Tell Me :
Talk
That is what they aspired to be, but due to the fact they were a bunch of kids from UK each with their own eclectic individual tastes plus the inclusion of unintentional influences all naturally skewed the results of that aspiration and made them some what something else.
Maybe they managed to override the unintentional stuff before they were recorded, but I think it's for good reason that Mick was a bit concerned before their debut in 1962 “I hope they don’t think we’re a rock ‘n’ roll outfit.” and that a headline like R&B? Not on your life! appeared in 1964.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-21 02:48 by His Majesty.
Not sure as I don't have the mass of articles that I uploaded awhile back. I think the article was in there or maybe I read it somewhere else.
Not being even a twinkle in my fathers eye in 1962/63 your input is much appreciated.
I think there is an obvious popyness to their earliest recordings (IBC demos, First few singles, EP etc) that pushes them in to the aspiring R&B band territory, but with an otherness that makes it somthing else. It's this clash that makes me such a fan of those 1963 - 1964 recordings. A compilation of all their 1963 recordings is an inspiring, magical thing.
I guess i'm over analysing things (That's my thing innit?
) and the R&B tag fits. Calling them a blues band seems like a step too far though.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-21 11:20 by His Majesty.
Agree 100%. I love the blues and I (usually) love the Stones, but I couldn't listen to them playing their version of the blues all night. Once in a while is very nice and I love the blues influence in some of their own compositions, but I actually prefer them playing Chuck Berry.
That's it, Spud. They can do all kinds of music, but they still don't sound like anyone else. The Rolling Stones make every musical genre uniquely their own.
Me too. The Stones have recorded more Chuck than blues. And Chuck Berry can be classified under rhythm and blues if one likes
Yup, how to define the blues...
like I said earlier, you can't box them in. It isn't rocket science.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Rolling Stones - a blues band
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 21, 2014 02:46
Quote
Aquamarine
... they were definitely a blues/r'n'b band at their inception...
That is what they aspired to be, but due to the fact they were a bunch of kids from UK each with their own eclectic individual tastes plus the inclusion of unintentional influences all naturally skewed the results of that aspiration and made them some what something else.
Maybe they managed to override the unintentional stuff before they were recorded, but I think it's for good reason that Mick was a bit concerned before their debut in 1962 “I hope they don’t think we’re a rock ‘n’ roll outfit.” and that a headline like R&B? Not on your life! appeared in 1964.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-21 02:48 by His Majesty.
Re: Rolling Stones - a blues band
Posted by:
Aquamarine
()
Date: May 21, 2014 03:05
Well, "a rock 'n' roll outfit" had different connotations then, and they definitely weren't that. I never saw them disavowing r'n'b (in the 1964 sense)--what was that article all about?
Re: Rolling Stones - a blues band
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: May 21, 2014 03:47
"When jazz came out, right, at the turn of the century, coloured people had this kind of music and it took much longer for white people to play it.... It took till the Fifties for white people to make a success out of rhythm & blues, a success out of black people...."
Well, that's Sir Mick the equal opportunity successor of people for you, who really knows how to make a success out of royals and coloureds alike.
Well, that's Sir Mick the equal opportunity successor of people for you, who really knows how to make a success out of royals and coloureds alike.
Re: Rolling Stones - a blues band
Posted by:
triceratops
()
Date: May 21, 2014 03:56
The Rolling Stones were a rhythm and blues band in their early career, Not a blues band. They have recorded few blues numbers. They have recorder bluesy numbers. Pop tunes, Rock and so on. But the last thing I think of them as is a blues band. This is ridiculous
Blues influenced? Yes! Chicago blues influenced? Yes! Take Paul Butterfield. That was a blues band (done by white boys) They were one of my favorites.
Blues influenced? Yes! Chicago blues influenced? Yes! Take Paul Butterfield. That was a blues band (done by white boys) They were one of my favorites.
Re: Rolling Stones - a blues band
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: May 21, 2014 11:14
Quote
Aquamarine
Well, "a rock 'n' roll outfit" had different connotations then, and they definitely weren't that. I never saw them disavowing r'n'b (in the 1964 sense)--what was that article all about?
Not sure as I don't have the mass of articles that I uploaded awhile back. I think the article was in there or maybe I read it somewhere else.
Not being even a twinkle in my fathers eye in 1962/63 your input is much appreciated.
I think there is an obvious popyness to their earliest recordings (IBC demos, First few singles, EP etc) that pushes them in to the aspiring R&B band territory, but with an otherness that makes it somthing else. It's this clash that makes me such a fan of those 1963 - 1964 recordings. A compilation of all their 1963 recordings is an inspiring, magical thing.
I guess i'm over analysing things (That's my thing innit?
) and the R&B tag fits. Calling them a blues band seems like a step too far though.Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-21 11:20 by His Majesty.
Re: Rolling Stones - a blues band
Posted by:
teleblaster
()
Date: May 21, 2014 12:28
Quote
triceratops
The Rolling Stones were a rhythm and blues band in their early career, Not a blues band. They have recorded few blues numbers. They have recorder bluesy numbers. Pop tunes, Rock and so on. But the last thing I think of them as is a blues band. This is ridiculous
Blues influenced? Yes! Chicago blues influenced? Yes! Take Paul Butterfield. That was a blues band (done by white boys) They were one of my favorites.
Agree 100%. I love the blues and I (usually) love the Stones, but I couldn't listen to them playing their version of the blues all night. Once in a while is very nice and I love the blues influence in some of their own compositions, but I actually prefer them playing Chuck Berry.
Re: Rolling Stones - a blues band
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: May 21, 2014 13:41
When they play the Blues, they're a Blues band.
When they play country, they're a country band,
Soul, a soul band, Reggae/Ska, a loose Reggae band.
One of the most amazing things about this band is that they cover all these genre with such an authentic feel whist still sounding, first and foremost, like the Rolling Stones.
When they play country, they're a country band,
Soul, a soul band, Reggae/Ska, a loose Reggae band.
One of the most amazing things about this band is that they cover all these genre with such an authentic feel whist still sounding, first and foremost, like the Rolling Stones.
Re: Rolling Stones - a blues band
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 21, 2014 13:43
Quote
Spud
When they play the Blues, they're a Blues band.
When they play country, they're a country band,
Soul, a soul band, Reggae/Ska, a loose Reggae band.
One of the most amazing things about this band is that they cover all these genre with such an authentic feel whist still sounding, first and foremost, like the Rolling Stones.
Re: Rolling Stones - a blues band
Posted by:
latebloomer
()
Date: May 21, 2014 13:46
Quote
Spud
When they play the Blues, they're a Blues band.
When they play country, they're a country band,
Soul, a soul band, Reggae/Ska, a loose Reggae band.
One of the most amazing things about this band is that they cover all these genre with such an authentic feel whist still sounding, first and foremost, like the Rolling Stones.
That's it, Spud. They can do all kinds of music, but they still don't sound like anyone else. The Rolling Stones make every musical genre uniquely their own.
Re: Rolling Stones - a blues band
Posted by:
thegroove
()
Date: May 21, 2014 20:31
All the talk about the changes the Stones have been thru. What about the changes the blues have gone thru these last 50 years?Certainly not the same form it was.The popularity of blues seems to go up and down as always but the blues has to absorb similar influences like the stones do.
Re: Rolling Stones - a blues band
Posted by:
LuxuryStones
()
Date: May 21, 2014 21:21
Mick Taylor was a great blues player with the Stones. Does that count?
Re: Rolling Stones - a blues band
Posted by:
BroomWagon
()
Date: May 21, 2014 21:27
It's kind of similar to how we know Hendrix played Blues, Red House. Yet, in general, we seem to call him a rock guitarist. Definitely could play the Blues or R and B, reading as to the discussion on the correct definitions to use.
Re: Rolling Stones - a blues band
Posted by:
triceratops
()
Date: May 21, 2014 22:35
Quote
teleblasterQuote
triceratops
The Rolling Stones were a rhythm and blues band in their early career, Not a blues band. They have recorded few blues numbers. They have recorder bluesy numbers. Pop tunes, Rock and so on. But the last thing I think of them as is a blues band. This is ridiculous
Blues influenced? Yes! Chicago blues influenced? Yes! Take Paul Butterfield. That was a blues band (done by white boys) They were one of my favorites.
Agree 100%. I love the blues and I (usually) love the Stones, but I couldn't listen to them playing their version of the blues all night. Once in a while is very nice and I love the blues influence in some of their own compositions, but I actually prefer them playing Chuck Berry.
Me too. The Stones have recorded more Chuck than blues. And Chuck Berry can be classified under rhythm and blues if one likes
Re: Rolling Stones - a blues band
Posted by:
waterrats
()
Date: May 21, 2014 22:37
It's funny - Yup, they are not a blues band. They were maybe. Sometimes. But they started out as blues purists in Edith Grove, I think. ... you know, When Keith hid the mic on the toilet and stuff ... ;-)
They played some good blues tunes sometimes and had the first blues #1 in England. And they can still play the blues today. I always enjoy it when they do that.
And I wish they would do it ore often...
They played some good blues tunes sometimes and had the first blues #1 in England. And they can still play the blues today. I always enjoy it when they do that.
And I wish they would do it ore often...
Re: Rolling Stones - a blues band
Posted by:
LuxuryStones
()
Date: May 21, 2014 23:03
Quote
BroomWagon
It's kind of similar to how we know Hendrix played Blues, Red House. Yet, in general, we seem to call him a rock guitarist. Definitely could play the Blues or R and B, reading as to the discussion on the correct definitions to use.
Yup, how to define the blues...
Re: Rolling Stones - a blues band
Posted by:
rob51
()
Date: May 22, 2014 07:09
It's simple actually. Blues based rock n roll band as in almost all rock n roll bands. Rock n RoLL had a baby called that baby rock n roll!
Re: Rolling Stones - a blues band
Posted by:
ThickerThanThieves
()
Date: May 22, 2014 07:38
Quote
Rockman
like I said earlier, you can't box them in. It isn't rocket science.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
BlueTurns2Grey , ChrisL , dedospegajosos , GAFF , gcarneiro , Handova , JDSAM1994 , jimpietryga1 , ladinsky14 , liddas , More Hot Rocks , retired_dog , schwonek , TooTight , Topi , Valeswood , VoodooLounge13 , werther2003 , WillInUK , wiredallnight
Guests:
1738
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10