yeah but so do The Rollin Clones, who I saw on Saturday night!

Crowes are a great band. For some reason, southern rock bands in general - and jam bands at an even broader level just don't seem to appeal to Europeans...something I've never quite grasped

oh, I dunno Tod - I can listen to plenty of Southern bands, personally...just not THAT one

You're right about jam bands, though. Never been that big a deal here in the UK anyway, although I think the Dead did reasonably well on the continent

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> oh, I dunno Tod - I can listen to plenty of
> Southern bands, personally...just not THAT one
>
>
but they have such long hair!

As for the Crowes, have you forgotten the gigs they played at the Greek Theatre in LA in 1999, doing Led Zeppelin covers? They had a special guest with them --it was Jimmy Page. I've heard it -- they kicked ass on those songs.

For Jimmy even to sit in with another band, and doing Zep songs, he must have thought they were pretty special.

I like the Black Crowes, but I don't think any band would carry on the Stones tradition. The Stones themselves don't carry on the old tradition. There is no more trouble with the police for example.

But back to the Crowes. I think, they are a kind of new Led Zeppelin with their strong riffs and fine ballads, with much improvising on stage and no hits in the single charts.

Are the Black Crowes the best qualified band to carry on the Stones' tradition ?

NO WAY

But right now in a back room somewhere in the world, there's probably a gang of young guys hunched over some cheap guitars, slavin with some blues licks that will carry on the tradition....but we just ain't heard 'em yet.

ROCKMAN

RockR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's hard to have respect for anything related to
> rap. It killed rock 'n roll as a cultural force
> and movement, and I will forever hold that against
> it. Plus I would argue it's not music -- it's a
> lot of ranting and raving about urban,
> dysfunctional living.

In spite of the ascending popularity of rap in the 80's, Journey and Duran Duran were still the great cultural forces of our time.

Dan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> In spite of the ascending popularity of rap in the
> 80's, Journey and Duran Duran were still the great
> cultural forces of our time.
>
>
>


Comments like this are grounds for permanent dismissal on some Rolling Stones boards...

how many classic songs do the have? The stones have hundreds and the stones will probably outlast them

jumpinjackgreg i totally agree with you that aerosmith really is easiest and clearest choice so far to get to the stones age.

they both have defined lead vocalist that both play a mean harmonica
they both have a defined guitar player at the singers side (although joe perry does play a meaner lead guitar these days)
they both have had a pretty steady output for past 30 years
they both have a bluesy background
neither band does long improvisational jams like the crowes do
women generally like both of those bands are like rock
they both can sell out an arena

'honkin' on bobo' was the last aerosmith album that was done in the blues vein. i thought it was a pretty kickass effort.

All this crap about the Crowes having no classic songs tends to look an important fact. Which is this -- IT"S PRETTY HARD FOR ANY BAND TO HAVE A 'CLASSIC' ROCK SONG THESE DAYS WHICH WILL LAST THROUGH THE AGES BECAUSE ROCK IS DEAD AS A MOVEMENT AND A REFLECTION OF POPULAR CULTURE !!!

Face it, guys, it's true. The combination of rap & music videos pretty much killed off rock as THE reflection of our times and, therefore, no rock songs recorded after, I would say, 1982 will hold up as 'classics'. There's still fine rock music out there, no question about it. But rock 'n roll, sadly, no longer is the reflection of youth and young adult culture.

The last chance rock had to have a full-fledged artistic renaissance was in the late '70's and early '80's with the original punk and new wave artists. The Sex Pistols, the Ramones, the Clash, Elvis Costello, Talking Heads, Rockpile, Sham 69, the Buzzcocks, the Pretenders, Blondie, the Modern Lovers, Television, the Damned, the Jam and more....if only these artists would have found widespread commercial success AND radio airplay (Blondie was about the only one that did), rock 'n roll could have had a glorious new era. But no -- radio had to be restrictive and people, in general, decided they would rather listen to crap like Styx, Kansas, Journey and REO Speedwagon. That was the first major stake through the heart of rock 'n roll. Then along comes MTV which reduces music to meaningless images and the advent of rap which eliminates any semblance of melody or thought and instead glorifies violent, misogynistic, thuggish behavior. That was the second and final stake through rock's heart.

And now, guess what ? We want to be reminded of rock's glory days, so we are willing to pay outrageous prices in order to do so. The Eagles were the first band to charge $100 or more per ticket on their 'Hell Freezes Over' reunion tour. They got away with it. Almost every show was a sell-out, and almost every other band decided that if the Eagles could gouge Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Public...well, then, so can we ! INCLUDING THE STONES !!!

As far as the Crowes...they play good, gutsy, soul-and-funk filled rock 'n roll that is down 'n dirty in a Stones filled tradition. They have great vocals and great riffs. And what's wrong with a little jamming or improvisation ? I appreciate good musicianship...don't you ? That's why I feel they, more than anyone else, can best handle the load for carrying on what the Stones started. Will it ever be classic or a reflection of society and culture ? No, because unlike the Stones at their peak, they are not operating in a society which is allowing rock 'n roll to do that.

You must be all nuts!

What does it mean that the BC don't have "classic songs"? They are the ONLY current band to be able to ADD classics to the all time r'n'r big hits list. Remedy alone made me cry for a miracle!

Amorica and Snakes are in the list of the best rock and roll albums made in the last 20 years.

People complain about the war horses set lists of the stones. The BC change their set lists almost every night.

People complain because they want more club shows. the bc play mainly club shows.

People complain because mick taylor is not in the stones any more. mark ford is the one of the best lead guitarists around and extended solos are served regulary at a crows show.

People complain because the stones don't improvise on stage anymore. the crows live jams are highlights of the show.

Why do you always complain?


C

uh..to put it mildly, you miss the point entirely

well I've every right to 'complain' (if you call it that) about a band whose music I happen to find dull....(I'm hardly 'complaining' if their music means nothing to me to begin with...)

your statements about the quality of their music isnt fact, its opinion - as is mine

Good for them that they change their show around and play small venues - but what has that got to do with the quality of the music to begin with

what a strange post

Gazza:

You don't get it!

You have every right in the world to dislike the BC's music.

Personally I find artists of the calibre of Clapton, Pink Floyd, Macca EXTEREMELY boring and dull. But I wouldn't dare say they were not talented, or that they did not have "classic hist".

Fact is that also the BC have very strong numbers in their list (and that you don't like them).

Anyway my reply was not adressed to you specifically.

Very simply my point is that I believe that bands like the BC do qualify to carry the Stones tradition. Most of the posters above don't believe so. Fair enough. But most of the arguments used to support their point, I believe, are inconsistent. That was the scope of my post.

I truly can't see how one can deny that Robinson is a very talented singer and front man or that Marc Ford is among the greatest rock guitarist around. They might bore the shits out of you, but with stile!



C

well, it looked like it was addressed at people like me as I specifically stated that in my opinion they "didnt have classic songs", which was something you took issue with

sure, they carry the Stones tradition, and its good to see more bands who do. I'm all for bands playing that style of music doing well! Good luck to them, but personally they dont do anything for me and I was disappointed in them when I saw them open for the Stones at Wembley a few years back.

I think that you should give them a second chance: you are missing some truly good stuff!

This is band a band with balls!

I have a couple of boots in mind that, I am 100% sure, will make you change your opinion! If you give me your mail address and I will send them to you


C

Thanks..actually maybe its best I try the studio albums first..I'll download the ones you mentioned earlier

I hope that one of the "young" bands, like the libertines or the white stripes will make it in 40 years

The Black Crowes released two of the best rock 'n roll records of all time: Southern Harmony & Musical Companion and Amorica are true classics. Classic songs? Sure. What about My Morning Song, Remedy, Thorn In My Pride, Twice as Hard, Wiser Time, etc?

Great band, but IMO suffering from all these comparisons with the bands that inspired them.

Just judge them on their own merites.

Edward

Listen to the debu of the australien jets, they are much closer to the stones with a couple of tracks

mr edward Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Black Crowes released two of the best rock 'n
> roll records of all time: Southern Harmony &
> Musical Companion and Amorica are true classics.
> Classic songs? Sure. What about My Morning Song,
> Remedy, Thorn In My Pride, Twice as Hard, Wiser
> Time, etc?
>
> Great band, but IMO suffering from all these
> comparisons with the bands that inspired them.
>
> Just judge them on their own merites.
>
> Edward
>
>


100 % agree !!! We can't compare Stones and Crowes. The Black Crowes have their sound, it's not totally Stones sound. They have a lot of influences : Dylan, Grateful Dead, Stones, Led Zep, Faces, Humble Pie, The Band, etc..
I often listen to the Black Crowes but it's always live concerts, not the albums as I really think they're better on stage. I have some Instant live recordings of 2005 and I really appreciate their music, I think they're better than ever, best line up for sure.
There's also classic songs on their last 2 albums, "By Your Side" and "Lions".
Try to listen to the "By Your Side" b-sides "It Must Be Over" and "You Don't Have To Go", 2 awesome tracks that aren't on the LP.
I can understand that Stones fans don't like Crowes music, it's very different..

No way!! The Black Crowes don't have memorable songs; they can't even compare to the Stones, sorry. The best song the Crowes ever did was "Hard to Handle" -- and Otis Redding wrote that song.

To my mind, U2 is the only band post-seventies that can stand with the great bands of yore.

It's not that I don't enjoy modern rock music -- I do -- but these musicians are modestly talented compared to the geniuses of the sixties and seventies.

I like Southern Harmony & Musical Companion best. So did most of the rest of the world. Good stuff.

martingo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like Southern Harmony & Musical Companion
> best. So did most of the rest of the world. Good
> stuff.


Yep - it's only GREAT album the band has done, IMO.

As far as "best qualified" I still go with the Red Hot Chili Peppers:

1) Flea is hands-down the greatest bassist who ever got on stage

2) Anthony Kiedis is great front-guy and brilliant songwriter / poet.

3) John Frusciante, very competent guitarist

4) Chad is super-fantastic drummer, hard-smashing like Bonham but jazzy too. Just brilliant.

GREAT SONGWRITING... they already have over 30 killer songs, very devoted fan base...

The fans are out of their seats dancin' from the first chords...

AND nobody sounds like the Peppers... they have unique sound very important...

AND they're still writing great stuff... unlike U2...

Springsteen is another great "mantle carrier", but he's already there at "stones level", and not writing such brilliant material anymore, at least not E-Street band stuff, though several songs off the rising were stupendous.

Motley Crue also in that league if they hold together, which looks like they will... except Mick Mars just isn't healthy, how much longer can he last, unfortunately.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-14 00:19 by CreedenceLives.

U2 ??!! IS IT A JOKE ?? U2 is a pop band, boring music IMO.

Sorry but "Southern Harmony" is not the only good album they've done. It's not my favorite. It's a matter of tastes also but you can't say that's it's their only good album.

wisertime Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> U2 ??!! IS IT A JOKE ?? U2 is a pop band, boring
> music IMO.
>
> Sorry but "Southern Harmony" is not the only good
> album they've done. It's not my favorite. It's a
> matter of tastes also but you can't say that's
> it's their only good album.
>
>

U2 is a great band,of course they are not as near as great as The Stone sbut one should not dismiss them easily calling them a boring pop band.

Achtung Baby is a masterpiece,a truly amazing album and some of their eighties stuff is great as well(New year's day is a pure clasic,one of the best eighties songs).

I am annoyed by Bono but that doesn't prevent me from liking some of the great music U2 has released over the years.

So what if their latest album is not very good.Remember at that stage of their career The Stones made Dirty Work which is not anywhere near their classic stuff.

Some people mentioned Aerosmith as a band that can carry on The Stones' tradition.
Man,that's such an insult to The Stones,one of the most creative and original band in rock history to be compared to your average head-banging band Aerosmith.

For me, one of the most attractive things about TBC's is that they got real spirit. There's nothing halfway about their approach to their songs or their live gigs.

That said, there's so much in what they do that reminds me of The Stones, The Faces, and The Allmans that I'm often left wondering where are the Crowes in all of this?

The Southern Harmony and Musical Companion is perhaps their best work, in my view, but I'm less impressed with their ability to carve out new space for themselves, that is new space which is apart from their influences.

The difference might be summed up this way: when I hear some Stones classics like Gimme Shelter (for example) I know in my heart that no one other band could've written that song or performed that song in the way that the Stones do it: simply put, they've surpassed their influences, as great as their influences are and they own the lifelong patent on their brand of rock'n'roll.
But when I hear the Crowes, even at their best, I'm much less likely to say, "they own the patent on that one." It's good, spirited rock with great roots, but it rarely gets better than its influences. Which is, all in all, a totally respectable place to be given who they're modeled after.

AAAAAAAhhhhhhhhh....the Black Crowes!

Shake Yer Moneymaker.....a CLASSIC.

Since then, a steady downwards spiral. Another band of extraordinary promise not to deliver.

Where their debut is superb, underproduced and loose, one of my all time favourites, the rest of their cd's became increasingly over-produced, long-winded and (like some of the Stones' rockers) simply TOO LOUD.

So...the Crowes as the Stones tradition-bearers? Nup.

And it's really hard to think of ANYONE who realistically can. The industry of today is just not

a) able to or
b) willing to

'invest' in much more than truly disposable crap.

When the charts are clogged with winners of nothing more than mass-media 'created' talent quests, what hope have we got that The Stones could be 'replaced"?

Nil. Which is NOT to say there is NOT good music out there, it's just harder to find and, for the artists, harder to maintain.

Rod