For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
sanQQuote
stanloveQuote
NaturalustQuote
stanlove
You should see Led Zeppelin fans trying to figure out why Keith didn't like Zeppelin. Everything but he just didn't like his music. Kind of funny and pathetic at the same time.
Actually he has said he likes some of Zep's music, it's the singing he doesn't care for. peace
He said as a band they never took off.
[www.youtube.com]
I understand why Keith says they never took off. Basically, Keith knew that a lot of their songs were ripped off of other artists. Most people (but not all) didn't know that or which songs until more recent years, but Keith being an expert at knowledge of the blues probably did because he would have known the same blues source material.
That being said, the same criticism could also be directed at his own work because a lot of what they wrote was ripping off other artists too. Sometimes Keith likes to criticize others for things he himself does but for him it's ok because he was doing it first. lol I love Keith dearly, but he's sometimes got a flawed outlook and may speak before really thinking about what he's going to say. I read in some guitar magazine from the 80's his thoughts on Stevie Ray Vaughan and he said it was just typical white boy blues. I totally disagree with him there as SRV was way better than that.
As for Bowie, I like some of his tunes, but not a lot. Golden Years, Little Drummer Boy with Bing Crosby, Love You Till Tuesday (BBC version), and maybe a couple of others. A lot of it I just can't get into. He's talented, I'll give him that.
For a band that "didn't take off", they seemed to sell a helluva lot of albums. If you consider they were only around for 10 years, and the Stones 50 AND Led Zeppelin outsold the Stones, hard to get your mind around the idea they didn't "take off".
Maybe the took off so far Keith didn't see them in the distance?
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
sanQQuote
stanloveQuote
NaturalustQuote
stanlove
You should see Led Zeppelin fans trying to figure out why Keith didn't like Zeppelin. Everything but he just didn't like his music. Kind of funny and pathetic at the same time.
Actually he has said he likes some of Zep's music, it's the singing he doesn't care for. peace
He said as a band they never took off.
[www.youtube.com]
I understand why Keith says they never took off. Basically, Keith knew that a lot of their songs were ripped off of other artists. Most people (but not all) didn't know that or which songs until more recent years, but Keith being an expert at knowledge of the blues probably did because he would have known the same blues source material.
That being said, the same criticism could also be directed at his own work because a lot of what they wrote was ripping off other artists too. Sometimes Keith likes to criticize others for things he himself does but for him it's ok because he was doing it first. lol I love Keith dearly, but he's sometimes got a flawed outlook and may speak before really thinking about what he's going to say. I read in some guitar magazine from the 80's his thoughts on Stevie Ray Vaughan and he said it was just typical white boy blues. I totally disagree with him there as SRV was way better than that.
As for Bowie, I like some of his tunes, but not a lot. Golden Years, Little Drummer Boy with Bing Crosby, Love You Till Tuesday (BBC version), and maybe a couple of others. A lot of it I just can't get into. He's talented, I'll give him that.
For a band that "didn't take off", they seemed to sell a helluva lot of albums. If you consider they were only around for 10 years, and the Stones 50 AND Led Zeppelin outsold the Stones, hard to get your mind around the idea they didn't "take off".
Maybe the took off so far Keith didn't see them in the distance?
Quote
doitywoik
Maybe someone should ask Bowie about his favourite Keith (solo) song
Quote
dcba
Really? I always found SRV to be boring after 10 minutes...
And "Lenny"? Man that song sucks...
Quote
Doxa
The way I see SRV's success back in the 80's, I think his international fame was mostly based not on blues circles but that of rock people. The "blues purists" didn not like him so much, because they knew from he was coming from, and not so much new things under the sun. And then he was just so popular and talked everywhere, which always upsets 'purists'.
One particular personal memory. He played 1985 in International Pori Jazz festival, and that caused a public controversy here in Finland. Back then jazz festivals were still rather 'pure', non-commercial happenings, and authentic blues guys, like Muddy Waters, were alright. But then Stevie Ray exploded the whole thing - the place was crowded with 'ordinary' rock fans - the biggest crowd the festival ever seen by then - and then there was this public conversation if the festival has turned to be a "rock festival". Funny little detail I recall. There was a huge tension within the audience: the jazz/blues people wanted to sit down and listen the music, while the rock people wanted to stand and dance (like me)... Almost fights occurred... (Those were the days - last summer I saw in that particular "jazz" festival Bob Dylan and Patti Smith...)
I think Stevie Ray did during the 80's something the Stones did during the 60's: introducing blues music to pop/rock audiences. I had many friends back then who were strong followers of the rising heavy rock genre (and you know what kind of guitarists those had). Even for them SRV made an impression. His guitar playing just went beyond the boundaries of genres. He talked in terms of almost everyone understood.
- Doxa
Quote
LuxuryStones
I think Stevie Ray was some sort of Hendrix-reincarnation during the eighties, playing that same heavy blues Rock style, even more versatile and technically better than Jimi. Stevie was the epic centre of his act, an individual, a virtuoso, whereas the Stones kicked the establishment, and influenced a whole generation. They drastically transformed the sound and image of early rhythm and blues musicians, while Vaughan's playing and appearance was almost entirely rooted in Hendrix. But that's just me
Quote
NaturalustQuote
LuxuryStones
I think Stevie Ray was some sort of Hendrix-reincarnation during the eighties, playing that same heavy blues Rock style, even more versatile and technically better than Jimi. Stevie was the epic centre of his act, an individual, a virtuoso, whereas the Stones kicked the establishment, and influenced a whole generation. They drastically transformed the sound and image of early rhythm and blues musicians, while Vaughan's playing and appearance was almost entirely rooted in Hendrix. But that's just me
SRV and the Stones?, yes apples and oranges, I agree. But as far as SRV being more versatile and technically better than Jimi? Not by a long shot. He copied Jimi's licks and blues style but never delivered with the same wow factor as Jimi. Jimi constantly mixed up his phrasing and song styles while Stevie stayed rooted to the blues and repeated his licks and styles to the point of redundancy. He was
good but he was no Hendrix, imho. peace
Quote
LuxuryStonesQuote
NaturalustQuote
LuxuryStones
I think Stevie Ray was some sort of Hendrix-reincarnation during the eighties, playing that same heavy blues Rock style, even more versatile and technically better than Jimi. Stevie was the epic centre of his act, an individual, a virtuoso, whereas the Stones kicked the establishment, and influenced a whole generation. They drastically transformed the sound and image of early rhythm and blues musicians, while Vaughan's playing and appearance was almost entirely rooted in Hendrix. But that's just me
SRV and the Stones?, yes apples and oranges, I agree. But as far as SRV being more versatile and technically better than Jimi? Not by a long shot. He copied Jimi's licks and blues style but never delivered with the same wow factor as Jimi. Jimi constantly mixed up his phrasing and song styles while Stevie stayed rooted to the blues and repeated his licks and styles to the point of redundancy. He was
good but he was no Hendrix, imho. peace
I think SRV had a more Jazzy touch than Hendrix when it comes to chords, on occasions. And bit more accurate in his right (pick) hand. At least this an example of SRV's playing that is totally different than Hendrix. I like both players
Quote
LuxuryStonesQuote
Doxa
The way I see SRV's success back in the 80's, I think his international fame was mostly based not on blues circles but that of rock people. The "blues purists" didn not like him so much, because they knew from he was coming from, and not so much new things under the sun. And then he was just so popular and talked everywhere, which always upsets 'purists'.
One particular personal memory. He played 1985 in International Pori Jazz festival, and that caused a public controversy here in Finland. Back then jazz festivals were still rather 'pure', non-commercial happenings, and authentic blues guys, like Muddy Waters, were alright. But then Stevie Ray exploded the whole thing - the place was crowded with 'ordinary' rock fans - the biggest crowd the festival ever seen by then - and then there was this public conversation if the festival has turned to be a "rock festival". Funny little detail I recall. There was a huge tension within the audience: the jazz/blues people wanted to sit down and listen the music, while the rock people wanted to stand and dance (like me)... Almost fights occurred... (Those were the days - last summer I saw in that particular "jazz" festival Bob Dylan and Patti Smith...)
I think Stevie Ray did during the 80's something the Stones did during the 60's: introducing blues music to pop/rock audiences. I had many friends back then who were strong followers of the rising heavy rock genre (and you know what kind of guitarists those had). Even for them SRV made an impression. His guitar playing just went beyond the boundaries of genres. He talked in terms of almost everyone understood.
- Doxa
I'm not entirely sure about the comparison with the Rolling Stones. I think Stevie Ray was some sort of Hendrix-reincarnation during the eighties, playing that same heavy blues Rock style, even more versatile and technically better than Jimi. Stevie was the epic centre of his act, an individual, a virtuoso, whereas the Stones kicked the establishment, and influenced a whole generation. They drastically transformed the sound and image of early rhythm and blues musicians, while Vaughan's playing and appearance was almost entirely rooted in Hendrix. But that's just me
Quote
Doxa
Someone like Eric Clapton was an old fart and the people of my generation were wondering where on earth does his fame as a 'guitar hero' is based on...
- Doxa
Quote
Doxa
If we look at 80's acts, I think there was much more spirit of Jimi Hendrix in Prince than in SRV.
- Doxa
Quote
NaturalustQuote
Doxa
Someone like Eric Clapton was an old fart and the people of my generation were wondering where on earth does his fame as a 'guitar hero' is based on...
- Doxa
I'm pretty sure it was based on his work with Cream, which was indeed herotic at the time, so I've been told. Many different opinions on what happened after that. I think he kind of got bored with the guitar god thing and instead of developing it like SRV, became more of a singer/songwriter, falling back on his lead playing to spice up his songs. Certainly his drug addiction, alcoholism and eventual sobriety all effected his creativity in different ways. peace
Quote
DoxaQuote
LuxuryStonesQuote
Doxa
The way I see SRV's success back in the 80's, I think his international fame was mostly based not on blues circles but that of rock people. The "blues purists" didn not like him so much, because they knew from he was coming from, and not so much new things under the sun. And then he was just so popular and talked everywhere, which always upsets 'purists'.
One particular personal memory. He played 1985 in International Pori Jazz festival, and that caused a public controversy here in Finland. Back then jazz festivals were still rather 'pure', non-commercial happenings, and authentic blues guys, like Muddy Waters, were alright. But then Stevie Ray exploded the whole thing - the place was crowded with 'ordinary' rock fans - the biggest crowd the festival ever seen by then - and then there was this public conversation if the festival has turned to be a "rock festival". Funny little detail I recall. There was a huge tension within the audience: the jazz/blues people wanted to sit down and listen the music, while the rock people wanted to stand and dance (like me)... Almost fights occurred... (Those were the days - last summer I saw in that particular "jazz" festival Bob Dylan and Patti Smith...)
I think Stevie Ray did during the 80's something the Stones did during the 60's: introducing blues music to pop/rock audiences. I had many friends back then who were strong followers of the rising heavy rock genre (and you know what kind of guitarists those had). Even for them SRV made an impression. His guitar playing just went beyond the boundaries of genres. He talked in terms of almost everyone understood.
- Doxa
I'm not entirely sure about the comparison with the Rolling Stones. I think Stevie Ray was some sort of Hendrix-reincarnation during the eighties, playing that same heavy blues Rock style, even more versatile and technically better than Jimi. Stevie was the epic centre of his act, an individual, a virtuoso, whereas the Stones kicked the establishment, and influenced a whole generation. They drastically transformed the sound and image of early rhythm and blues musicians, while Vaughan's playing and appearance was almost entirely rooted in Hendrix. But that's just me
I didn't mean to compare The Stones and SRV stylistically to each other. They are very different, and the Stones are much much more than "blues populists" - they are a part of Western cultural history with their impact, a blue print to the whole idea what a rock and roll band is all about, to say it mildly.
But. let me repeat and I hope I an make myself clear, what Stevie Ray did during the 80's was basically the same thing as the Stones (partly) once did: introducing blues music (whatever it is) to mainstream (pop/rock) people, and in the case of SRV, he did that when the blues actually had not any longer much - or any - say within the evolution of rock and pop music. It was the bloody 80's after-all, and the glory days of 'blues rock' were long gone; it had transformed into full-scale 'hard rock' and by the 80's into 'heavy rock', and the world was full of all those new generation (post Eddie Van Halen) flashy guitarists with an army of pedals and whatever. Someone like Eric Clapton was an old fart and the people of my generation were wondering where on earth does his fame as a 'guitar hero' is based on... But SRV with his primitive sound, thick strings, shotgun technique and over-all incredible skills was fresh and unique, and like I said, he 'spoke' with the language anyone interested in great guitar playing those days could easily understand. For many people of my generation he was a living example of what a great blues guitar playing is all about now. Not what it was in, say, 1973 or 1968 or 1954.
Even though Vaughan sometimes flirted with Hendrix stuff and manouvres - which I many times found embarrassing - I have never seen him as any Hendrix "reincarnation". Their approach towards music and even playing guitar is very different. SRV has his own, but rather confined package, sound and style, wheras Hendrix was simply a genious. SRV never escaped far from the basic blues pattern, but Hendrix used that only as a platform to explore whatever. If we look at 80's acts, I think there was much more spirit of Jimi Hendrix in Prince than in SRV.
- Doxa
Quote
MisterO
I remember Keith saying back in an eighties interview that he "Liked Culture Club and Big County" and IIRC the Stary Cats and someone else....Not to long after that I remember him saying (In playboy, I think) that he did not like Bruce and found his music pretenious, but he said it in a delicate way something along the lines of 'I hope I don't upset a lot of people' as if his words were going to ruin Bruces career lol.
So he likes Boy George but Bowie's a poser......
Lets also keep in mind that Keith has also been a laughing stock in the media as well. He probably the most famous junkie of all time. Maybe on some level that type of press bothered him.
Quote
NaturalustQuote
Doxa
Someone like Eric Clapton was an old fart and the people of my generation were wondering where on earth does his fame as a 'guitar hero' is based on...
- Doxa
I'm pretty sure it was based on his work with Cream, which was indeed herotic at the time, so I've been told. Many different opinions on what happened after that. I think he kind of got bored with the guitar god thing and instead of developing it like SRV, became more of a singer/songwriter, falling back on his lead playing to spice up his songs. Certainly his drug addiction, alcoholism and eventual sobriety all effected his creativity in different ways. peace
Quote
BowieStone
KEITH RICHARDS: Can’t remember. Who is he? Oh, he went to the same art school as me. “Changes”, maybe. That’s about it. Not a large fan, no. It’s all pose. It’s all @#$%& posing. It’s nothing to do with music. He knows it, too. I can’t think of anything else he’s done that would make my hair stand up.
Read more at [www.uncut.co.uk]
All pose, nothing to do with music.
Incredible how a musician can state this about David Bowie.
Quote
DreamerQuote
BowieStone
KEITH RICHARDS: Can’t remember. Who is he? Oh, he went to the same art school as me. “Changes”, maybe. That’s about it. Not a large fan, no. It’s all pose. It’s all @#$%& posing. It’s nothing to do with music. He knows it, too. I can’t think of anything else he’s done that would make my hair stand up.
Read more at [www.uncut.co.uk]
All pose, nothing to do with music.
Incredible how a musician can state this about David Bowie.
It's ridiculous all this offending crap he's talking. I can't remember who is KR?? It really is pathetic that with this posing he's just shi.ting himself enormously. And the people defending him are probably worse.