Tell Me :
Talk
How can one not appreciate BITM?????
Oh wait a minute it's just Keith copying Keith by numbers as opposed to actually being Keith Richards. How dare he be himself.....
True. You're absolutely right.
I try to distance myself as much as I can from the ridiculous "you only like Keith because you like Keith" discussion, and I actually love Crosseyed Heart, but Blues In The Morning just doesn't work for me. I didn't like Could Have Stood You Up either for that matter.
But oh well, one day I'll try dancing on it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-17 18:40 by matxil.
I insist - GREAT musicians.
C
Agree with all above, what we sometimes forget is that an average Stones album or Gig is still better than most of the competition out there. 
Yes this might be true, but a big part of the 'blame' for this rests on the shoulders of Don Was and certain band members themselves. When you have quotes from interviews circulating that they 'hit the wall' (I've kind of grown fond of that term), and Ronnie saying something along the lines of 'we might scrap them all, and start from scratch', what other conclusion can be made regarding the '40 Mick demos'? After they 'hit the wall', they recorded a bunch of blues covers in two or three days, and released them as an album. It was the easy road to take with no fussing and fighting over who wrote what - just spit out/regurgitate some blues tunes played rehearsal style, and there you have it. As for what is going to happen next is anyone's guess. How can we be sure that the '40 Mick demos' are even going to be part of the picture anymore? Did they scrap them all? Were they really as bad as the band/Was made them out to be? Are they starting from scratch? Will there be another Blue and Lonesome covers album? I have a feeling, or a hope, that there might be something worthy coming next. Might be unrealistic to think so after so many years (30+) of mediocre Stones albums*, but one can only hope for the positive against all odds at this point.
*edit- excluding Blue and Lonesome which is a decent album of blues covers, but it's difficult to consider it a true 'Stones' album when it's nothing but covers. Like Dylan's Sinatra/oldies covers, or Rod Stewart's American songbook (or whatever he called them) - might be pleasant for some to listen to, but I doubt they will be remembered or hailed in the same way as their original albums will be.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-17 19:38 by Hairball.
Again, people are changing history ... it was NOT considered sterile or safe when announced, go back to the web board at that time for proof, just on here alone.
It was a huge risk and paid off huge dividends. Other bands have tried similar and failed miserably. Aerosmith did something similar about 10 years ago and no one even knows what it was called anymore ... and I recall some pretty bad reviews on it at the time.
The Stones hit it out of the park!
I mean the resulting sound is sterile and safe. What's the point when the originals are far better?
The Stones releasing an album of blues covers was absolutely not a huge risk. It was actually a pretty lazy decision. They had nothing to lose whatsoever by doing it.
Are they really? You spend all day listening to those? ... again, to do an album of covers is a huge risk -- people may not like them (as evidenced by yourself), they may not be done well, there may be little interest, it hasn't been something they've attempted in about 55 years. Safe? ... hardly.
Spot on Keefgotsoul
Well Doxa admits he is grumpy but more so his redundant and overblown critiques of Keith show a bias that seems personal, and i guess he uses this board to try to convince himself he is right.Nice try. I like the writing style but the content is all his problem.
Nobody can explain it better:
[www.youtube.com]
C
fact
fakt/Submit
noun
a thing that is indisputably the case.
"the most commonly known fact about hedgehogs is that they have fleas"
synonyms: reality, actuality, certainty; More
a very subjective thing when you use 'fact' with such authority; especially in lieu of very many 'facts' stated to the contrary here about most of your list.
facts should be triple sourced and researched w due diligence and even on theis casual fan boards the fact is that many have an entirely different scope on this than you personally; fact is everybody has an opinion based on their own experiences and own itellectul absorbtion of sources inside of themseles, and outside of thesmselve with others who may agrree; it's not factual it's opinion and passion which i appreciate; but it's not a 'fact' in the world wide beyond your opinion....doncha think? and tha't i thinkit is fair to desginate as 'factual.'
Historical revisionism to a large degree here. Technical shortcomings during their heyday? For every Marquee, there's a Roundhouse. For every "awkward" 1973 show (which one, by the way), there's a Brussels or Wembley. It isn't about simple or complex chord changes or technically perfect singing like operas - Stones music was always about the magic they were able to create which roots in true artistic inspiration. In moments when they were not inspired, you could hear it. Nowadays it's a more streamlined affair with an extended live band, true professionals added to the core band, technically perfect but ultimately faceless.
I get the feeling that you intend to get a "better perspective" of the modern Stones by lowering the strenghts of the band in their heyday. Nice try, but in the end all what counts is if one feels the same magic by listening to the current band compared to the one back then in their glory years.
My point is that they got away with almost anything - for a long time. They still do... Hence Doxa's Keith criticism is kind of moot.
Auckland springs to mind (1973).
I also got a similar impression that our Dandie is trying here a bit of historical revisionism. Or relativism. The question of technical or formal perfection has nothing to do with artistic inspiration. One can be as sloppy or simple as hell but still sound damn inspired. The greatness of The Stones has always been making damn exciting noise from technically simple, raw elements (be it songs, musicians, etc.), and in that sense they belong to the rank of their own in rock and roll. Actually that is the 'danger' the Stones have: since they don't have superior technical skills under which to hide in a bad day, they are pretty naked in trusting on their inspiration. You don't need to be Mozart to write "Satisfaction" or "Start Me Up", but still we need Mick and Keith and a hot band to do that convincingly.. (it needs be noted that as a live act the Stones have a long time ago hided this 'danger' element very well under their professionalism - a good case for "Keithettes" to cry out 'Mick this, and Mick that' for their Vegas incarnation).
However, as far as artistic creativity goes, it is the results not the means that matter.I hear a clear drop in quality of song-writing if the best a guy who once wrote "Sympathy For The Devil" or "Brown Sugar" can offer is stuff like "Streets of Love" or "Doom & Gloom" or 'pick any song in GODDESS'. Or if one once wrote "Ruby Tuesday" or "Gimme Shelter" is now coming up with stuff like "This Place Is Empty" or "One More Shot" or 'pick any song in CROSSEYED HEART'. I find this a trival observation, and I will find it absurd to claim otherwise (forget all the age cards and whatever excuses, let's be objective here, people, no matter 'cruel' it is).
It could be that mr. Richards is a victim of his own habits. He trusts on intuition and never 'forces' creativity. What once was so easy and natural for him, and he never needed - as a free, artistic soul - to work hard to create songs; they just dropped up. The antennas were out and worked mighty fine. Like in Booth's book Jagger commented during 1969 American Tour that he had a several new songs and Keith "must have hundreds". Compare that Richards to the one just interviewed being frustrated by "profilic" Jagger having forty songs in comparison to his three "dynamite" riff-ideas. Something has changed...I think it was one of the most striking things in recent Stones history in regards to Jagger/Richards soap opera, when Mick mentioned in his non-published mid-80's autobiography that despite him needing to cover Keith's ass or so, he thinks that Keith is "genious" and the world should have more people like him. I think that is revealing as hell, and also a kind of sad. Probably that creative genious Jagger once knew does not exist any longer. And Jagger probably knows that better than anyone. Talk is cheap indeed, people.
In that talk of same "signature sound" or "method" I can see the intended similarity between making of epic and legendary (in many ways) EXILE ON MAIN STREET and CROSSEYED HEART. In both cases they 'get away with it'. Probably here we are throwing words like "lazy" and "non-disciplinary" to describe the creative method. I think there is literally difference between night and day. If EXILE is a tireless, dedicated labor of endless nights the young and virile people putting there everything they know and even more, CROSSEYED HEART is a lazy Sunday afternoon pension project a few pals enjoying together out of the sight of their old ladies. Actually I think EXILE being a sum of all the stars being in a right position, despite all the troubles and pain its creation caused, its surprising success taught them - and especially for Keith - a wrong lesson. That he could 'get away with' it (Jagger's been rather sincere about it; that they got it somehow together, was a wonder of itself). Just put the band on some premises for as long as time as needed, have enough of good drinks and drugs, jam and wait for the inspiration to come. Suddenly that risky method turned out to be an excuse for lazy, non-focused songs. EXILE was also for the Stones 'once in a life time' experience, a Pyrrho's win, so to say. They never achieved that brilliance again.
To sum my rant up, the method of creative souls like the Stones in their hey-day, making diamonds out of simple, raw elements, can be put like: 'kids, don't try this at home'. Unfortunately that applies to them, as well. I think Mick Jagger has been awere of that for a long time. They really aren't the creative, energetic, inspired, ambitious people with their antennas out as they were in their twenties, making masterpieces in whatever conditions. The romantic, but non-realistic Keith Richards cult, and especially the hero himself in his talks, still wishes to see them in the basement of Nellcote. Probably Keith never left that room.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-18 15:42 by Doxa.
With respect I think you Dandie are missing point made both by retired dog and retired Doxa... We just argued that technical excellence has nothing to do with the creativity or greatness of the Stones. That also and especially applies to their hey-day. So I really don't understand why you are insisting on that point neither of us is arguing for. Is that the technical issue, and knowing how limited the STones are in that sense, is such an important thing for you as a musician?
One just needs to listen the guitar intro and riff track of "Gimme Shelter", probably Keith's biggest creative hour, seperately to hear how technically raw and even sloppy it is, but the result especially in the context of the whole track is nothing but genious and immortal. Me thinks the best guitar track ever recorded.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-18 16:11 by Doxa.
Haha finally Doxa, I agree with every word you said.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
Maindefender
()
Date: March 17, 2017 18:33
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
matxilQuote
Spud
There's too much talkin'...
...and not enough dancin' around here at the moment.
Well, as much as I love Crosseyed Heart, it's not really dance music, is it?
Maybe some slow ballroomdancing on Lover's Plea or Suspicious.
Put on Blues In The Morning..
How can one not appreciate BITM?????
Oh wait a minute it's just Keith copying Keith by numbers as opposed to actually being Keith Richards. How dare he be himself.....Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: March 17, 2017 18:34
Quote
35loveQuote
matxilQuote
Spud
There's too much talkin'...
...and not enough dancin' around here at the moment.
Well, as much as I love Crosseyed Heart, it's not really dance music, is it?
Maybe some slow ballroomdancing on Lover's Plea or Suspicious.
You can rock to it in a chair, old man.
True. You're absolutely right.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
CousinC
()
Date: March 17, 2017 18:38
Well, Liddas,
the first 5 are no FACTS to me.
But you're right with Nr. 6 . .
the first 5 are no FACTS to me.
But you're right with Nr. 6 . .
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: March 17, 2017 18:39
Quote
MaindefenderQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
matxilQuote
Spud
There's too much talkin'...
...and not enough dancin' around here at the moment.
Well, as much as I love Crosseyed Heart, it's not really dance music, is it?
Maybe some slow ballroomdancing on Lover's Plea or Suspicious.
Put on Blues In The Morning..
How can one not appreciate BITM?????
I try to distance myself as much as I can from the ridiculous "you only like Keith because you like Keith" discussion, and I actually love Crosseyed Heart, but Blues In The Morning just doesn't work for me. I didn't like Could Have Stood You Up either for that matter.
But oh well, one day I'll try dancing on it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-17 18:40 by matxil.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: March 17, 2017 18:50
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
liddas
Lets set the record straight.
Crosseyed Heart is a GREAT album - FACT
The Winos are a GREAT band - FACT
Keith Richards is still nowadays one of the GREATEST guitarist/musicians around - FACT
The individual Stones are not only accomplished musicians, they are GREAT MUSICIANS - FACT
Blue and Lonesome is a GREAT album - FACT
There are many GREAT blues albums with no "virtuoso" guitarist - FACT
C
I would rather say effective musicians
I insist - GREAT musicians.
C
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
stone4ever
()
Date: March 17, 2017 18:53
Quote
liddas
Lets set the record straight.
Crosseyed Heart is a GREAT album - FACT
The Winos are a GREAT band - FACT
Keith Richards is still nowadays one of the GREATEST guitarist/musicians around - FACT
The individual Stones are not only accomplished musicians, they are GREAT MUSICIANS - FACT
Blue and Lonesome is a GREAT album - FACT
There are many GREAT blues albums with no "virtuoso" guitarist - FACT
C
Agree with all above, what we sometimes forget is that an average Stones album or Gig is still better than most of the competition out there. Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: March 17, 2017 19:25
Quote
Doxa
the upcoming Stones album is already doomed, since it is based on "40 Mick demos", right? Hardly ever has been an album put down so harshly before anyone has even hear one song of it...
Yes this might be true, but a big part of the 'blame' for this rests on the shoulders of Don Was and certain band members themselves. When you have quotes from interviews circulating that they 'hit the wall' (I've kind of grown fond of that term), and Ronnie saying something along the lines of 'we might scrap them all, and start from scratch', what other conclusion can be made regarding the '40 Mick demos'? After they 'hit the wall', they recorded a bunch of blues covers in two or three days, and released them as an album. It was the easy road to take with no fussing and fighting over who wrote what - just spit out/regurgitate some blues tunes played rehearsal style, and there you have it. As for what is going to happen next is anyone's guess. How can we be sure that the '40 Mick demos' are even going to be part of the picture anymore? Did they scrap them all? Were they really as bad as the band/Was made them out to be? Are they starting from scratch? Will there be another Blue and Lonesome covers album? I have a feeling, or a hope, that there might be something worthy coming next. Might be unrealistic to think so after so many years (30+) of mediocre Stones albums*, but one can only hope for the positive against all odds at this point.
*edit- excluding Blue and Lonesome which is a decent album of blues covers, but it's difficult to consider it a true 'Stones' album when it's nothing but covers. Like Dylan's Sinatra/oldies covers, or Rod Stewart's American songbook (or whatever he called them) - might be pleasant for some to listen to, but I doubt they will be remembered or hailed in the same way as their original albums will be.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-17 19:38 by Hairball.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
keefgotsoul
()
Date: March 17, 2017 20:32
Doxa,
Who hailed CH as the second coming of Exile? I don't see anyone claiming that. It makes your post seem kind of disingenuous to me. Dismissing people as "Keithettes" seems a bit silly too. It's possible to like both CH and B&L, but prefer one over the other; and doing so doesn't make anyone a Keith apologist or a Jagger fanatic.
As others have said, a collection of blues covers is fine. But it's also very sterile and safe. CH at least seems a bit more inspired and has elements of what made The Stones great. It also has a better sound. And that is why I prefer it over the collection of blues covers.
Who hailed CH as the second coming of Exile? I don't see anyone claiming that. It makes your post seem kind of disingenuous to me. Dismissing people as "Keithettes" seems a bit silly too. It's possible to like both CH and B&L, but prefer one over the other; and doing so doesn't make anyone a Keith apologist or a Jagger fanatic.
As others have said, a collection of blues covers is fine. But it's also very sterile and safe. CH at least seems a bit more inspired and has elements of what made The Stones great. It also has a better sound. And that is why I prefer it over the collection of blues covers.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: March 17, 2017 20:40
Quote
keefgotsoul
...
As others have said, a collection of blues covers is fine. But it's also very sterile and safe...
Again, people are changing history ... it was NOT considered sterile or safe when announced, go back to the web board at that time for proof, just on here alone.
It was a huge risk and paid off huge dividends. Other bands have tried similar and failed miserably. Aerosmith did something similar about 10 years ago and no one even knows what it was called anymore ... and I recall some pretty bad reviews on it at the time.
The Stones hit it out of the park!
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
keefgotsoul
()
Date: March 17, 2017 20:45
Quote
LeonidPQuote
keefgotsoul
...
As others have said, a collection of blues covers is fine. But it's also very sterile and safe...
Again, people are changing history ... it was NOT considered sterile or safe when announced, go back to the web board at that time for proof, just on here alone.
It was a huge risk and paid off huge dividends. Other bands have tried similar and failed miserably. Aerosmith did something similar about 10 years ago and no one even knows what it was called anymore ... and I recall some pretty bad reviews on it at the time.
The Stones hit it out of the park!
I mean the resulting sound is sterile and safe. What's the point when the originals are far better?
The Stones releasing an album of blues covers was absolutely not a huge risk. It was actually a pretty lazy decision. They had nothing to lose whatsoever by doing it.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: March 17, 2017 21:00
Quote
keefgotsoulQuote
LeonidPQuote
keefgotsoul
...
As others have said, a collection of blues covers is fine. But it's also very sterile and safe...
Again, people are changing history ... it was NOT considered sterile or safe when announced, go back to the web board at that time for proof, just on here alone.
It was a huge risk and paid off huge dividends. Other bands have tried similar and failed miserably. Aerosmith did something similar about 10 years ago and no one even knows what it was called anymore ... and I recall some pretty bad reviews on it at the time.
The Stones hit it out of the park!
I mean the resulting sound is sterile and safe. What's the point when the originals are far better? ...
Are they really? You spend all day listening to those? ... again, to do an album of covers is a huge risk -- people may not like them (as evidenced by yourself), they may not be done well, there may be little interest, it hasn't been something they've attempted in about 55 years. Safe? ... hardly.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
stone4ever
()
Date: March 17, 2017 21:55
Quote
keefgotsoul
Doxa,
Who hailed CH as the second coming of Exile? I don't see anyone claiming that. It makes your post seem kind of disingenuous to me. Dismissing people as "Keithettes" seems a bit silly too. It's possible to like both CH and B&L, but prefer one over the other; and doing so doesn't make anyone a Keith apologist or a Jagger fanatic.
As others have said, a collection of blues covers is fine. But it's also very sterile and safe. CH at least seems a bit more inspired and has elements of what made The Stones great. It also has a better sound. And that is why I prefer it over the collection of blues covers.
Spot on Keefgotsoul
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: March 17, 2017 22:02
Interesting thread, and for me I can't pick one over the other. I love each about equally, and played the hell out of both!
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
MKjan
()
Date: March 17, 2017 22:16
Quote
keefgotsoul
Doxa,
Who hailed CH as the second coming of Exile? I don't see anyone claiming that. It makes your post seem kind of disingenuous to me. Dismissing people as "Keithettes" seems a bit silly too. It's possible to like both CH and B&L, but prefer one over the other; and doing so doesn't make anyone a Keith apologist or a Jagger fanatic.
As others have said, a collection of blues covers is fine. But it's also very sterile and safe. CH at least seems a bit more inspired and has elements of what made The Stones great. It also has a better sound. And that is why I prefer it over the collection of blues covers.
Well Doxa admits he is grumpy but more so his redundant and overblown critiques of Keith show a bias that seems personal, and i guess he uses this board to try to convince himself he is right.Nice try. I like the writing style but the content is all his problem.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: March 17, 2017 22:31
Quote
liddas
Lets set the record straight.
Crosseyed Heart is a GREAT album - FACT
The Winos are a GREAT band - FACT
Keith Richards is still nowadays one of the GREATEST guitarist/musicians around - FACT
The individual Stones are not only accomplished musicians, they are GREAT MUSICIANS - FACT
Blue and Lonesome is a GREAT album - FACT
There are many GREAT blues albums with no "virtuoso" guitarist - FACT
C
Nobody can explain it better:
[www.youtube.com]
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: March 17, 2017 22:52
Quote
TheflyingDutchmanNobody can explain it better:Quote
liddas
Lets set the record straight.
Crosseyed Heart is a GREAT album - FACT
The Winos are a GREAT band - FACT
Keith Richards is still nowadays one of the GREATEST guitarist/musicians around - FACT
The individual Stones are not only accomplished musicians, they are GREAT MUSICIANS - FACT
Blue and Lonesome is a GREAT album - FACT
There are many GREAT blues albums with no "virtuoso" guitarist - FACT
C
[www.youtube.com]
C
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
Moonshine
()
Date: March 17, 2017 23:19
One of the best threads on here.
B&L is great fun with 4 tracks that I really love.
CH I still find interesting and played it through today with no desire to skip anything. Yeah I've always loved Keith but try and listen objectively. I've played it to non fans and they love it. TIC was the album that started it all for me and it's only a notch below that classic.
B&L is great fun with 4 tracks that I really love.
CH I still find interesting and played it through today with no desire to skip anything. Yeah I've always loved Keith but try and listen objectively. I've played it to non fans and they love it. TIC was the album that started it all for me and it's only a notch below that classic.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
hopkins
()
Date: March 17, 2017 23:57
Quote
liddasQuote
TheflyingDutchmanNobody can explain it better:Quote
liddas
Lets set the record straight.
Crosseyed Heart is a GREAT album - FACT
The Winos are a GREAT band - FACT
Keith Richards is still nowadays one of the GREATEST guitarist/musicians around - FACT
The individual Stones are not only accomplished musicians, they are GREAT MUSICIANS - FACT
Blue and Lonesome is a GREAT album - FACT
There are many GREAT blues albums with no "virtuoso" guitarist - FACT
C
[www.youtube.com]
C
fact
fakt/Submit
noun
a thing that is indisputably the case.
"the most commonly known fact about hedgehogs is that they have fleas"
synonyms: reality, actuality, certainty; More
a very subjective thing when you use 'fact' with such authority; especially in lieu of very many 'facts' stated to the contrary here about most of your list.
facts should be triple sourced and researched w due diligence and even on theis casual fan boards the fact is that many have an entirely different scope on this than you personally; fact is everybody has an opinion based on their own experiences and own itellectul absorbtion of sources inside of themseles, and outside of thesmselve with others who may agrree; it's not factual it's opinion and passion which i appreciate; but it's not a 'fact' in the world wide beyond your opinion....doncha think? and tha't i thinkit is fair to desginate as 'factual.'
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
stone4ever
()
Date: March 18, 2017 11:25
Quote
MKjanQuote
keefgotsoul
Doxa,
Who hailed CH as the second coming of Exile? I don't see anyone claiming that. It makes your post seem kind of disingenuous to me. Dismissing people as "Keithettes" seems a bit silly too. It's possible to like both CH and B&L, but prefer one over the other; and doing so doesn't make anyone a Keith apologist or a Jagger fanatic.
As others have said, a collection of blues covers is fine. But it's also very sterile and safe. CH at least seems a bit more inspired and has elements of what made The Stones great. It also has a better sound. And that is why I prefer it over the collection of blues covers.
Well Doxa admits he is grumpy but more so his redundant and overblown critiques of Keith show a bias that seems personal, and i guess he uses this board to try to convince himself he is right.Nice try. I like the writing style but the content is all his problem.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: March 18, 2017 11:34
Haha no the content is just fine.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: March 18, 2017 11:56
Quote
DandelionPowderman
While I don't disagree 100% with your points, I think you are overrating/overestimating the Stones (and Keith) in what many consider their heyday. They have always (at least since 1967) gotten away with laziness, simple and less accomplished musicianship, a ramshackle sound and a vocalist / two vocalists who never really sing.
Isn't their style, as described above, also a vital part of their signature sound? Isn't that why we get a good feeling in our gut when we hear nothing but a simple chord from Keith, or when Mick just starts humming? Not to mention Charlie's oversimple, slightly off-timed drumrolls?
I was listening to Live At The Marquee the other day. The band sounds like amateurs most of the time. Still, I love the songs and the sounds they are making - and that show is no exception. You can hear this sound, and their shortcomings no matter which tour you put on. 1972 might be an exception, though, as they managed to streamline their performance somehow on that tour (don't ask me how). By 1973 it was different again. Sometimes excellent, sometimes awkward.
I'd uphold that the things you claim Keith gets away with too easily, actually go for all the members in the Stones. They are not very accomplished musicians on their own. None of them are/were.
That doesn't mean that they haven't managed to make some good solo albums. And it took some balls to make an album like Keith did - as stripped-down and naked as it was. Some like it, some don't. It's no big deal. It's not like he robbed you blind or something?
Historical revisionism to a large degree here. Technical shortcomings during their heyday? For every Marquee, there's a Roundhouse. For every "awkward" 1973 show (which one, by the way), there's a Brussels or Wembley. It isn't about simple or complex chord changes or technically perfect singing like operas - Stones music was always about the magic they were able to create which roots in true artistic inspiration. In moments when they were not inspired, you could hear it. Nowadays it's a more streamlined affair with an extended live band, true professionals added to the core band, technically perfect but ultimately faceless.
I get the feeling that you intend to get a "better perspective" of the modern Stones by lowering the strenghts of the band in their heyday. Nice try, but in the end all what counts is if one feels the same magic by listening to the current band compared to the one back then in their glory years.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 18, 2017 12:31
Quote
retired_dogQuote
DandelionPowderman
While I don't disagree 100% with your points, I think you are overrating/overestimating the Stones (and Keith) in what many consider their heyday. They have always (at least since 1967) gotten away with laziness, simple and less accomplished musicianship, a ramshackle sound and a vocalist / two vocalists who never really sing.
Isn't their style, as described above, also a vital part of their signature sound? Isn't that why we get a good feeling in our gut when we hear nothing but a simple chord from Keith, or when Mick just starts humming? Not to mention Charlie's oversimple, slightly off-timed drumrolls?
I was listening to Live At The Marquee the other day. The band sounds like amateurs most of the time. Still, I love the songs and the sounds they are making - and that show is no exception. You can hear this sound, and their shortcomings no matter which tour you put on. 1972 might be an exception, though, as they managed to streamline their performance somehow on that tour (don't ask me how). By 1973 it was different again. Sometimes excellent, sometimes awkward.
I'd uphold that the things you claim Keith gets away with too easily, actually go for all the members in the Stones. They are not very accomplished musicians on their own. None of them are/were.
That doesn't mean that they haven't managed to make some good solo albums. And it took some balls to make an album like Keith did - as stripped-down and naked as it was. Some like it, some don't. It's no big deal. It's not like he robbed you blind or something?
Historical revisionism to a large degree here. Technical shortcomings during their heyday? For every Marquee, there's a Roundhouse. For every "awkward" 1973 show (which one, by the way), there's a Brussels or Wembley. It isn't about simple or complex chord changes or technically perfect singing like operas - Stones music was always about the magic they were able to create which roots in true artistic inspiration. In moments when they were not inspired, you could hear it. Nowadays it's a more streamlined affair with an extended live band, true professionals added to the core band, technically perfect but ultimately faceless.
I get the feeling that you intend to get a "better perspective" of the modern Stones by lowering the strenghts of the band in their heyday. Nice try, but in the end all what counts is if one feels the same magic by listening to the current band compared to the one back then in their glory years.
My point is that they got away with almost anything - for a long time. They still do... Hence Doxa's Keith criticism is kind of moot.
Auckland springs to mind (1973).
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: March 18, 2017 14:27
Quote
MKjanQuote
keefgotsoul
Doxa,
Who hailed CH as the second coming of Exile? I don't see anyone claiming that. It makes your post seem kind of disingenuous to me. Dismissing people as "Keithettes" seems a bit silly too. It's possible to like both CH and B&L, but prefer one over the other; and doing so doesn't make anyone a Keith apologist or a Jagger fanatic.
As others have said, a collection of blues covers is fine. But it's also very sterile and safe. CH at least seems a bit more inspired and has elements of what made The Stones great. It also has a better sound. And that is why I prefer it over the collection of blues covers.
Well Doxa admits he is grumpy but more so his redundant and overblown critiques of Keith show a bias that seems personal, and i guess he uses this board to try to convince himself he is right.Nice try. I like the writing style but the content is all his problem.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
hopkins
()
Date: March 18, 2017 14:37
in regard to dandy's post relegating Doxa's comments 'moot' :
at first it struck me as a tenuous justifaction linking periods not so fertile with periods of extreme competency and dedication...as if they were all part of a continum and there was no difference in committment which leads of course to the product we get at the other end...something i think about focus getting softer then out of focus as the years wore on and their best most dedicated hard working dedication to song writing and crafting together as a team and as a band; was starting to change into something else; and the reduction in intensity and focus became increasingly obvious as the best quality number reduced in quantity; and there did become a general malaise in playing capabilities here and there....tho they do seem to bounce back and forth into grand excellence so in that regard i can understand Dandy....
i tried to make this a little more clear. it was a horrendously disconnected rant, sometimes when i try to say a simple thing i get wound up and too descriptive and lose the flow; dandy was right below asking wth are u talking about? haha...i hope it's slightly more clear...
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-21 04:40 by hopkins.
at first it struck me as a tenuous justifaction linking periods not so fertile with periods of extreme competency and dedication...as if they were all part of a continum and there was no difference in committment which leads of course to the product we get at the other end...something i think about focus getting softer then out of focus as the years wore on and their best most dedicated hard working dedication to song writing and crafting together as a team and as a band; was starting to change into something else; and the reduction in intensity and focus became increasingly obvious as the best quality number reduced in quantity; and there did become a general malaise in playing capabilities here and there....tho they do seem to bounce back and forth into grand excellence so in that regard i can understand Dandy....
i tried to make this a little more clear. it was a horrendously disconnected rant, sometimes when i try to say a simple thing i get wound up and too descriptive and lose the flow; dandy was right below asking wth are u talking about? haha...i hope it's slightly more clear...
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-21 04:40 by hopkins.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 18, 2017 14:49
What on earth are you talking about?
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 18, 2017 15:14
Quote
retired_dogQuote
DandelionPowderman
While I don't disagree 100% with your points, I think you are overrating/overestimating the Stones (and Keith) in what many consider their heyday. They have always (at least since 1967) gotten away with laziness, simple and less accomplished musicianship, a ramshackle sound and a vocalist / two vocalists who never really sing.
Isn't their style, as described above, also a vital part of their signature sound? Isn't that why we get a good feeling in our gut when we hear nothing but a simple chord from Keith, or when Mick just starts humming? Not to mention Charlie's oversimple, slightly off-timed drumrolls?
I was listening to Live At The Marquee the other day. The band sounds like amateurs most of the time. Still, I love the songs and the sounds they are making - and that show is no exception. You can hear this sound, and their shortcomings no matter which tour you put on. 1972 might be an exception, though, as they managed to streamline their performance somehow on that tour (don't ask me how). By 1973 it was different again. Sometimes excellent, sometimes awkward.
I'd uphold that the things you claim Keith gets away with too easily, actually go for all the members in the Stones. They are not very accomplished musicians on their own. None of them are/were.
That doesn't mean that they haven't managed to make some good solo albums. And it took some balls to make an album like Keith did - as stripped-down and naked as it was. Some like it, some don't. It's no big deal. It's not like he robbed you blind or something?
Historical revisionism to a large degree here. Technical shortcomings during their heyday? For every Marquee, there's a Roundhouse. For every "awkward" 1973 show (which one, by the way), there's a Brussels or Wembley. It isn't about simple or complex chord changes or technically perfect singing like operas - Stones music was always about the magic they were able to create which roots in true artistic inspiration. In moments when they were not inspired, you could hear it. Nowadays it's a more streamlined affair with an extended live band, true professionals added to the core band, technically perfect but ultimately faceless.
I get the feeling that you intend to get a "better perspective" of the modern Stones by lowering the strenghts of the band in their heyday. Nice try, but in the end all what counts is if one feels the same magic by listening to the current band compared to the one back then in their glory years.
I also got a similar impression that our Dandie is trying here a bit of historical revisionism. Or relativism. The question of technical or formal perfection has nothing to do with artistic inspiration. One can be as sloppy or simple as hell but still sound damn inspired. The greatness of The Stones has always been making damn exciting noise from technically simple, raw elements (be it songs, musicians, etc.), and in that sense they belong to the rank of their own in rock and roll. Actually that is the 'danger' the Stones have: since they don't have superior technical skills under which to hide in a bad day, they are pretty naked in trusting on their inspiration. You don't need to be Mozart to write "Satisfaction" or "Start Me Up", but still we need Mick and Keith and a hot band to do that convincingly.. (it needs be noted that as a live act the Stones have a long time ago hided this 'danger' element very well under their professionalism - a good case for "Keithettes" to cry out 'Mick this, and Mick that' for their Vegas incarnation).
However, as far as artistic creativity goes, it is the results not the means that matter.I hear a clear drop in quality of song-writing if the best a guy who once wrote "Sympathy For The Devil" or "Brown Sugar" can offer is stuff like "Streets of Love" or "Doom & Gloom" or 'pick any song in GODDESS'. Or if one once wrote "Ruby Tuesday" or "Gimme Shelter" is now coming up with stuff like "This Place Is Empty" or "One More Shot" or 'pick any song in CROSSEYED HEART'. I find this a trival observation, and I will find it absurd to claim otherwise (forget all the age cards and whatever excuses, let's be objective here, people, no matter 'cruel' it is).
It could be that mr. Richards is a victim of his own habits. He trusts on intuition and never 'forces' creativity. What once was so easy and natural for him, and he never needed - as a free, artistic soul - to work hard to create songs; they just dropped up. The antennas were out and worked mighty fine. Like in Booth's book Jagger commented during 1969 American Tour that he had a several new songs and Keith "must have hundreds". Compare that Richards to the one just interviewed being frustrated by "profilic" Jagger having forty songs in comparison to his three "dynamite" riff-ideas. Something has changed...I think it was one of the most striking things in recent Stones history in regards to Jagger/Richards soap opera, when Mick mentioned in his non-published mid-80's autobiography that despite him needing to cover Keith's ass or so, he thinks that Keith is "genious" and the world should have more people like him. I think that is revealing as hell, and also a kind of sad. Probably that creative genious Jagger once knew does not exist any longer. And Jagger probably knows that better than anyone. Talk is cheap indeed, people.
In that talk of same "signature sound" or "method" I can see the intended similarity between making of epic and legendary (in many ways) EXILE ON MAIN STREET and CROSSEYED HEART. In both cases they 'get away with it'. Probably here we are throwing words like "lazy" and "non-disciplinary" to describe the creative method. I think there is literally difference between night and day. If EXILE is a tireless, dedicated labor of endless nights the young and virile people putting there everything they know and even more, CROSSEYED HEART is a lazy Sunday afternoon pension project a few pals enjoying together out of the sight of their old ladies. Actually I think EXILE being a sum of all the stars being in a right position, despite all the troubles and pain its creation caused, its surprising success taught them - and especially for Keith - a wrong lesson. That he could 'get away with' it (Jagger's been rather sincere about it; that they got it somehow together, was a wonder of itself). Just put the band on some premises for as long as time as needed, have enough of good drinks and drugs, jam and wait for the inspiration to come. Suddenly that risky method turned out to be an excuse for lazy, non-focused songs. EXILE was also for the Stones 'once in a life time' experience, a Pyrrho's win, so to say. They never achieved that brilliance again.
To sum my rant up, the method of creative souls like the Stones in their hey-day, making diamonds out of simple, raw elements, can be put like: 'kids, don't try this at home'. Unfortunately that applies to them, as well. I think Mick Jagger has been awere of that for a long time. They really aren't the creative, energetic, inspired, ambitious people with their antennas out as they were in their twenties, making masterpieces in whatever conditions. The romantic, but non-realistic Keith Richards cult, and especially the hero himself in his talks, still wishes to see them in the basement of Nellcote. Probably Keith never left that room.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-18 15:42 by Doxa.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
stone4ever
()
Date: March 18, 2017 15:40
Words words, I remember Keith saying Rock & Roll is about the neck down, not from the neck up !!
Somehow I get the impression you completely miss the mark when you try to explain Keiths music or indeed the man himself . It's not about premeditated planning, it's about feel, emotion and spontaneity. Keith can't recreate the basement and drug atmosphere that created Exile, but he can be someplace else, and Crosseyed Heart isn't too bad a place to be imho.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-18 16:02 by stone4ever.
Somehow I get the impression you completely miss the mark when you try to explain Keiths music or indeed the man himself . It's not about premeditated planning, it's about feel, emotion and spontaneity. Keith can't recreate the basement and drug atmosphere that created Exile, but he can be someplace else, and Crosseyed Heart isn't too bad a place to be imho.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-18 16:02 by stone4ever.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 18, 2017 15:48
But shouldn't that "Sunday pensioner project" be reviewed as that as well, not be compared to Exile?
They lived music in 1972, and worked on a daily basis.
BTW, if you listen to Keith's slide guitar on TD, you'll find that he got away with a lot by 1972 already. I think you missed my point: Criticising Keith or the Stones for shortcomings as musicians is a moot point
They lived music in 1972, and worked on a daily basis.
BTW, if you listen to Keith's slide guitar on TD, you'll find that he got away with a lot by 1972 already. I think you missed my point: Criticising Keith or the Stones for shortcomings as musicians is a moot point
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 18, 2017 16:09
Quote
DandelionPowderman
But shouldn't that "Sunday pensioner project" be reviewed as that as well, not be compared to Exile?
They lived music in 1972, and worked on a daily basis.
BTW, if you listen to Keith's slide guitar on TD, you'll find that he got away with a lot by 1972 already. I think you missed my point: Criticising Keith or the Stones for shortcomings as musicians is a moot point
With respect I think you Dandie are missing point made both by retired dog and retired Doxa... We just argued that technical excellence has nothing to do with the creativity or greatness of the Stones. That also and especially applies to their hey-day. So I really don't understand why you are insisting on that point neither of us is arguing for. Is that the technical issue, and knowing how limited the STones are in that sense, is such an important thing for you as a musician?
One just needs to listen the guitar intro and riff track of "Gimme Shelter", probably Keith's biggest creative hour, seperately to hear how technically raw and even sloppy it is, but the result especially in the context of the whole track is nothing but genious and immortal. Me thinks the best guitar track ever recorded.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-18 16:11 by Doxa.
Re: Blue and Lonesome vs Crosseyed Heart
Posted by:
stone4ever
()
Date: March 18, 2017 16:19
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
But shouldn't that "Sunday pensioner project" be reviewed as that as well, not be compared to Exile?
They lived music in 1972, and worked on a daily basis.
BTW, if you listen to Keith's slide guitar on TD, you'll find that he got away with a lot by 1972 already. I think you missed my point: Criticising Keith or the Stones for shortcomings as musicians is a moot point
With respect I think you Dandie are missing point made both by retired dog and retired Doxa... We just argued that technical excellence has nothing to do with the creativity or greatness of the Stones. That also and especially applies to their hey-day. So I really don't understand why you are insisting on that point neither of us is arguing for. Is that the technical issue, and knowing how limited the STones are in that sense, is such an important thing for you as a musician?
One just needs to listen the guitar intro and riff track of "Gimme Shelter", probably Keith's biggest creative hour, seperately to hear how technically raw and even sloppy it is, but the result especially in the context of the whole track is nothing but genious and immortal. Me thinks the best guitar track ever recorded.
Y
- Doxa
Haha finally Doxa, I agree with every word you said.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1607
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10