For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
wonderboy
But to what the original poster said, if you were a teenager in 1975, the Stones were not your band. Nothing wrong with that -- every 10 years the kids get into something new. And if a band is lucky, it has 10 years where it really matters.
The Stones had more than that, so good for them.
I have to partly disagree, HM. In my early 60s days I felt that B, M and K were the ones who could bring out their talents so well, because they had the, by far, best rhythm section, Bill and Charlie "behind them".Quote
His MajestyQuote
Chris Fountain
Thanks for the reply and I understand where you are coming from (slang).
The Rolling Stones was defined by three particular people in combination. It didn't exist until those three met and were in a band together.
Brian, Mick and Keith. Their musical and personal relationships in combination. Or as Keith said in 1977 those three together was "The emotional engine behind the whole thing.
What came after is a different band. The music is real in it's own way, but not as The Rolling Stones.
Again, akin to The Beatles without George. Even if the music that followed was great, amazing and even better to some... it's not really The Beatles.
Quote
Witness
I listen to all other Rolling Stones related albums and songs that I have got, except METAMORPHOSIS and solo albums by Bill Wyman. So I do n't buy that objection. Apparently, you had to go that far out to find any.><
Quote
LazarusSmith
Well, the simple fact is that none of us really knows what "The Rolling Stones" is.
Quote
noughties
...just old school. Blame it on all the new bands back then.
Quote
His MajestyQuote
LazarusSmith
Well, the simple fact is that none of us really knows what "The Rolling Stones" is.
We do. Brian, Mick and Keith. All that they were in combination in a band is The Rolling Stones.
Remove any of those 3 and it's not The Rolling Stones, not really.
...
It's not Brian and Paul Pond (Jones) as The Rolling Stones didn't exist until Brian met Mick and Keith.
It' not Mick and Keith as The Rolling Stones didn't exist until they met Brian.
It's not Mick and Keith's songs as The Rolling Stones existed before they wrote and still existed in the covers they did even after they wrote. The songs are obviously very important!
Identity wise, musically and emotionally it was defined by the wonky musical and personal relationships between Brian, Mick and Keith.
...
Taylor rightly noted that it was essentially/effectively a new band in 1969... that was made especially obvious live.
Quote
georgie48Quote
His MajestyQuote
Chris Fountain
Could it Be 2002 licks tour? Voo doo Lounge 1994 or 1969 which GYYO certainly proves a point. These tours seem "Real" if this is the measuring stick.
None of those are the real Rolling Stones.
The last real Rolling Stones tour was the tour of Europe in 1967.
...
Jones leaving and Taylor coming onboard = a new band. Or as Taylor said. "Effectively a new band".
It's akin to The Beatles replacing George with Taylor. It's not really The Beatles anymore.
Which would mean that the Beatles didn't play in the Netherlands on June 6, 1964 because Jimmy Nickol (?) replaced Ringo Starr ???
Quote
His Majesty
No Brian. No Keith. Is it The Rolling Stones?
1969 - It Hurts Me Too.
[www.youtube.com]
Quote
marianna
The Stones were waiting for the '70s, especially Mick.
Quote
His Majesty
No Brian. No Keith. Is it The Rolling Stones?
1969 - It hurts me too
1970 - Stop Breaking Down.
[www.youtube.com]
Quote
His MajestyQuote
noughties
...just old school. Blame it on all the new bands back then.
Well, there is a degree of fakeness to them. A coldness too. Even ridiculous.
White boy blues and all that.
A lot of their stuff sounds cool, but is quite lacking in any real emotion. But, that aloofness is a notable part of their whole image and sound.
It shouldn't work, but more often than not it does... and then some.
A strange band really. That's why I like them.