The rolling Stones were right to play hard when they could. Playing hard can be dismissed as not been great by some but one has to be able to do it especially live, on stage. A ballad or soul tune thrown in there is OK but the core value and the legacy of the DartfordJazzTradRenegades will be forever, hard playing and hard banging. Don't worry,Mick you're fine.
Rock and roll,
Mops

Btw. Deep Purple wasn't Heavy Metal . .

Quote
CousinC
Btw. Deep Purple wasn't Heavy Metal . .

In case that response is adressed to my posts, I never asserted that. I make a distinction between "heavy rock" and "heavy metal". The question is whether it is interesting and maybe correct or not to operate with a term "heavy rock" that, apart from Black Sabbath, might include Deep Purple and Led Zeppelin, where Led Zeppelin might be said to be both this genre concept's foremost progenitors, and the band that was rich enough to transcend it.

A later edit consists in my marking an earlier sentence in bold, since that sentence seems go unnoticed. And I now add in bold that I have never seen Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple or Black Sabbath as "heavy metal".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-26 15:11 by Witness.

Apparently Cream was one of the founders of Hard Rock, likewise Free.

But then I don't consider Deep Purple, Zep, or AC/DC even to be heavy metal. These bands all come from a blues/jazz background, which the Stones also hail from.

Quote
tomcasagranda
Apparently Cream was one of the founders of Hard Rock, likewise Free.

But then I don't consider Deep Purple, Zep, or AC/DC even to be heavy metal. These bands all come from a blues/jazz background, which the Stones also hail from.

It seems that you have not noticed that I do not use "heavy metal" as term for Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple or Black Sabbath.

I used a term, that I met during the 70s, "heavy bands", which did not mean the same as "heavy metal". Because "heavy metal" came into being later on.

Jazz/Blues - Rock(nRoll) - Beat - Rock again - Progressive Rock reard its head.
From then on it got more and more tricky: Hardrock, Heavyrock, HeavyMetal,etc. . .
Witness

Quote
CousinC
. .
Witness

to you, too, CousinC. I am actually now very soon gonna drink my not so cheap wine from Margaux, Ch Malescot-St-Exupery 1999, which is a 3. Cru of the 1855 classification of the Medoc. So I will be able to lift my glass to you then.

Edit: A spelling error in the name of the chateau corrected.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-26 19:56 by Witness.

The Stones have had hard rock songs but he must've been talking about how they were live, which was pretty hard for quite a while. They softened up for STEEL WHEELS but it did have more dynamics to it live and a bit more swing.

Led Zeppelin were more of a hard rock band but did other things as well obviously. Black Sabbath. AC/DC, with exception to maybe 3 songs, was all hard rock. There are a lot of hard rock bands that do ballads as well.

Heavy metal? That would be early Metallica for sure. And a few others I can't remember the damn names of.

However, during the '70s there was in use a category "heavy rock", under which one would find at least Black Sabbath. I am now not sure if that category even is in use any more, although I thought so until today. By hardrock I think of bands of quite another kind, being a little uncertain which bands, because they might be candidates for other catecories, too. Ready to go for immediate retreat at objections, I would suggest, in contrast to Black Sabbath, instead, for instance, MC5 and New York Dolls as possible typical hard rock bands.

<<Deep Purple wasn't Heavy Metal>>

True, because they had a keyboard player. They were more like Hefty Mineral.

Judas Priest and Iron Maiden are typical heavy metal bands. Metallica is thrash metal. Purple and Sabbath are hard rock. AC/DC is hard blues rock.

This post is a retreat. Not from original intended meaning, really. But from the way I expressed it. Because that will by readers be generally understood different from what I wanted to utter.

Quote
Witness

Quote
CousinC
One Hit, Too tough etc to me is good ol rock music. Hardrock see under Deep Purple and friends.
Well, just one of Mick's insights . .

In my perspective I prefer to uphold the probably wellknown distinction between hardrock and heavy rock, the latter represented for instance by Deep Purple and Black Sabbath. Correct or not, I share the view uttered by I do not know whom, that heavy rock exposed to punk music, itself (heavy rock, that is) in its time developed, perhaps by newer bands than the original heavy bands, into heavy metal as something contrasting.

As to the Stones themselves, hardrock obviously has been one of the elements of their music, but I believe seldom or never singlehanded. And some of the greatness of the Rolling Stones has been due to the presence of elements of hardrock, but at the same time also by virtue of the fact that their music also has had many other nuances.

.........

Seemingly, the use of terms in the first paragraph of my earlier post is not in accordance with general use.

In relation to what may be general current use of the terms, I myself have never found Stones music to have elements of hardrock in a narrow sense, as a term that also typically includes Black Sabbath.

Then also I am surprised at the quote from Mick Jagger. Maybe also Mick used the term differently, like I did. What if he did! (I don't know how he could have said that with terms in common use.)

Quote
Stoneage
Seems like Sir Michael is very easily bored. He got bored with the blues and here with "hard rock". One thing he never gets bored with though are fixed set lists.
He just loves to belt out Honky Tonk Women, Miss You and Satisfaction in the same manner at every concert...

good point...

The guitar sounds of UC and DW were definitely drifting into hard rock territory. The stripped down punk and 50s style playing on SG-TTY (1st side) were replaced with amped up tones on UC and DW. I would say that AC/DC had some influenced on the guitar sounds Keith and Ron were making from '83-'86. I do think Mick was referring to studio work in his statement. The wobble and roll were replaced by power chords and a more straighforward 4/4 beat. A lot of the air and space within the band's sound was replaced with more guitar tracks and other things. The songs on UC and DW are somewhat hamfisted compared to what comes before and after. I like UC and to a lesser degree parts of DW but on those albums the band, soundwise, threw subtly out the window. You can kind of hear that start to creep in on Neighbors, which minus the sax solo, would've fit in well on UC and DW.

Quote
big4
The guitar sounds of UC and DW were definitely drifting into hard rock territory. The stripped down punk and 50s style playing on SG-TTY (1st side) were replaced with amped up tones on UC and DW. I would say that AC/DC had some influenced on the guitar sounds Keith and Ron were making from '83-'86. I do think Mick was referring to studio work in his statement. The wobble and roll were replaced by power chords and a more straighforward 4/4 beat. A lot of the air and space within the band's sound was replaced with more guitar tracks and other things. The songs on UC and DW are somewhat hamfisted compared to what comes before and after. I like UC and to a lesser degree parts of DW but on those albums the band, soundwise, threw subtly out the window. You can kind of hear that start to creep in on Neighbors, which minus the sax solo, would've fit in well on UC and DW.

Exactly why it's never been a favorite of mine, but I could never figure out how to articulate it.

Quote
buffalo7478

Quote
Stoneage
Seems like Sir Michael is very easily bored. He got bored with the blues and here with "hard rock". One thing he never gets bored with though are fixed set lists.
He just loves to belt out Honky Tonk Women, Miss You and Satisfaction in the same manner at every concert...

good point...

I like to criticize Mick as much as anyone does, but come on, putting on the kind of show he does onstage is such hard work I can't imagine how he does it, and he is entitled to want to keep the improvs, ad-libs and jams to a minimum.

I suspect one reason for the unimaginative set lists is because he doesn't trust Keith and Ronnie not to wander off the reservation while he's trying to give the audience its money's worth.

The only Stones song I ever felt had a bit of hard rock flavoring to was Sad Sad Sad in particular when it goes into the "middle eight" (Stu's term, I believe). I bought SW the day it was released so i listened to the album many times that day. Obviously what is "hard rock" and what is not is subjective but that's what I immediately felt upon first hearing. At that time I had been a Stones fanatic since 1971, had all their albums plus 15 or more bootlegs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-28 00:28 by MidnightPeanut.

I thought Dylan said they became a funk band after Bill left...