Maybe someone should ask Bowie about his favourite Keith (solo) song

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
sanQ

Quote
stanlove

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
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?

As has been pointed out he said "they haven't taken off, for me, musically". I doubt anyone could say they didn't take off. peace

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
sanQ

Quote
stanlove

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
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?

Musically, for him.

I agree about SRV and the white boy blues sound-tag.

Quote
doitywoik
Maybe someone should ask Bowie about his favourite Keith (solo) song

Why not? I bet he'd say MNM or HIWYL.

Keith's been bashing Stevie Ray as well...

Anyway, it is a bit strange that it was him and Jagger who spotted him at some club in Dallas during their American Tour 1981 and were so impressed that they brought him to NYC to play at some private party. It is said that even a record deal with Rolling Stones Records were discussed. However, it was through this Stones connection, Vaughan's career started to make fast steps forward.

Well, maybe the one who was impressed was more Jagger - and Bowie! - then... Or it could be that Stevie Ray's star started to shine a bit too flashly for Keith's opinion... He wasn't any longer a nice little blues guitarist from the South, but this international phenomenenon, and some respected guitar magazines started to make comparisons to even Jimi Hendrix (which wasn't actually fair for neither of them, I think). It could be that irrated Keith and he wanted put the 'boy' back to his place with his pejorative comment...

Anyway, no matter what old-school blues expert Richards says, SRV with his sound was a fresh exception in the context of 80's guitar world, and I think TEXAS FLOOD is still one of the greatest rock blues albums ever done. Blew my world in 1983.


But as far as Bowie goes, Keith and I have one thing in common: a same favourite Bowie track.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-21 12:05 by Doxa.

Really? I always found SRV to be boring after 10 minutes...
And "Lenny"? Man that song sucks...

Anyway, the older Keith - starting somewhere from the late 70's, early 80's - has started to sound more and more a "blues purist" kind of guy he despised so much in his youth or about the time when the Stones started.. "It's same shit, man", he used to say when critizing the boundaries and categories between genres (or still does, when nostalgically remembers those times and stances...)

But we all get old... But who knows which is better. To be like Keith stubbornly pointing out to the past and thinking "nothing's like in the good old days in my youth, and everything sucks these days" or like being like Mick trying desperately follow what the kids are up to these days, which just makes one look comical.... It is funny how extreme and far from each Mick and Keith are in this sense...><

But since Keith finds Justin Timberlake good these days, and Mick is not busy doing a rap album or something, but instead tries to warm up 40 years old albums, and mimics his old self of those days, I guess they the opposition is not so colossal any longer...><

- Doxa

Quote
dcba
Really? I always found SRV to be boring after 10 minutes...
And "Lenny"? Man that song sucks...

Well, we all are entitled to our own opinion (and then the 'hole' analogy, etc.)

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



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-21 14:04 by Doxa.

ZEP are not great songwriters but they are great players , half the catalog is lifted as we all know



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-21 19:46 by melillo.

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

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
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
Naturalust

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

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

Back to Bowie. Like Stevie, he is obviously he is a talentless hack:







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-22 02:04 by bleedingman.

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
Naturalust

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

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

We're getting a bit off topic here but....Yes I understand what you're saying. But considering Stevie had almost 10 years on Jimi to develop his jazz influences, and lots of fusion music was happening during those years. Stevie at 27 yrs old was nothing like Jimi at 27. And Jimi was reportedly about to embark on some jazz recordings, according to Alan Douglas. I can only imagine how he would have spread his wings on that project. I also hear tons of Jimi in Riveria Paradise, surprised you think it's so different.

You're obviously a guitar player so when looking at Jimi's pick hand you are probably as amazed as I to hear what he accomplished with mostly down strokes! I think his alternate picking style was just starting to bloom towards the end of his life and his accuracy at speed with it.

But like you I love 'em both, loved the jazzy stuff that Stevie was playing and was deeply saddened by his untimely death. peace

Quote
LuxuryStones

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

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
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
Doxa
If we look at 80's acts, I think there was much more spirit of Jimi Hendrix in Prince than in SRV.

- Doxa

Spot on, Ive always felt that. Prince with Miles Davies, Billie Holliday Hooker, Charlie Christian and some Native American ghost.

Quote
Naturalust

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

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

Becoming very off topic, but a lot of later Clapton reincarnation relates to his affection for JJ Cale. I have never seen any musician talking about another musician with such affection as Clapton has always done about JJ, especially after Cale's death.

Serious Moonlight tour circa 1983 was one of the best in Rock History. That was one hell of a band that Bowie put together. I just recently found out that the drummer Tony Thompkins, out of this world drummer, passed away a couple or more years ago. Damn they rocked the house.

Check out the line-up:

David Bowie – vocals, guitar, saxophone
Earl Slick – guitar
Carlos Alomar – guitar
Carmine Rojas – bass guitar
Tony Thompson – drums, percussion
Dave Lebolt – keyboards, synthesizers
Steve Elson – saxophones
Stan Harrison – saxophones, woodwinds
Lenny Pickett – saxophones, woodwinds
George Simms – backing vocals
Frank Simms – backing vocals

Quote
Doxa

Quote
LuxuryStones

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

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

Yes, I understand you didn't mean to compare The Stones and SRV stylistically, that would be ridiculous. I'm basically interested in a different layer when when we talk about SRV in the eighties, cause you seem to diminish your enthusiasm about him a bit when compared to Hendrix in your second post.
As far as I remember SRV in the eighties - I'm talking about Holland, he was considered as a player very reminiscent of Hendrix the genius: "but SRV, he could do something like that".

You're absolutely right about players like Prince and SRV, any rock and blues player actually, you cannot avoid the licks of Hendrix, or even the licks of the old fart Clapton. It's all time related, no 6-tees, 7-tees etc rock or blues player can avoid BB King or Chuck Berry etc etc.

Still I think SRV was a guitarist with a deeper insight in harmonics and more subtle jazzy phrasing than Hendrix, which you can clearly hear on the Jazzy SRV tune I posted (and will be avoided like the plague by many here), he went back as far as the early 6-tees George Benson, unfortunately something Jimi Hendrix never got the chance to explore.

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.

On SRV, I thought he was a great, Hendrix-influenced player. He could play Hendrix (Litle Wing, Voodoo, etc.), but could do lots of other things too - soul (Tick Tock), acoustic (Life By The Drop), straight blues (Dirty Pool), etc. Calling SRV a poor-man's Jimi is as insulting as calling Keith a poor-man's Chuck Berry. That said, there was and will always be only one Jimi!

On Bowie, I personally like lots of his stuff (Heroes, Rebel, Young Americans, Modern Love, etc.) but am not a fanatic ala the Stones. I do think (like Pete Townshend and Prince) he puts out some, errr, crap, from time to time, but when he gets it right, he gets it right!

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.

If that is at all true, that it bothers him, then the solution is for him to stop saying stupid things.

Andrew Loog Oldham has recently made scathing comments about Bowie's new single, Sue (Or in a Season of Crime):

“As I’ve said,” he [ALO] reminded his interviewer, “Old people make old music.”

Details at: [ultimateclassicrock.com]

....oh well then it must be true.

Keith can be a cranky curmudgeon, and thinks when he talks tough like this he is tough, and it sounds cool. Well he sounds like a bitter jealous blowhard when he discounts someone with Bowie's obvious talent. I suspect a bit of jealousy that Bowie and Jagger were such good friends... and I am sure Jagger looked at Bowie's success as a solo artist with some jealousy as well.
Bowie is the real deal. A man with incredible talent, and an artist who loves to take risks. You might not like all he does, but he sure has a very eclectic catalogue. . . And yeah even he succumbed to the crappiness of the 80s!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-23 10:02 by whitem8.

Quote
Naturalust

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

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

Clapton with Cream (and BF + the Dominoes) is still standing tall with the greatest, imo.

His mistake was getting tangled up in that Tulsa sound and JJ Cale. He could never be JJ Cale, and his music was doomed to pale in comparison.

Just my two cents.

PS: SRV was an excellent guitar player, but I always found his sound very dry and boring (which should be a guitar players task #2 after songwriting, or at least unique or original interpretation of others work).

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.

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.

Quote
Dreamer

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.

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.

More drunk, you mean?

Anyways, it shouldn't come as a big surprise that Keith doesn't have a thing for affected singing. But I have read other interviews (prior to his BS-phase in the 2000s) where he spoke quite highly of Bowie.

I agree. Comments shouldn't be taken seriously.


Fact of the matter is that Bowie makes great music. If anyone has a chance take a step back in time and watch the 1983 Vancouver Show. That was one great tour.