorite Rolling Stone?
Posted by:
svt22
()
Date: August 4, 2013 17:40
Quote
His MajestyQuote
svt22
I do think that people also want to see Ron play, that's 80% of his game. Many Rolling Stones fans are very sensitive for the visual part of the act, I am not. Wood looks and behaves like a genuine rocker, just like Keith, who looked and played like a 100% rocker though. I'm not discussing Wood's an Richards' drug messing up here btw. I'm just of the opinion that a unique band like the Rolling Stones deserved a more talented / musical replacement 2 player -he even affected their overall musical creativity or at least made them sound two dimensional imo, but the Stones certainly didn't need a more technical player. Woods technique was adequate for the job when awake. Anyway, to me replacement 2 made the Rolling Stones a less interesting band to listen to, actually it made me stop listening entirely, although for most Stones fans Ron was the perfect man, so that's just me.
Hmm, I can't recall you or kleerie praising the Jones era as a live band which is where a band really shows how it is right? So I wonder how high you actually rate them as a band during that time.
Their live performances were dog rough cos they were quite amateurish as live musicians. This is part of the charm of the original band of course, very engaing and exciting for me. Going by the availale live recordings from 1963 - 1967 many of the things present in their live performances are mostly things you two, especially kleerie, criticise the Wood era for having.
There's very little actual melody in the guitar department during 1963 - 1967, there are breaks from the onslaught via Lady Jane and in 1967 Ruby Tuesday, but even then it's shakey.
The boy Taylor made a musical man out of the live band perhaps, certainly he enabled them to be able to stand tall with the more guitar wizard orientated bands of that time, but given that the majority of their career has been something very different to that, how authentic does that make the Taylor era?
His talent and influence is undeniable, but his era is more of an anomaly than a definite reading of The Rolling Stones feel and sound. A change in band name really would have been quite fitting.
Comparing Rock & Roll Circus Rolling Stones with Apple rooftop Beatles, they are quite similar in their shaky, slightly amateur sound and feel, both distinctive features of their sound... Someone like Taylor joining either band drastically changes that and IMO makes them in to a different band.
By the time Ronnie joined the song writing had unfortunately took a dive, IMO of course, and he sometimes mistakenly tried to play like replacement 1, but generally speaking the band did return closer to the more amateur feel and sound of the original band.
It still isn't the real thing though.
Jagger and Richards wrote great songs and they came up with a live sound that was never heard before. There were almost no bands at the time that put down a similar groove. I liked it very much, simple as that. They sounded quite amateurish, but like you stated, that was part of their charm. The circumstances they had to function in were more primitive than the Wood era, we have to count that in.
Regarding Brian Jones, he was a founding member, his musical spirit was a part of the Rolling Stones dna, he added something very essential, just like Taylor became a part of the Stones dna and added something essential. I think Jones was a great slide and harp player, the guy digged rhythm and blues, he definitely was a very talented and creative member, but he limited himself. He could have grown as a musician, just a pity he got wasted at a very young age, a victim of his own succes.
I disagree that the band with Taylor was just an anomaly. Mick played with the Stones for only 5 years, but the Taylor era spirit still lives on in the hearts of most Stones fans, count me in. It's just that he isn't a member anymore. Wait a minute.... the recent tour proved his influence again.
So Jones and replacement 1 added something fundamental while replacement 2... No doubt he joined with the best intentions. I posted about him this morning. The show must go on after '74. Let's leave it at that..
Re: Who's your favorite Rolling Stone?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: August 4, 2013 17:58
Romantic sure. You respecting Jones? Dissing his entire live career isn't being respectful.
No comparison between Jones and Wood there, just an observation that 3.0 did return to something more similar to the earlier "primitive stones" than 2.0.
Taylor was certainly at a higher level at guitar technically than any of the original stones, so yes, more professional.
There is more to late 60's - early 70's rock music than Zed Zeppelin, but it's perfectly obvious that Taylor made the stones more like rock bands of the time.
As for him never dominating the band or the songs... More kleermaker funnies.
No comparison between Jones and Wood there, just an observation that 3.0 did return to something more similar to the earlier "primitive stones" than 2.0.
Taylor was certainly at a higher level at guitar technically than any of the original stones, so yes, more professional.
There is more to late 60's - early 70's rock music than Zed Zeppelin, but it's perfectly obvious that Taylor made the stones more like rock bands of the time.
As for him never dominating the band or the songs... More kleermaker funnies.
Re: Who's your favorite Rolling Stone?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: August 4, 2013 18:11
Quote
svt22
Wait a minute.... the recent tour proved his influence again.
Given that you seem to have been more impressed by some of the other guest guitarists I think it's best you don't use the recent tour as a supportive point.
This tour proved that what's left of the original Rollong Stones could still pull together and with their backing musicians come back and provide a good show. Also that when guest musicians joined them they were open and able enough to go with the flow of the more inspiring guests.
Re: Who's your favorite Rolling Stone?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: August 4, 2013 18:50
Quote
His Majesty
Romantic sure. You respecting Jones? Dissing his entire live career isn't being respectful.
No comparison between Jones and Wood there, just an observation that 3.0 did return to something more similar to the earlier "primitive stones" than 2.0.
Taylor was certainly at a higher level at guitar technically than any of the original stones, so yes, more professional.
There is more to late 60's - early 70's rock music than Zed Zeppelin, but it's perfectly obvious that Taylor made the stones more like rock bands of the time.
As for him never dominating the band or the songs... More kleermaker funnies.
Dissing is your own wrong interpretation. I said I prefer the Stones live with Taylor. That's all. Taylor was in the first place a blues influenced player and not a rocker, not technically so good, but musically and as for feel and emotion he was essential, especially regarding the non rock songs (LIV, YCAGWYW, Stray Cat Blues, Dead Flowers etc). He 'got' the Stones music, resulting in great songs only Dandie disagrees on he had a big hand in, Moonlight Mile among others.
Deepening the songs and adding so much feel and emotion to them is not the same as dominating them. Try to be more nuanced.
Re: Who's your favorite Rolling Stone?
Posted by:
svt22
()
Date: August 4, 2013 19:07
Quote
His MajestyQuote
svt22
Wait a minute.... the recent tour proved his influence again.
Given that you seem to have been more impressed by some of the other guest guitarists I think it's best you don't use the recent tour as a supportive point.
This tour proved that what's left of the original Rollong Stones could still pull together and with their backing musicians come back and provide a good show. Also that when guest musicians joined them they were open and able enough to go with the flow of the more inspiring guests.
Most people seemed to like Taylor as a guest. That's what I'm referring to.
My own opinion about his recent efforts and these Stones are well known to you and not relevant, statistically.
I'm not dissing Jones, I don't know why that pops up in your brain.
As far as you want me to compare Wood and Jones: I think Jones had more talent. Listen to their playing and you can hear it, the difference in feeling when they are playing slide or rhythm guitar for example. Like Miles Davis said: "Just play me one note".
I like the Stones on stage most without backing musicians, with the exception of Price, Stu and Keys.
With Jones they sounded genuine, with Taylor grown up and more professional, and with Wood a parody of their former selves, at least nothing groundbreaking.
And please notice that Kleermaker and me are two separate posting individuals, we both like Taylor a lot, but I also do like Jeff Beck, he would have been a dream replacement for Taylor to me. Holdsworth and John McLaughlin make me green with envy though. That are just a few differences between Kleermaker and me.
Re: Who's your favorite Rolling Stone?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: August 4, 2013 19:16
"I'm not that interested in the Stones as a live band with Brian Jones" is pretty dismissive.
Re: Who's your favorite Rolling Stone?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: August 4, 2013 19:27
Quote
svt22
With Jones they sounded genuine, with Taylor grown up and more professional, and with Wood a parody of their former selves, at least nothing ground breaking.
Yes, you are far less pretentious than kleerie and also, it seems, better equipped or not so damaged by self titled, supposed intelligence to be able to appreciate more primitive music.
Re: Who's your favorite Rolling Stone?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 4, 2013 20:04
All the guitarists in the Stones have been adding to the band's sound.
Brian or Taylor would never come up with a blues/caribbean hybrid like Hey Negrita, for instance.
I think the Taylorites are musically ignorant, or musically incompetent at best, when they omit to mention stuff like this - no matter what they like the most.
The rest of the fans acknowledge this.
Brian or Taylor would never come up with a blues/caribbean hybrid like Hey Negrita, for instance.
I think the Taylorites are musically ignorant, or musically incompetent at best, when they omit to mention stuff like this - no matter what they like the most.
The rest of the fans acknowledge this.
Re: Who's your favorite Rolling Stone?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: August 4, 2013 20:10
Quote
His MajestyQuote
svt22
With Jones they sounded genuine, with Taylor grown up and more professional, and with Wood a parody of their former selves, at least nothing ground breaking.
Yes, you are far less pretentious than kleerie and also, it seems, better equipped or not so damaged by self titled, supposed intelligence to be able to appreciate more primitive music.
Whoever suits your Brian worshipping the most
But I think it's dissing Brian when comparing him with our friend Woody (bless his heart).
Re: Who's your favorite Rolling Stone?
Posted by:
svt22
()
Date: August 4, 2013 20:17
Quote
DandelionPowderman
All the guitarists in the Stones have been adding to the band's sound.
Brian or Taylor would never come up with a blues/caribbean hybrid like Hey Negrita, for instance.
I think the Taylorites are musically ignorant, or musically incompetent at best, when they omit to mention stuff like this - no matter what they like the most.
The rest of the fans acknowledge this.
Re: Who's your favorite Rolling Stone?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 4, 2013 20:19
I know you like BAB, Marcel
Re: Who's your favorite Rolling Stone?
Posted by:
svt22
()
Date: August 4, 2013 20:24
ABBA, I know your coming from Norway.
Re: Who's your favorite Rolling Stone?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 4, 2013 20:26
Quote
svt22
ABBA, I know your coming from Norway.
Thank you for the "music"...
Re: Who's your favorite Rolling Stone?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: August 4, 2013 20:31
Quote
kleermaker
Whoever suits your Brian worshipping the most
But I think it's dissing Brian when comparing him with our friend Woody (bless his heart).
Worship wold be the wrong word, but whatever it is, it extends to all of the original band.
Re: Who's your favorite Rolling Stone?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: August 4, 2013 20:36
Quote
His MajestyQuote
kleermaker
Whoever suits your Brian worshipping the most
But I think it's dissing Brian when comparing him with our friend Woody (bless his heart).
Worship wold be the wrong word, but whatever it is, it extends to all of the original band.
I always have to laugh when I read your posts. Because you know for you it's all history, but for me it was a part of my daily life. I really think you can't imagine how it was in those days. The Stones were an important part of 'those days', but when time went by they weren't that any longer, but relics of a heroic and unique past. That's what makes them special now, not their shows. They're shadows of a gone past.
Re: Who's your favorite Rolling Stone?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: August 4, 2013 21:26
Quote
kleermaker
I always have to laugh when I read your posts. Because you know for you it's all history, but for me it was a part of my daily life. I really think you can't imagine how it was in those days. The Stones were an important part of 'those days', but when time went by they weren't that any longer, but relics of a heroic and unique past. That's what makes them special now, not their shows. They're shadows of a gone past.
Were you around when Mozart was alive? It's all history for you eh.
Wasn't the original band history by the time you really got in to them? They certainly were by 1973.
As for being part of daily life, erm, the music has very much been a part of my daily life for years.
Their music and spirit defies the ages.
Re: Who's your favorite Rolling Stone?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: August 4, 2013 22:12
Quote
His MajestyQuote
kleermaker
I always have to laugh when I read your posts. Because you know for you it's all history, but for me it was a part of my daily life. I really think you can't imagine how it was in those days. The Stones were an important part of 'those days', but when time went by they weren't that any longer, but relics of a heroic and unique past. That's what makes them special now, not their shows. They're shadows of a gone past.
Were you around when Mozart was alive? It's all history for you eh.
Wasn't the original band history by the time you really got in to them? They certainly were by 1973.
As for being part of daily life, erm, the music has very much been a part of my daily life for years.
Their music and spirit defies the ages.
The young Mozart's music isn't that much interesting to me either, except some exceptions. But it were all his own compositions, he never did cover songs.
Mozart's music stands on its own, even though his operas were revolutionary during is lifetime. Similarity with the Stones is that they also were (a passive-active) part of some sort of cultural revolution. They weren't praised (not even by their first fans) because of the splendid music they made: it was especially their behaviour that did the trick. But that so important aspect of the history of the Rolling Stones seems to pass you by, fascinated as you are by concepts as true, original and not to forget by the role of the mellotron. But you better see the RS in a historical perspective.
A part of their music might defy the ages, but it won't be the live music you posted here (those covers).
Re: Who's your favorite Rolling Stone?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: August 4, 2013 22:31
Quote
kleermaker
They weren't praised (not even by their first fans) because of the splendid music they made: it was especially their behaviour that did the trick. But that so important aspect of the history of the Rolling Stones seems to pass you by, fascinated as you are by concepts as true, original and not to forget by the role of the mellotron. But you better see the RS in a historical perspective.
A part of their music might defy the ages, but it won't be the live music you posted here (those covers).
Their image was for sure important and if you think that's passed me by you haven't been paying attention. Fans very much loved their music, that you think otherwise once again shows how ridiculous and clueless you can be.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-04 22:34 by His Majesty.
Re: Who's your favorite Rolling Stone?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: August 4, 2013 22:45
Quote
His MajestyQuote
kleermaker
They weren't praised (not even by their first fans) because of the splendid music they made: it was especially their behaviour that did the trick. But that so important aspect of the history of the Rolling Stones seems to pass you by, fascinated as you are by concepts as true, original and not to forget by the role of the mellotron. But you better see the RS in a historical perspective.
A part of their music might defy the ages, but it won't be the live music you posted here (those covers).
Their image was for sure important, but fans very much loved their music, that you think otherwise once again shows how ridiculous and clueless you can be.
Of course they liked it, especially Satisfaction, because that appealed to a feeling many teenagers had at that time. It was new, it was rebellious, it was against the strangling morale of the petty bourgeois, the class Jones and Jagger came from. It's for an important part for that special reason that it's such an iconic song, however nice the riff might be (but musically not orgiasticly exciting). Don't forget that I was one of those fans and also knew the others at first hand.
But go on ranting, steadily looking more and more like Mathijs, and that's not a compliment, I assure you. But funny though. Be glad we have to write here in a language I only master a tiny little bit and which is your mother tongue.
Re: Who's your favorite Rolling Stone?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: August 4, 2013 23:12
Their music, covers and originals spoke to people on it's own terms as well as through the combined package of image and percieved behaviour. For some fans it was all about the music.
Their music continues to breath through the years on it's own terms. The fact it grabbed me is total proof of that, it's not like I'm alone either, thousands of people all over the world seem to be pretty taken by the original bands music as well.
Primitive live music doesn't meet your melodic requirements, I am really glad that I am not afflicted with such "special ears".
PS: I'm too short to look like Mathijs.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-05 01:31 by His Majesty.
Their music continues to breath through the years on it's own terms. The fact it grabbed me is total proof of that, it's not like I'm alone either, thousands of people all over the world seem to be pretty taken by the original bands music as well.
Primitive live music doesn't meet your melodic requirements, I am really glad that I am not afflicted with such "special ears".
PS: I'm too short to look like Mathijs.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-05 01:31 by His Majesty.
Re: Who's your favorite Rolling Stone?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: August 5, 2013 02:27
Must have been 1970, Through The Past, Darkly (a very appropriate title now). I was 15 at that time. Albums were very expensive those days, about 20 guilders, which is about 20 euros now, but without inflation correction you can easily double that number. I loved that album and it was the first in a series of many more. Let It Bleed and YaYa's followed and all their predecessors. It did cost me a fortune!
But before I bought that first album I already knew the Stones music of course. I've witnessed the rise of both Beatles and Stones very consciously and very soon preferred the Stones to the Beatles.
I think that if the band had stopped after Brian's dead their first records would hardly be known, in fact they even aren't now. Many people hardly know who Brian Jones was or that Mick Taylor has been in the band, even fans. To them the Rolling Stones are the Wood-Stones.
So I doubt if their old music, especially the 'cover' albums, would still breathe on its own terms. Maybe as a cult phenomenon to a small amount of people. And those people might like the other bands of that era, say the period until 1970 when the Beatles stopped, just as much. Don't think that you as an 'early Stones' freak are proof many people are still being grabbed by the early Stones. Try a poll between people being 15 years and older and you'll see they all know the brand 'Rolling Stones' but not the band, especially not the 'true' band. Hardly anyone would recognize the album TSMR for example, or Aftermath or arbitrary any album from the early days. Maybe someone knows Exile On Mainstreet, or Sticky Fingers. A few more Some Girls, but well, that's from the brand period of the band, containing hit songs like Miss You. If you would ask those people what Beggars Banquet is they'll laugh and reply that it probably has something to do with nowadays food banks for the poor.
But before I bought that first album I already knew the Stones music of course. I've witnessed the rise of both Beatles and Stones very consciously and very soon preferred the Stones to the Beatles.
I think that if the band had stopped after Brian's dead their first records would hardly be known, in fact they even aren't now. Many people hardly know who Brian Jones was or that Mick Taylor has been in the band, even fans. To them the Rolling Stones are the Wood-Stones.
So I doubt if their old music, especially the 'cover' albums, would still breathe on its own terms. Maybe as a cult phenomenon to a small amount of people. And those people might like the other bands of that era, say the period until 1970 when the Beatles stopped, just as much. Don't think that you as an 'early Stones' freak are proof many people are still being grabbed by the early Stones. Try a poll between people being 15 years and older and you'll see they all know the brand 'Rolling Stones' but not the band, especially not the 'true' band. Hardly anyone would recognize the album TSMR for example, or Aftermath or arbitrary any album from the early days. Maybe someone knows Exile On Mainstreet, or Sticky Fingers. A few more Some Girls, but well, that's from the brand period of the band, containing hit songs like Miss You. If you would ask those people what Beggars Banquet is they'll laugh and reply that it probably has something to do with nowadays food banks for the poor.
Re: Who's your favorite Rolling Stone?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: August 5, 2013 03:09
The Rolling Stones are simply far too big for any era of the band to really be considered as some kind of small cult. Their Facebook page alone currently sits at 14,470,583 likes, all ages, so many posts about all albums, all members and era's.
What is hardly anyone out of numbers like that?
Thousands of blogs and the like dedicated to the stones and it's members.
The albums always being reissued in some form.
They are still very relevant to a lot of people.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-05 03:11 by His Majesty.
What is hardly anyone out of numbers like that?
Thousands of blogs and the like dedicated to the stones and it's members.
The albums always being reissued in some form.
They are still very relevant to a lot of people.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-05 03:11 by His Majesty.
Re: Who's your favorite Rolling Stone?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: August 5, 2013 03:48
Quote
His Majesty
The Rolling Stones are simply far too big for any era of the band to really be considered as some kind of small cult. Their Facebook page alone currently sits at 14,470,583 likes, all ages, so many posts about all albums, all members and era's.
What is hardly anyone out of numbers like that?
Thousands of blogs and the like dedicated to the stones and it's members.
The albums always being reissued in some form.
They are still very relevant to a lot of people.
Still try that poll and let me know.
Re: Who's your favorite Rolling Stone?
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: August 5, 2013 03:59
Just look at their Facebook and twitter pages. They say far more than any poll you or I would put together.
Re: Who's your favorite Rolling Stone?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 5, 2013 09:59
Quote
kleermakerQuote
His Majesty
The Rolling Stones are simply far too big for any era of the band to really be considered as some kind of small cult. Their Facebook page alone currently sits at 14,470,583 likes, all ages, so many posts about all albums, all members and era's.
What is hardly anyone out of numbers like that?
Thousands of blogs and the like dedicated to the stones and it's members.
The albums always being reissued in some form.
They are still very relevant to a lot of people.
Still try that poll and let me know.
Back in the Brian-days, albums weren't really that important.
Try a poll for most popular song, and you'll quickly find that 4 or 5 of the 10 most popular tunes are with Brian - something the setlist on this tour proved.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-05 10:00 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Who's your favorite Rolling Stone?
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: August 5, 2013 10:18
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
kleermakerQuote
His Majesty
The Rolling Stones are simply far too big for any era of the band to really be considered as some kind of small cult. Their Facebook page alone currently sits at 14,470,583 likes, all ages, so many posts about all albums, all members and era's.
What is hardly anyone out of numbers like that?
Thousands of blogs and the like dedicated to the stones and it's members.
The albums always being reissued in some form.
They are still very relevant to a lot of people.
Still try that poll and let me know.
Back in the Brian-days, albums weren't really that important.
Try a poll for most popular song, and you'll quickly find that 4 or 5 of the 10 most popular tunes are with Brian - something the setlist on this tour proved.
no need to poll.
itunes lists the most popular stones songs.
1 Paint It Black
2 (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction
3 Wild Horses
4 Gimme Shelter
5 Beast of Burden
6 Sympathy for the Devil
7 Honky Tonk Women
8 You Can't Always Get What You Want
9 Start Me Up
10 Miss You
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-05 10:23 by sonomastone.
Re: Who's your favorite Rolling Stone?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 5, 2013 10:30
Quote
sonomastoneQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
kleermakerQuote
His Majesty
The Rolling Stones are simply far too big for any era of the band to really be considered as some kind of small cult. Their Facebook page alone currently sits at 14,470,583 likes, all ages, so many posts about all albums, all members and era's.
What is hardly anyone out of numbers like that?
Thousands of blogs and the like dedicated to the stones and it's members.
The albums always being reissued in some form.
They are still very relevant to a lot of people.
Still try that poll and let me know.
Back in the Brian-days, albums weren't really that important.
Try a poll for most popular song, and you'll quickly find that 4 or 5 of the 10 most popular tunes are with Brian - something the setlist on this tour proved.
no need to poll.
itunes lists the most popular stones songs.
1 Paint It Black
2 (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction
3 Wild Horses
4 Gimme Shelter
5 Beast of Burden
6 Sympathy for the Devil
7 Honky Tonk Women
8 You Can't Always Get What You Want
9 Start Me Up
10 Miss You
4-5 wasn't that badly guessed, then
EDIT: However, I refuse to belive that JJF is not on that list...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-05 10:31 by DandelionPowderman.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
falo01 , guyrachel , no stone unturned , Paddy , paulspendel , petewasbristol , rockdriguez67 , spunky , syrel , Tonstone , WillInUK
Guests:
1790
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10