For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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..
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.
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????? Oh wait a minute it's just Keith copying Keith by numbers as opposed to actually being Keith Richards. How dare he be himself.....
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
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
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...
Quote
keefgotsoul
...
As others have said, a collection of blues covers is fine. But it's also very sterile and safe...
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!
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? ...
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.
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.
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
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]
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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