Tell Me :
Talk
Probably because he was asked..
I know I should have, latebloomer. Meanwhile, I did a translation of a norwegian CH review HERE, at least
Why is Keith a pathetic old man for disliking heavy metal and rap lol
Even in here!
Pretty sure everyone here likes at least one era of the Stones otherwise why would they post on a Stones fan site? But there is a contingent of fans here who isn't particularly fond of the current stuff. Still fans of the Stones of course. Bound to happen with a band who's been around 50+ years and has gone through a pretty significant musical evolution.
I have a feeling Keith disliked heavy metal and rap when he was a pathetic young man also…haha
There are posters here who would prefer Mick going for a solo career (even today), and rather see the Stones call it quits.
There are also posters here who love other individual band members more than the band itself.
Nothing wrong with that, imo, but are they really Rolling Stones fans anymore?
i think so, yes.
Of course they are still Rolling Stones fans. Are you still a Faces fan even though Ronnie has been with the Stones for 40 years and all the Faces members have done other projects because you wanted Ronnie to leave the Faces? Being a Rolling Stones fan doesn't mean you have to like the current band, their current concerts or any specific piece of music they have done, imo. Are you suggesting that people like kleermaker who is singularly devoted to the Taylor era of the Stones, has had his video included on an official Stones site and has an amazing YouTube channel with tons of Stones content is not really a Rolling Stones fan because he doesn't like the current band?
Is someone any less of a Stones fan because they hate every Stones record after TY and love Mick's solo work, or hate all Keith's solo work? I think the whole fan hierarchy and judgement of what makes a Stones fan is a load of bullocks and if someone is willing to consider themselves a fan because they have one Stones record and love it, that's good enough for me.
Im 50 now, and i never liked metal or rap when i was a teenager and i never liked the 80's music when i was a teenager and in my early 20's
It has nothing to do with age
I hated shit 80's music then and i hate shit music of today now
What's age got to do with it
People just like what they like
A 15 year old girl may like the latest chart music because she knows nothing else
But when i was 15 i was influenced by all my dads music plus most young people back then still heard a lot of Zep, Floyd, Clapton, etc
Its different today young people get sucked into pop idol etc
I feel sorry for them lol
Who, ultimately, gives a shit?
You're a fan, an admirer, an interested listener, whatever. For me, The Stones are 1963-1972 and they haven't made a great record since EOMS. But I've listened to other eras and like things here and there. I'm not interested in "supporting" the band; they can get along just fine w/o me! They're a fascinating band with a fascinating history and it is possible, through discussions of The Stones, to also look at larger cultural and musical trends. I can no longer listen to them live and am skeptical about any future studio records, so there you have it.
Am I a "fan"? Do I "support" the band? By most measures, no. But I am interested in aspects of their career and still get a lot of joy from the music they've produced.
(I also like Godard but his stuff since the 70's is pretty rough going, too. Same with Thos Pynchon. I don't think I'm a "fan" of theirs, either, but believe they made significant contributions to their respective arts, contributions that are well worth discussing today, even in the absence of any quality late-career work.)
Just to be clear: I do care about the work the band have produced. I do NOT care whether someone is sufficiently a "fan" or not.
Well as long as they are the right 5 years I'm not so sure. LOL
As Turner points out, someone can be over the top obsessed with a certain era of the Stones and be more fanatical than someone who goes a show every tour and likes all 53 years of Stones music.
Is a fan who daily lusts after Mick alone but can't be bothered to learn the names of any Stones songs any less of a fan than a Keith freak who learns all of Keith's licks note for note and can name the catalog, session dates and guitars Keith used on every tour?
Is a fan who wants the Stones to disband in order to preserve a legacy they believe is perfect and worship with religious devotion and is being diluted less of a fan than one who is willing to see the band trudge on and become a nostalgic act with diminishing skills?
Is a fan who discovered the band with ABB and supports them whole heartedly and goes to every show on a tour more of a fan than someone who discovered them with Aftermath and only sees a show once every ten years?
Of course I'm just playing devils advocate here and throwing out some plausible fan scenerios which make light of the definition of a fan. The bottom line is that it is a more complex issue than just whether someone supports the current band. It's easy to say that someone who knows the most about the band and continues to support them no matter what is a bigger fan than someone who knows less and doesn't but there are many possibilities of strong love and devotion which don't conform to that narrow definition. It's like trying to define who loves the most, who really knows what's in a heart other than our own?
Yeah I'm just messing with you my friend. Does that mean you've got to love Chuck and Lisa too? Ha!
I guess you could be a true passionate fan of the Stones because you are disappointed in them for 40 years, and not the other way around
Just because you think they are a shadow of what they once were does not make you a non fan
Personally i still love them playing live but find 5 or 6 songs on the set list unbearable because i'm done with them
I also don't hold out any hope of a decent album if it happens
She's Still The Boss
But i'm still a fan
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-17 20:44 by keefriffhards.
Of course they are. Why wouldnt you be a fan if you like their best work?
I have been listening to exile on Main Street for about 35 years now and I can't say I've ever felt tired of it. I can't say that about some girls or sticky fingers where I might let them be fire a while. Put on the first song of any of those 4 EOMS sides and I'll insist on hearing the whole side. In guessing most of us on here have at least one album like that.
That album is BB for me. Can't get enough of it.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Keith Richards New York Times Article
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 9, 2015 11:36
Quote
Redhotcarpet
Why Keith, why.
Probably because he was asked..
Re: Keith Richards New York Times Article
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 10, 2015 12:46
Quote
latebloomerQuote
Naturalust
I find it ironic that Keith and Croz have become just the sort of judgmental old guard that they once rebelled against. Give it another 4o years and the hip hop and rap artists of today will be railing against the new music of the day.
But this isn't really news, while the Sabbath and Metallica comment is new and a bit strange, both Croz and Keith and many other artists of their generation have been dissing rap for a long time.
Dang, away for a few days and I miss the Norwegian language lesson. Can you give me a summary in English, Dandy?
As for Keith and the rap comment...meh. It's his opinion and at least he isn't afraid to give it. The term rap is like the term rock and roll, hard to define. It can be a blend of various genres of music, from soul to hip hop, to funk, and so on. Some of it I like, some of it not. But I agree with Keith about the lack of musicality of hard core rap.
Found this on Facebook this morning and it gave me a laugh. Happy Labor Day, everyone!
I know I should have, latebloomer. Meanwhile, I did a translation of a norwegian CH review HERE, at least
Re: Keith Richards New York Times Article
Posted by:
latebloomer
()
Date: September 11, 2015 01:27
I know I should have, latebloomer. Meanwhile, I did a translation of a norwegian CH review HERE, at least
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction, DP. So many Keith threads, so little time...here's a great pic of Keith, for your trouble. It's probably already somewhere else here, but here it is again, just because it's so beautiful.
By Craig McDean for Le Monde.
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction, DP. So many Keith threads, so little time...here's a great pic of Keith, for your trouble. It's probably already somewhere else here, but here it is again, just because it's so beautiful.
By Craig McDean for Le Monde.
Re: Keith Richards New York Times Article
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: September 11, 2015 01:57
Quote
Doxa
Oh shit. I wish I had not raed this crap... Pathetic old man. Cheap PR trash.
But the record is good...
- Doxa
Why is Keith a pathetic old man for disliking heavy metal and rap lol
Re: Keith Richards New York Times Article
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: September 16, 2015 14:28
I know a few youngsters who also do not like heavy metal and rap. So maybe its not a question of old age
I´ve also heard that there are some people out there, who dont like the Rolling Stones. But I can hardly believe that.
I´ve also heard that there are some people out there, who dont like the Rolling Stones. But I can hardly believe that.
Re: Keith Richards New York Times Article
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 16, 2015 14:42
Quote
HMS
I know a few youngsters who also do not like heavy metal and rap. So maybe its not a question of old age
I´ve also heard that there are some people out there, who dont like the Rolling Stones. But I can hardly believe that.
Even in here!
Re: Keith Richards New York Times Article
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: September 16, 2015 15:03
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
HMS
I know a few youngsters who also do not like heavy metal and rap. So maybe its not a question of old age
I´ve also heard that there are some people out there, who dont like the Rolling Stones. But I can hardly believe that.
Even in here!
Pretty sure everyone here likes at least one era of the Stones otherwise why would they post on a Stones fan site? But there is a contingent of fans here who isn't particularly fond of the current stuff. Still fans of the Stones of course. Bound to happen with a band who's been around 50+ years and has gone through a pretty significant musical evolution.
Re: Keith Richards New York Times Article
Posted by:
Maindefender
()
Date: September 16, 2015 15:05
Quote
keefriffhardsQuote
Doxa
Oh shit. I wish I had not raed this crap... Pathetic old man. Cheap PR trash.
But the record is good...
- Doxa
Why is Keith a pathetic old man for disliking heavy metal and rap lol
I have a feeling Keith disliked heavy metal and rap when he was a pathetic young man also…haha
Re: Keith Richards New York Times Article
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 16, 2015 15:09
Quote
NaturalustQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
HMS
I know a few youngsters who also do not like heavy metal and rap. So maybe its not a question of old age
I´ve also heard that there are some people out there, who dont like the Rolling Stones. But I can hardly believe that.
Even in here!
Pretty sure everyone here likes at least one era of the Stones otherwise why would they post on a Stones fan site? But there is a contingent of fans here who isn't particularly fond of the current stuff. Still fans of the Stones of course. Bound to happen with a band who's been around 50+ years and has gone through a pretty significant musical evolution.
There are posters here who would prefer Mick going for a solo career (even today), and rather see the Stones call it quits.
There are also posters here who love other individual band members more than the band itself.
Nothing wrong with that, imo, but are they really Rolling Stones fans anymore?
Re: Keith Richards New York Times Article
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 16, 2015 15:10
Quote
MaindefenderQuote
keefriffhardsQuote
Doxa
Oh shit. I wish I had not raed this crap... Pathetic old man. Cheap PR trash.
But the record is good...
- Doxa
Why is Keith a pathetic old man for disliking heavy metal and rap lol
I have a feeling Keith disliked heavy metal and rap when he was a SYMpathetic young man also…haha
Re: Keith Richards New York Times Article
Posted by:
Maindefender
()
Date: September 16, 2015 15:58
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
MaindefenderQuote
keefriffhardsQuote
Doxa
Oh shit. I wish I had not raed this crap... Pathetic old man. Cheap PR trash.
But the record is good...
- Doxa
Why is Keith a pathetic old man for disliking heavy metal and rap lol
I have a feeling Keith disliked heavy metal and rap when he was a SYMPHONIC young man also…haha
Re: Keith Richards New York Times Article
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: September 16, 2015 16:02
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
NaturalustQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
HMS
I know a few youngsters who also do not like heavy metal and rap. So maybe its not a question of old age
I´ve also heard that there are some people out there, who dont like the Rolling Stones. But I can hardly believe that.
Even in here!
Pretty sure everyone here likes at least one era of the Stones otherwise why would they post on a Stones fan site? But there is a contingent of fans here who isn't particularly fond of the current stuff. Still fans of the Stones of course. Bound to happen with a band who's been around 50+ years and has gone through a pretty significant musical evolution.
There are posters here who would prefer Mick going for a solo career (even today), and rather see the Stones call it quits.
There are also posters here who love other individual band members more than the band itself.
Nothing wrong with that, imo, but are they really Rolling Stones fans anymore?
i think so, yes.
Re: Keith Richards New York Times Article
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: September 16, 2015 21:53
Quote
Turner68Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
NaturalustQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
HMS
I know a few youngsters who also do not like heavy metal and rap. So maybe its not a question of old age
I´ve also heard that there are some people out there, who dont like the Rolling Stones. But I can hardly believe that.
Even in here!
Pretty sure everyone here likes at least one era of the Stones otherwise why would they post on a Stones fan site? But there is a contingent of fans here who isn't particularly fond of the current stuff. Still fans of the Stones of course. Bound to happen with a band who's been around 50+ years and has gone through a pretty significant musical evolution.
There are posters here who would prefer Mick going for a solo career (even today), and rather see the Stones call it quits.
There are also posters here who love other individual band members more than the band itself.
Nothing wrong with that, imo, but are they really Rolling Stones fans anymore?
i think so, yes.
Of course they are still Rolling Stones fans. Are you still a Faces fan even though Ronnie has been with the Stones for 40 years and all the Faces members have done other projects because you wanted Ronnie to leave the Faces? Being a Rolling Stones fan doesn't mean you have to like the current band, their current concerts or any specific piece of music they have done, imo. Are you suggesting that people like kleermaker who is singularly devoted to the Taylor era of the Stones, has had his video included on an official Stones site and has an amazing YouTube channel with tons of Stones content is not really a Rolling Stones fan because he doesn't like the current band?
Is someone any less of a Stones fan because they hate every Stones record after TY and love Mick's solo work, or hate all Keith's solo work? I think the whole fan hierarchy and judgement of what makes a Stones fan is a load of bullocks and if someone is willing to consider themselves a fan because they have one Stones record and love it, that's good enough for me.
Re: Keith Richards New York Times Article
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 16, 2015 22:23
Of course you are less of a fan if you only like five out of 53 years of the band's work. That goes without saying.
Wanting your favourite band to disban is a weird form of fanship, imo.
Wanting your favourite band to disban is a weird form of fanship, imo.
Re: Keith Richards New York Times Article
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: September 16, 2015 23:28
when i think of the word "fanatic" (which fan is an abbreviation for) i think of "obsessed"
i think most people on here who criticize various aspects of the stones are still certifiably obsessed with the band.
also, measuring duration is tough to do. someone - a casual fan, let's say - might "know" and "like" the stones from Tell Me through to Gloom and Doom and yet never have listened to EOMS all the way and not own any albums other than hot rocks and GRR. Compare such a person to someone who has, say, every known recording of the 1973 tour and knows them all in great detail, i think it is pretty clear who is the more "fanatical" even if the latter person don't like gloom and doom and don't stop.
i think most people on here who criticize various aspects of the stones are still certifiably obsessed with the band.
also, measuring duration is tough to do. someone - a casual fan, let's say - might "know" and "like" the stones from Tell Me through to Gloom and Doom and yet never have listened to EOMS all the way and not own any albums other than hot rocks and GRR. Compare such a person to someone who has, say, every known recording of the 1973 tour and knows them all in great detail, i think it is pretty clear who is the more "fanatical" even if the latter person don't like gloom and doom and don't stop.
Re: Keith Richards New York Times Article
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 16, 2015 23:47
I think degree of support is a better indication of fanship.
When you're boycotting a band's concerts for 40 years simply because you don't like the band anymore, you're showing a less degree of support for your so called favourite band.
You don't have to like everything the band does, of course, but you're less of a fan because you're not really supporting it
When you're boycotting a band's concerts for 40 years simply because you don't like the band anymore, you're showing a less degree of support for your so called favourite band.
You don't have to like everything the band does, of course, but you're less of a fan because you're not really supporting it
Re: Keith Richards New York Times Article
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: September 17, 2015 17:30
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
MaindefenderQuote
keefriffhardsQuote
Doxa
Oh shit. I wish I had not raed this crap... Pathetic old man. Cheap PR trash.
But the record is good...
- Doxa
Why is Keith a pathetic old man for disliking heavy metal and rap lol
I have a feeling Keith disliked heavy metal and rap when he was a SYMpathetic young man also…haha
Im 50 now, and i never liked metal or rap when i was a teenager and i never liked the 80's music when i was a teenager and in my early 20's
It has nothing to do with age
I hated shit 80's music then and i hate shit music of today now
What's age got to do with it
People just like what they like
A 15 year old girl may like the latest chart music because she knows nothing else
But when i was 15 i was influenced by all my dads music plus most young people back then still heard a lot of Zep, Floyd, Clapton, etc
Its different today young people get sucked into pop idol etc
I feel sorry for them lol
Re: Keith Richards New York Times Article
Posted by:
LongBeachArena72
()
Date: September 17, 2015 18:01
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I think degree of support is a better indication of fanship.
When you're boycotting a band's concerts for 40 years simply because you don't like the band anymore, you're showing a less degree of support for your so called favourite band.
You don't have to like everything the band does, of course, but you're less of a fan because you're not really supporting it
Who, ultimately, gives a shit?
You're a fan, an admirer, an interested listener, whatever. For me, The Stones are 1963-1972 and they haven't made a great record since EOMS. But I've listened to other eras and like things here and there. I'm not interested in "supporting" the band; they can get along just fine w/o me! They're a fascinating band with a fascinating history and it is possible, through discussions of The Stones, to also look at larger cultural and musical trends. I can no longer listen to them live and am skeptical about any future studio records, so there you have it.
Am I a "fan"? Do I "support" the band? By most measures, no. But I am interested in aspects of their career and still get a lot of joy from the music they've produced.
(I also like Godard but his stuff since the 70's is pretty rough going, too. Same with Thos Pynchon. I don't think I'm a "fan" of theirs, either, but believe they made significant contributions to their respective arts, contributions that are well worth discussing today, even in the absence of any quality late-career work.)
Re: Keith Richards New York Times Article
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 17, 2015 18:35
<Who, ultimately, gives a shit?>
You, obviously
But I don't see any disagreement between us. That's good.
You, obviously
But I don't see any disagreement between us. That's good.
Re: Keith Richards New York Times Article
Posted by:
LongBeachArena72
()
Date: September 17, 2015 19:10
Quote
DandelionPowderman
<Who, ultimately, gives a shit?>
You, obviously
But I don't see any disagreement between us. That's good.
Just to be clear: I do care about the work the band have produced. I do NOT care whether someone is sufficiently a "fan" or not.
Re: Keith Richards New York Times Article
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: September 17, 2015 19:22
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Of course you are less of a fan if you only like five out of 53 years of the band's work. That goes without saying.
Wanting your favourite band to disban is a weird form of fanship, imo.
Well as long as they are the right 5 years I'm not so sure. LOL
As Turner points out, someone can be over the top obsessed with a certain era of the Stones and be more fanatical than someone who goes a show every tour and likes all 53 years of Stones music.
Is a fan who daily lusts after Mick alone but can't be bothered to learn the names of any Stones songs any less of a fan than a Keith freak who learns all of Keith's licks note for note and can name the catalog, session dates and guitars Keith used on every tour?
Is a fan who wants the Stones to disband in order to preserve a legacy they believe is perfect and worship with religious devotion and is being diluted less of a fan than one who is willing to see the band trudge on and become a nostalgic act with diminishing skills?
Is a fan who discovered the band with ABB and supports them whole heartedly and goes to every show on a tour more of a fan than someone who discovered them with Aftermath and only sees a show once every ten years?
Of course I'm just playing devils advocate here and throwing out some plausible fan scenerios which make light of the definition of a fan. The bottom line is that it is a more complex issue than just whether someone supports the current band. It's easy to say that someone who knows the most about the band and continues to support them no matter what is a bigger fan than someone who knows less and doesn't but there are many possibilities of strong love and devotion which don't conform to that narrow definition. It's like trying to define who loves the most, who really knows what's in a heart other than our own?
Re: Keith Richards New York Times Article
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 17, 2015 19:57
LOL! This is a storm in a teacup
We all know what a fan is. Rule #1: You gotta love the band.
We all know what a fan is. Rule #1: You gotta love the band.
Re: Keith Richards New York Times Article
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: September 17, 2015 20:10
Quote
DandelionPowderman
LOL! This is a storm in a teacup
We all know what a fan is. Rule #1: You gotta love the band.
Yeah I'm just messing with you my friend. Does that mean you've got to love Chuck and Lisa too? Ha!Re: Keith Richards New York Times Article
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: September 17, 2015 20:42
Quote
NaturalustQuote
DandelionPowderman
Of course you are less of a fan if you only like five out of 53 years of the band's work. That goes without saying.
Wanting your favourite band to disban is a weird form of fanship, imo.
Well as long as they are the right 5 years I'm not so sure. LOL
As Turner points out, someone can be over the top obsessed with a certain era of the Stones and be more fanatical than someone who goes a show every tour and likes all 53 years of Stones music.
Is a fan who daily lusts after Mick alone but can't be bothered to learn the names of any Stones songs any less of a fan than a Keith freak who learns all of Keith's licks note for note and can name the catalog, session dates and guitars Keith used on every tour?
Is a fan who wants the Stones to disband in order to preserve a legacy they believe is perfect and worship with religious devotion and is being diluted less of a fan than one who is willing to see the band trudge on and become a nostalgic act with diminishing skills?
Is a fan who discovered the band with ABB and supports them whole heartedly and goes to every show on a tour more of a fan than someone who discovered them with Aftermath and only sees a show once every ten years?
Of course I'm just playing devils advocate here and throwing out some plausible fan scenerios which make light of the definition of a fan. The bottom line is that it is a more complex issue than just whether someone supports the current band. It's easy to say that someone who knows the most about the band and continues to support them no matter what is a bigger fan than someone who knows less and doesn't but there are many possibilities of strong love and devotion which don't conform to that narrow definition. It's like trying to define who loves the most, who really knows what's in a heart other than our own?
I guess you could be a true passionate fan of the Stones because you are disappointed in them for 40 years, and not the other way around
Just because you think they are a shadow of what they once were does not make you a non fan
Personally i still love them playing live but find 5 or 6 songs on the set list unbearable because i'm done with them
I also don't hold out any hope of a decent album if it happens
She's Still The Boss
But i'm still a fan
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-17 20:44 by keefriffhards.
Re: Keith Richards New York Times Article
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 17, 2015 20:50
Quote
NaturalustQuote
DandelionPowderman
LOL! This is a storm in a teacup
We all know what a fan is. Rule #1: You gotta love the band.
Re: Keith Richards New York Times Article
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: September 17, 2015 21:48
i've said this many times-the rolling stones are the last band standing so they gather alot of old rock fans that the stones are maybe their 5th favorite band-their favorite group imploded years ago and now we're stuck with them.
you'd probably get less flak for attacking mick jagger on a stones fansite today than for attacking lennon or mccartney,or less flak for attacking keith than bob dylan.it's been that way for a long time now.
the reason keith said rap and metallica and black sabbath suck is because it's a bunch of mindless drivel for idiots to listen to that don't know any better.i can't see how stating the obvious makes someone "pathetic".
"a dull thud" is so perfect,i wish i would've thought of that,i'm stealing it.
keiths not alone in this by the way-years ago i remember jimmy page talking about how much he hated the term "heavy metal" being used to describe zep.he openly mocked black sabbath and deep purple and said him and the other guys in the band called that sort of sound "deep sabbath"
90% of rock and roll fans are older and try to act as if rap is actually good to impress their kids and grandkids because old rockers hate looking out of touch.it's good to see someone like keith come out and point to the elephant in the room-a moron with a 3rd grade education reciting a nursery rhyme over a bass guitar isn't music.
you'd probably get less flak for attacking mick jagger on a stones fansite today than for attacking lennon or mccartney,or less flak for attacking keith than bob dylan.it's been that way for a long time now.
the reason keith said rap and metallica and black sabbath suck is because it's a bunch of mindless drivel for idiots to listen to that don't know any better.i can't see how stating the obvious makes someone "pathetic".
"a dull thud" is so perfect,i wish i would've thought of that,i'm stealing it.
keiths not alone in this by the way-years ago i remember jimmy page talking about how much he hated the term "heavy metal" being used to describe zep.he openly mocked black sabbath and deep purple and said him and the other guys in the band called that sort of sound "deep sabbath"
90% of rock and roll fans are older and try to act as if rap is actually good to impress their kids and grandkids because old rockers hate looking out of touch.it's good to see someone like keith come out and point to the elephant in the room-a moron with a 3rd grade education reciting a nursery rhyme over a bass guitar isn't music.
Re: Keith Richards New York Times Article
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: September 19, 2015 13:09
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
NaturalustQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
HMS
I know a few youngsters who also do not like heavy metal and rap. So maybe its not a question of old age
I´ve also heard that there are some people out there, who dont like the Rolling Stones. But I can hardly believe that.
Even in here!
Pretty sure everyone here likes at least one era of the Stones otherwise why would they post on a Stones fan site? But there is a contingent of fans here who isn't particularly fond of the current stuff. Still fans of the Stones of course. Bound to happen with a band who's been around 50+ years and has gone through a pretty significant musical evolution.
There are posters here who would prefer Mick going for a solo career (even today), and rather see the Stones call it quits.
There are also posters here who love other individual band members more than the band itself.
Nothing wrong with that, imo, but are they really Rolling Stones fans anymore?
Of course they are. Why wouldnt you be a fan if you like their best work?
Re: Keith Richards New York Times Article
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 19, 2015 18:58
Many seem tired of that era as well..
Re: Keith Richards New York Times Article
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: September 19, 2015 19:19
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Many seem tired of that era as well..
I have been listening to exile on Main Street for about 35 years now and I can't say I've ever felt tired of it. I can't say that about some girls or sticky fingers where I might let them be fire a while. Put on the first song of any of those 4 EOMS sides and I'll insist on hearing the whole side. In guessing most of us on here have at least one album like that.
Re: Keith Richards New York Times Article
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 19, 2015 19:27
Quote
Turner68Quote
DandelionPowderman
Many seem tired of that era as well..
I have been listening to exile on Main Street for about 35 years now and I can't say I've ever felt tired of it. I can't say that about some girls or sticky fingers where I might let them be fire a while. Put on the first song of any of those 4 EOMS sides and I'll insist on hearing the whole side. In guessing most of us on here have at least one album like that.
That album is BB for me. Can't get enough of it.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Doxa , Erhard51 , falo01 , GJB , hockenheim95 , Jimmy.Ostrich , MonkeyMan2000 , NedKellyBandit , straycatuk , syrel , teleblaster
Guests:
1893
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10