Quote
Stoneage
Why make a hen out of a feather? Does Paddy, or Damon, really deserve the IORR inquisition? His name is not Demon in that case...

Agree...strange days here on IORR...

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Big Al

Quote
treaclefingers

So he's a 'co-writer' too? Ergo, according to himself, not a writer?

Now that's funny.

He wrote Blur's music with the group's guitarist, Graham Coxon. The 'Blur' song-writing credit is to ensure the drummer and bassist get their share of the royalties. That's my understanding, anyway.

I've no quibble with that, or with Blur. That's fine and makes sense. It's him slagging an artist because she's co-written, as though she actually had no part in the writing BECAUSE it's co-written, that's the issue.

If he thinks she's a fraud then he should just say so and provide some proof, rather than state songs that are co-written aren't valid.

For whatever respect one may have for him as an artist or his past works, he's a bit of a bonehead for those comments.

Yeah, I agree with you that his need to emphasize artistic individualism sounds a bit pretentious and declaring self-importance - to be such a Big Song-Writer - and I think Keith's comment when asked about if he sees himself as an artist that for him 'art' means basically a short for Arthur, is a spot on... But I think it is very plausible that he means what DandelionPowderman described above: he is critizising the power of today's producers in creating the final outcome. Of course, that is a matter of personal taste what one thinks about it, and I don't know if trying to explicate something one doesn't like in terms of someone 'not being song-writer enough' is a way to go. Sounds elitistic bullshit, 'I, as being such a Big Artist myself, define what is art and creation'. (By the way, like this should matter, I think The Blur was a helluva band, and I can't care a shit about Taylor Swift personally)

But what goes for bashing fellow artists, he has a lot to learn. Our Keef could give some lessons, but here is the true master, Lou Reed on his contemporariers:

On Frank Zappa:
He's probably the single most untalented person I've heard in my life. He's two-bit, pretentious, academic, and he can't play his way out of anything. He can't play rock'n'roll, because he's a loser. And that's why he dresses up funny. He's not happy with himself and I think he's right.

On Alice Cooper:
God, do you really want my opinion on THEM? They are the worst, most disgusting aspect of rock music.

On Pete Townshend:
'Tommy'¨is such - Jesus, how people get sucked into that, so talentless, and as a lyricist he is so profoundly untalented, and, you know, philosophically boring to say the least... like the record "The Seeker"; 'I asked Timothy Leary...', I wouldn't ask Timothy Leary the time of day, for cryin' out loud.

On The California bands:
We had vast objections to the whole San Francisico scene. It is just tedious, a lie, and untalented. They can't play and they certainly can't write. I keep telling everybody and nobody cares. We used to be quiet, but I don't even care anymore to say not negative things, 'cause things have gone so far that somebody really should say something. You know, the people like Jefferson Aerplane and The Grateful Dead, all those people are just the most untalented bores that ever came up. Just look at them physically, I mean, can you take Grace Slick seriously? It's a joke, it's a joke. The kids are being hyped.

Now that's what I call bashing!

- Doxa



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2022-01-27 21:00 by Doxa.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Stoneage
Why make a hen out of a feather? Does Paddy, or Damon, really deserve the IORR inquisition? His name is not Demon in that case...

Agree...strange days here on IORR...

LOL...it's a thread discussing this guys post. What do you expect?

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Stoneage
Why make a hen out of a feather? Does Paddy, or Damon, really deserve the IORR inquisition? His name is not Demon in that case...

Agree...strange days here on IORR...

LOL...it's a thread discussing this guys post. What do you expect?

Haha.. for certain folks here at IORR if someone is bashing the Stones 'out there' seems to be such a cool thing and like proves something, and if we here at IORR react to those, we are, of course, over-reacting and being stupid cheerleaders not able to critical thinking...

But personally I didn't find the Stones reference such a big deal - similar accounts pop up occasionally here and there, and part of me agrees with him - but the one about Taylor Swift and song-writing I think was an interesting one.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-01-27 21:11 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Big Al

Quote
treaclefingers

So he's a 'co-writer' too? Ergo, according to himself, not a writer?

Now that's funny.

He wrote Blur's music with the group's guitarist, Graham Coxon. The 'Blur' song-writing credit is to ensure the drummer and bassist get their share of the royalties. That's my understanding, anyway.

I've no quibble with that, or with Blur. That's fine and makes sense. It's him slagging an artist because she's co-written, as though she actually had no part in the writing BECAUSE it's co-written, that's the issue.

If he thinks she's a fraud then he should just say so and provide some proof, rather than state songs that are co-written aren't valid.

For whatever respect one may have for him as an artist or his past works, he's a bit of a bonehead for those comments.

Yeah, I agree with you that his need to emphasize artistic individualism sounds a bit pretentious and declaring self-importance - to be such a Big Song-Writer - and I think Keith's comment when asked about if he sees himself as an artist that for him 'art' means basically a short for Arthur, is a spot on... But I think it is very plausible that he means what DandelionPowderman described above: he is critizising the power of today's producers in creating the final outcome. Of course, that is a matter of personal taste what one thinks about it, and I don't know if trying to explicate something one doesn't like in terms of someone 'not being song-writer enough' is a way to go. Sounds elitistic bullshit, 'I, as being such a Big Artist myself, define what is art and creation'. (By the way, like this should matter, I think The Blur was a helluva band, and I can't care a shit about Taylor Swift personally)

But what goes for bashing fellow artists, he has a lot to learn. Our Keef could give some lessons, but here is the true master, Lou Reed on his contemporariers:

On Frank Zappa:
He's probably the single most untalented person I've heard in my life. He's two-bit, pretentious, academic, and he can't play his way out of anything. He can't play rock'n'roll, because he's a loser. And that's why he dresses up funny. He's not happy with himself and I think he's right.

On Alice Cooper:
God, do you really want my opinion on THEM? They are the worst, most disgusting aspect of rock music.

On Pete Townshend:
'Tommy'¨is such - Jesus, how people get sucked into that, so talentless, and as a lyricist he is so profoundly untalented, and, you know, philosophically boring to say the least... like the record "The Seeker"; 'I asked Timothy Leary...', I wouldn't ask Timothy Leary the time of day, for cryin' out loud.

On The California bands:
We had vast objections to the whole San Francisico scene. It is just tedious, a lie, and untalented. They can't play and they certainly can't write. I keep telling everybody and nobody cares. We used to be quiet, but I don't even care anymore to say not negative things, 'cause things have gone so far that somebody really should say something. You know, the people like Jefferson Aerplane and The Grateful Dead, all those people are just the most untalented bores that ever came up. Just look at them physically, I mean, can you take Grace Slick seriously? It's a joke, it's a joke. The kids are being hyped.

Now that's what I call bashing!

- Doxa

Lou Reed was a magnificent bastard!

And while you can agree or disagree with his opinion, at least it's pretty clear it's his opinion. Ripping the Stones again is Albarn's opinion. Like *ssholes, everyone has at least one.

Where he steps over the line, and clearly he was publicly humiliated for doing so by recanting in a pretty grovelling fashion, was to state 'as fact' that Swift didn't write her own songs.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Doxa

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Big Al

Quote
treaclefingers

So he's a 'co-writer' too? Ergo, according to himself, not a writer?

Now that's funny.

He wrote Blur's music with the group's guitarist, Graham Coxon. The 'Blur' song-writing credit is to ensure the drummer and bassist get their share of the royalties. That's my understanding, anyway.

I've no quibble with that, or with Blur. That's fine and makes sense. It's him slagging an artist because she's co-written, as though she actually had no part in the writing BECAUSE it's co-written, that's the issue.

If he thinks she's a fraud then he should just say so and provide some proof, rather than state songs that are co-written aren't valid.

For whatever respect one may have for him as an artist or his past works, he's a bit of a bonehead for those comments.

Yeah, I agree with you that his need to emphasize artistic individualism sounds a bit pretentious and declaring self-importance - to be such a Big Song-Writer - and I think Keith's comment when asked about if he sees himself as an artist that for him 'art' means basically a short for Arthur, is a spot on... But I think it is very plausible that he means what DandelionPowderman described above: he is critizising the power of today's producers in creating the final outcome. Of course, that is a matter of personal taste what one thinks about it, and I don't know if trying to explicate something one doesn't like in terms of someone 'not being song-writer enough' is a way to go. Sounds elitistic bullshit, 'I, as being such a Big Artist myself, define what is art and creation'. (By the way, like this should matter, I think The Blur was a helluva band, and I can't care a shit about Taylor Swift personally)

But what goes for bashing fellow artists, he has a lot to learn. Our Keef could give some lessons, but here is the true master, Lou Reed on his contemporariers:

On Frank Zappa:
He's probably the single most untalented person I've heard in my life. He's two-bit, pretentious, academic, and he can't play his way out of anything. He can't play rock'n'roll, because he's a loser. And that's why he dresses up funny. He's not happy with himself and I think he's right.

On Alice Cooper:
God, do you really want my opinion on THEM? They are the worst, most disgusting aspect of rock music.

On Pete Townshend:
'Tommy'¨is such - Jesus, how people get sucked into that, so talentless, and as a lyricist he is so profoundly untalented, and, you know, philosophically boring to say the least... like the record "The Seeker"; 'I asked Timothy Leary...', I wouldn't ask Timothy Leary the time of day, for cryin' out loud.

On The California bands:
We had vast objections to the whole San Francisico scene. It is just tedious, a lie, and untalented. They can't play and they certainly can't write. I keep telling everybody and nobody cares. We used to be quiet, but I don't even care anymore to say not negative things, 'cause things have gone so far that somebody really should say something. You know, the people like Jefferson Aerplane and The Grateful Dead, all those people are just the most untalented bores that ever came up. Just look at them physically, I mean, can you take Grace Slick seriously? It's a joke, it's a joke. The kids are being hyped.

Now that's what I call bashing!

- Doxa

Lou Reed was a magnificent bastard!

And while you can agree or disagree with his opinion, at least it's pretty clear it's his opinion. Ripping the Stones again is Albarn's opinion. Like *ssholes, everyone has at least one.

Where he steps over the line, and clearly he was publicly humiliated for doing so by recanting in a pretty grovelling fashion, was to state 'as fact' that Swift didn't write her own songs.

The credits in her albums say she doesn’t. They List the people who co wrote the songs. She’s written maybe 20% on her own. That’s not “ALL” as she herself stated.
Taylor’s a spoiled girl, taking all the credit for he songs, when it’s clearly not true. She’s the least rock n roll troll I’ve seen. It’s pop music for your daughter.

Quote
Paddy

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Doxa

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Big Al

Quote
treaclefingers

So he's a 'co-writer' too? Ergo, according to himself, not a writer?

Now that's funny.

He wrote Blur's music with the group's guitarist, Graham Coxon. The 'Blur' song-writing credit is to ensure the drummer and bassist get their share of the royalties. That's my understanding, anyway.

I've no quibble with that, or with Blur. That's fine and makes sense. It's him slagging an artist because she's co-written, as though she actually had no part in the writing BECAUSE it's co-written, that's the issue.

If he thinks she's a fraud then he should just say so and provide some proof, rather than state songs that are co-written aren't valid.

For whatever respect one may have for him as an artist or his past works, he's a bit of a bonehead for those comments.

Yeah, I agree with you that his need to emphasize artistic individualism sounds a bit pretentious and declaring self-importance - to be such a Big Song-Writer - and I think Keith's comment when asked about if he sees himself as an artist that for him 'art' means basically a short for Arthur, is a spot on... But I think it is very plausible that he means what DandelionPowderman described above: he is critizising the power of today's producers in creating the final outcome. Of course, that is a matter of personal taste what one thinks about it, and I don't know if trying to explicate something one doesn't like in terms of someone 'not being song-writer enough' is a way to go. Sounds elitistic bullshit, 'I, as being such a Big Artist myself, define what is art and creation'. (By the way, like this should matter, I think The Blur was a helluva band, and I can't care a shit about Taylor Swift personally)

But what goes for bashing fellow artists, he has a lot to learn. Our Keef could give some lessons, but here is the true master, Lou Reed on his contemporariers:

On Frank Zappa:
He's probably the single most untalented person I've heard in my life. He's two-bit, pretentious, academic, and he can't play his way out of anything. He can't play rock'n'roll, because he's a loser. And that's why he dresses up funny. He's not happy with himself and I think he's right.

On Alice Cooper:
God, do you really want my opinion on THEM? They are the worst, most disgusting aspect of rock music.

On Pete Townshend:
'Tommy'¨is such - Jesus, how people get sucked into that, so talentless, and as a lyricist he is so profoundly untalented, and, you know, philosophically boring to say the least... like the record "The Seeker"; 'I asked Timothy Leary...', I wouldn't ask Timothy Leary the time of day, for cryin' out loud.

On The California bands:
We had vast objections to the whole San Francisico scene. It is just tedious, a lie, and untalented. They can't play and they certainly can't write. I keep telling everybody and nobody cares. We used to be quiet, but I don't even care anymore to say not negative things, 'cause things have gone so far that somebody really should say something. You know, the people like Jefferson Aerplane and The Grateful Dead, all those people are just the most untalented bores that ever came up. Just look at them physically, I mean, can you take Grace Slick seriously? It's a joke, it's a joke. The kids are being hyped.

Now that's what I call bashing!

- Doxa

Lou Reed was a magnificent bastard!

And while you can agree or disagree with his opinion, at least it's pretty clear it's his opinion. Ripping the Stones again is Albarn's opinion. Like *ssholes, everyone has at least one.

Where he steps over the line, and clearly he was publicly humiliated for doing so by recanting in a pretty grovelling fashion, was to state 'as fact' that Swift didn't write her own songs.

The credits in her albums say she doesn’t. They List the people who co wrote the songs. She’s written maybe 20% on her own. That’s not “ALL” as she herself stated.
Taylor’s a spoiled girl, taking all the credit for he songs, when it’s clearly not true. She’s the least rock n roll troll I’ve seen. It’s pop music for your daughter.

On her music, we probably are close to agreement in terms of opinion. I respect it for what it is, but not for my tastes.

On the issue of her writing, if he's not wrong, perhaps he shouldn't have publicly apologized then?

Quote
Doxa

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Stoneage
Why make a hen out of a feather? Does Paddy, or Damon, really deserve the IORR inquisition? His name is not Demon in that case...

Agree...strange days here on IORR...

LOL...it's a thread discussing this guys post. What do you expect?

Haha.. for certain folks here at IORR if someone is bashing the Stones 'out there' seems to be such a cool thing and like proves something, and if we here at IORR react to those, we are, of course, over-reacting and being stupid cheerleaders not able to critical thinking...

But personally I didn't find the Stones reference such a big deal - similar accounts pop up occasionally here and there, and part of me agrees with him - but the one about Taylor Swift and song-writing I think was an interesting one.

- Doxa

Good post.
It's like there are two discussions going now. it's become more about the co-writing thing. And that is an interesting topic; a phenomenon going on in pop music. Personally I like Taylor Swift. I have many of her albums. And I do think that artists who barely play an instrument; but are powerful artists, singers and performers, are instrumental in creating their own songs. That goes as far back as Madonna. And should have a writing credit.

In the old days the singer and the songwriter seldom met. I don't think Sinatra wrote many songs for instance. It was a non-problem then. Singing was enough. Since then it became a money issue I guess.
I don't think it's a wild guess that Mick Taylor left the band partly due to lack of sing writing credits (Jagger/Richards took them all). The Motown lead is interesting.
Most of the list hits we hear today are written by studios and their song writers. Much like Motown. The difference is maybe that Motown leaned more on real musicians than computer programs.

Another thing is that I think many singers feel compelled to write their own songs (or at least get a co-writing credit) since journalists always ask them that question.
Like "you're not a real artist if you don't write and compose your own material".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-01-27 23:26 by Stoneage.

ROCKMAN

Yeah, Lou Reed got away with much. Like talking instead of singing for example. No one dared questioning his New York wit. Rightfully so I guess.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
GasLightStreet
His attempt at back peddling was pathetic, his limp statement that what he said was "taken out of context" - utter rubbish.

When Albarn was asked if he thinks a lot of modern musicians rely on sound and attitude, he responded, “name me someone who’s not.” After the interviewer cited Taylor Swift as an “excellent songwriter,” Albarn offered up a blunt response. “She doesn’t write her own songs,” he said.

The interviewer pressed Albarn saying “of course she does” and that she co-writes some of her music. “That doesn’t count,” Albarn responded. “I know what co-writing is. Co-writing is very different to writing. I’m not hating on anybody, I’m just saying there’s a big difference between a songwriter and a songwriter who co-writes. Doesn’t mean that the outcome can’t be really great.”

So co-writing and... writing are different? Writing is writing.

Has anyone ever asked Keith what he thinks, and thought, about Mick coming up with the lick or riff and music to Brown Sugar?

Obviously not all the songs they wrote together were written together, just like Lennon and McCartney. And not all the songs they wrote together did they write from the beginning - Jumpin' Jack Flash is a good example.

Who is this geezer? He was in a band called Gorilaz? He's badmouthing Taylor Swift and and he's playing at Disney World or whatever it is in California.

Sounds like a dying career. Which is quite charming considering what he said about the Stones:

“The greatest exponent of that is the Rolling Stones, who just couldn’t let it go,” he said. “It’s disappointing. Not to say that I didn’t absolutely love the Rolling Stones in their heyday — they were magnificent. But do other stuff in your life. Singing ‘(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction’ when you’re pushing 80? Come on.”

He sounds like an old person in the 1970s - "oh those awful Rolling Stones with that Mick Jagger."

Disappointing, eh? Wow. What a pathetic person.

Again, all I can say "Are we looking at the same interview?" All he is doing is NOT fawning over the Stones? Or Taylor S. That's no put down; good for Damon to say whatever is on his mind.

Good for him to say whatever is on his mind? He's clueless about the Stones and clueless about what a songwriter is.

He's oblique in his criticism of the Stone and has a ridiculous opinion about what songwriting is.

He obviously can't help projecting. He's simply a jealous little troll.

Blur and whatever was relevant for how long?

He's playing at Disney.

Blur were as big as it can get on one side of the world.

Each album they released they got bigger, they held their own and some preferred them to the other British bands of the day. Oasis, Manics, Radiohead... They beat Oasis in that NME driven singles battle rubbish. Damon’s a talented guy, Gorillaz has been successful, not my thing though.

Some bands never make it in the States the same way they did in England.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
GasLightStreet
His attempt at back peddling was pathetic, his limp statement that what he said was "taken out of context" - utter rubbish.

When Albarn was asked if he thinks a lot of modern musicians rely on sound and attitude, he responded, “name me someone who’s not.” After the interviewer cited Taylor Swift as an “excellent songwriter,” Albarn offered up a blunt response. “She doesn’t write her own songs,” he said.

The interviewer pressed Albarn saying “of course she does” and that she co-writes some of her music. “That doesn’t count,” Albarn responded. “I know what co-writing is. Co-writing is very different to writing. I’m not hating on anybody, I’m just saying there’s a big difference between a songwriter and a songwriter who co-writes. Doesn’t mean that the outcome can’t be really great.”

So co-writing and... writing are different? Writing is writing.

Has anyone ever asked Keith what he thinks, and thought, about Mick coming up with the lick or riff and music to Brown Sugar?

Obviously not all the songs they wrote together were written together, just like Lennon and McCartney. And not all the songs they wrote together did they write from the beginning - Jumpin' Jack Flash is a good example.

Who is this geezer? He was in a band called Gorilaz? He's badmouthing Taylor Swift and and he's playing at Disney World or whatever it is in California.

Sounds like a dying career. Which is quite charming considering what he said about the Stones:

“The greatest exponent of that is the Rolling Stones, who just couldn’t let it go,” he said. “It’s disappointing. Not to say that I didn’t absolutely love the Rolling Stones in their heyday — they were magnificent. But do other stuff in your life. Singing ‘(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction’ when you’re pushing 80? Come on.”

He sounds like an old person in the 1970s - "oh those awful Rolling Stones with that Mick Jagger."

Disappointing, eh? Wow. What a pathetic person.

Again, all I can say "Are we looking at the same interview?" All he is doing is NOT fawning over the Stones? Or Taylor S. That's no put down; good for Damon to say whatever is on his mind.

Good for him to say whatever is on his mind? He's clueless about the Stones and clueless about what a songwriter is.

He's oblique in his criticism of the Stone and has a ridiculous opinion about what songwriting is.

He obviously can't help projecting. He's simply a jealous little troll.

Blur and whatever was relevant for how long?

He's playing at Disney.

And that hurts his soul. He obviously feels unfairly treated. He, the genius, plays Disney while those Stones and Taylor Swifts play... in a different league. It's easy to see why he acts like a wounded animal and bites at colleagues.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-01-28 08:32 by retired_dog.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
GasLightStreet
His attempt at back peddling was pathetic, his limp statement that what he said was "taken out of context" - utter rubbish.

When Albarn was asked if he thinks a lot of modern musicians rely on sound and attitude, he responded, “name me someone who’s not.” After the interviewer cited Taylor Swift as an “excellent songwriter,” Albarn offered up a blunt response. “She doesn’t write her own songs,” he said.

The interviewer pressed Albarn saying “of course she does” and that she co-writes some of her music. “That doesn’t count,” Albarn responded. “I know what co-writing is. Co-writing is very different to writing. I’m not hating on anybody, I’m just saying there’s a big difference between a songwriter and a songwriter who co-writes. Doesn’t mean that the outcome can’t be really great.”

So co-writing and... writing are different? Writing is writing.

Has anyone ever asked Keith what he thinks, and thought, about Mick coming up with the lick or riff and music to Brown Sugar?

Obviously not all the songs they wrote together were written together, just like Lennon and McCartney. And not all the songs they wrote together did they write from the beginning - Jumpin' Jack Flash is a good example.

Who is this geezer? He was in a band called Gorilaz? He's badmouthing Taylor Swift and and he's playing at Disney World or whatever it is in California.

Sounds like a dying career. Which is quite charming considering what he said about the Stones:

“The greatest exponent of that is the Rolling Stones, who just couldn’t let it go,” he said. “It’s disappointing. Not to say that I didn’t absolutely love the Rolling Stones in their heyday — they were magnificent. But do other stuff in your life. Singing ‘(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction’ when you’re pushing 80? Come on.”

He sounds like an old person in the 1970s - "oh those awful Rolling Stones with that Mick Jagger."

Disappointing, eh? Wow. What a pathetic person.

Again, all I can say "Are we looking at the same interview?" All he is doing is NOT fawning over the Stones? Or Taylor S. That's no put down; good for Damon to say whatever is on his mind.

Good for him to say whatever is on his mind? He's clueless about the Stones and clueless about what a songwriter is.

He's oblique in his criticism of the Stone and has a ridiculous opinion about what songwriting is.

He obviously can't help projecting. He's simply a jealous little troll.

Blur and whatever was relevant for how long?

He's playing at Disney.

And that hurts his soul. He obviously feels unfairly treated. He, the genius, plays Disney while those Stones and Taylor Swifts play... in a different league. It's easy to see why he acts like a wounded animal and bites at colleagues.

Disney? Blur sell-out venues like Hyde Park. They’re huge in the U.K. and very popular in Europe. I really doubt very much that Albarn is the slightest bit bothered by the popularity of his projects, stateside. However, were Gorillaz not popular in the U.S.?

Really not bothered in the least by musical genious Damon Albam's honest, albeit unnecessary, public expression of his opinions.
The setlist I saw at my first Stones concert in 1975 was almost identical to the one I saw in Hollywood two months ago and I've seen 14 great shows in between. It is my, and millions of others, opinion that we are glad that they did not "let it go." And, the STones can, and did, take that to the bank.

What's funny is that half the folks on this board seem to spend all their time bashing the Stones ......

....but woe betide anybody else who tries it !

Quote
Big Al

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
GasLightStreet
His attempt at back peddling was pathetic, his limp statement that what he said was "taken out of context" - utter rubbish.

When Albarn was asked if he thinks a lot of modern musicians rely on sound and attitude, he responded, “name me someone who’s not.” After the interviewer cited Taylor Swift as an “excellent songwriter,” Albarn offered up a blunt response. “She doesn’t write her own songs,” he said.

The interviewer pressed Albarn saying “of course she does” and that she co-writes some of her music. “That doesn’t count,” Albarn responded. “I know what co-writing is. Co-writing is very different to writing. I’m not hating on anybody, I’m just saying there’s a big difference between a songwriter and a songwriter who co-writes. Doesn’t mean that the outcome can’t be really great.”

So co-writing and... writing are different? Writing is writing.

Has anyone ever asked Keith what he thinks, and thought, about Mick coming up with the lick or riff and music to Brown Sugar?

Obviously not all the songs they wrote together were written together, just like Lennon and McCartney. And not all the songs they wrote together did they write from the beginning - Jumpin' Jack Flash is a good example.

Who is this geezer? He was in a band called Gorilaz? He's badmouthing Taylor Swift and and he's playing at Disney World or whatever it is in California.

Sounds like a dying career. Which is quite charming considering what he said about the Stones:

“The greatest exponent of that is the Rolling Stones, who just couldn’t let it go,” he said. “It’s disappointing. Not to say that I didn’t absolutely love the Rolling Stones in their heyday — they were magnificent. But do other stuff in your life. Singing ‘(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction’ when you’re pushing 80? Come on.”

He sounds like an old person in the 1970s - "oh those awful Rolling Stones with that Mick Jagger."

Disappointing, eh? Wow. What a pathetic person.

Again, all I can say "Are we looking at the same interview?" All he is doing is NOT fawning over the Stones? Or Taylor S. That's no put down; good for Damon to say whatever is on his mind.

Good for him to say whatever is on his mind? He's clueless about the Stones and clueless about what a songwriter is.

He's oblique in his criticism of the Stone and has a ridiculous opinion about what songwriting is.

He obviously can't help projecting. He's simply a jealous little troll.

Blur and whatever was relevant for how long?

He's playing at Disney.

And that hurts his soul. He obviously feels unfairly treated. He, the genius, plays Disney while those Stones and Taylor Swifts play... in a different league. It's easy to see why he acts like a wounded animal and bites at colleagues.

Disney? Blur sell-out venues like Hyde Park. They’re huge in the U.K. and very popular in Europe. I really doubt very much that Albarn is the slightest bit bothered by the popularity of his projects, stateside. However, were Gorillaz not popular in the U.S.?

The UK's version of a platinum album is 300,000 copies, too. "Huge in the UK."

Quote
Spud
What's funny is that half the folks on this board seem to spend all their time bashing the Stones ......

....but woe betide anybody else who tries it !

yeah

that our special right

if whatever his name is wants to join then he too can criticise bill's fashion sense, keith's filthy beanies and whether or not mick's wearing a wig

Nothing better than coming here to see the Grandads getting triggered and dropping their mints.

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
Spud
What's funny is that half the folks on this board seem to spend all their time bashing the Stones ......

....but woe betide anybody else who tries it !

yeah

that our special right

if whatever his name is wants to join then he too can criticise bill's fashion sense, keith's filthy beanies and whether or not mick's wearing a wig

Absolutely.

That's the entire point: Albarn as a non-member here simply doesn't have the license to criticize the Stones. If he had mentioned a IORR membership in the interview, everything would be ok. Or at least and at latest coming out of hiding here in the forum, well, ok. But nothing. So no regrets. He deserves the storm.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
Spud
What's funny is that half the folks on this board seem to spend all their time bashing the Stones ......

....but woe betide anybody else who tries it !

yeah

that our special right

if whatever his name is wants to join then he too can criticise bill's fashion sense, keith's filthy beanies and whether or not mick's wearing a wig

Absolutely.

That's the entire point: Albarn as a non-member here simply doesn't have the license to criticize the Stones. If he had mentioned a IORR membership in the interview, everything would be ok. Or at least and at latest coming out of hiding here in the forum, well, ok. But nothing. So no regrets. He deserves the storm.

HANG ON! What if he's a 'lurker'? Where do we sit with that?

Quote
Paddy
Blur were as big as it can get on one side of the world.

Each album they released they got bigger, they held their own and some preferred them to the other British bands of the day. Oasis, Manics, Radiohead... They beat Oasis in that NME driven singles battle rubbish. Damon’s a talented guy, Gorillaz has been successful, not my thing though.

Some bands never make it in the States the same way they did in England.

Blur was very big in Britain indeed. Back in the 90's with Oasis it was like the good old rivalry and debate of Beatles vs. Stones among Britpop. Probably we Stones fans should stand more in the corner of Blur since they were a London group against a band from some peripherical town (not Liverpool, but Manchester this time)... Actually I read once an academic book about the Britpop and Blur/ Oasis battle as a cultural phenomenon, and it was interesting how much the 60's and especially the giantic Beatles vs. the Stones confrontation had a role still, and now matter there had happened since the Sixties in British rock, it still was shadowing the scene. It all started there, and still had a vibrant role. If nothing else, the kids were learning all that from milking their mother's breasts.

Against that background Albarn's mild 'rip' of the Stones is, once again (but although a bit nostalgic), that of making a father's murder, like rebelling against an established authority, pretty much a constant in British rock (of which British rock press made a gospel). Ask Strummer or Rotten (or read any number of, say, NME from the early 70's to late 90's). And all of them, naturally and honestly, were huge fans of the Stones.

- Doxa



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2022-01-29 19:34 by Doxa.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
Spud
What's funny is that half the folks on this board seem to spend all their time bashing the Stones ......

....but woe betide anybody else who tries it !

yeah

that our special right

if whatever his name is wants to join then he too can criticise bill's fashion sense, keith's filthy beanies and whether or not mick's wearing a wig

Absolutely.

That's the entire point: Albarn as a non-member here simply doesn't have the license to criticize the Stones. If he had mentioned a IORR membership in the interview, everything would be ok. Or at least and at latest coming out of hiding here in the forum, well, ok. But nothing. So no regrets. He deserves the storm.

HANG ON! What if he's a 'lurker'? Where do we sit with that?

Good point! But if that's the case, it's up to him to bring this defense argument forward. Even then, it would be still debatable whether "lurking only status" ensues full, if any, Stones criticizing rights.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
Spud
What's funny is that half the folks on this board seem to spend all their time bashing the Stones ......

....but woe betide anybody else who tries it !

yeah

that our special right

if whatever his name is wants to join then he too can criticise bill's fashion sense, keith's filthy beanies and whether or not mick's wearing a wig

Absolutely.

That's the entire point: Albarn as a non-member here simply doesn't have the license to criticize the Stones. If he had mentioned a IORR membership in the interview, everything would be ok. Or at least and at latest coming out of hiding here in the forum, well, ok. But nothing. So no regrets. He deserves the storm.

HANG ON! What if he's a 'lurker'? Where do we sit with that?

Good point! But if that's the case, it's up to him to bring this defense argument forward. Even then, it would be still debatable whether "lurking only status" ensues full, if any, Stones criticizing rights.

I would say - based on my post above - that Mr. Alberns alraedy has a special priviledge and right to critizise the Stones since he is stemming out of same musical scene, or a family, namely that of British rock. They are his musical and cultural daddies or grandpaps. He can say anything of them, but don't you you all foregneirs dare to do that. Especially Americans who didn't even get Britpop ever as you were busy were listening to some bloody grunge - a lame mainstream pop version of the late 70's British punk.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-01-29 20:12 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
But personally I didn't find the Stones reference such a big deal - similar accounts pop up occasionally here and there, and part of me agrees with him - but the one about Taylor Swift and song-writing I think was an interesting one.

- Doxa

Well, Taylor was not that swift when it comes to songwriting.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
Spud
What's funny is that half the folks on this board seem to spend all their time bashing the Stones ......

....but woe betide anybody else who tries it !

yeah

that our special right

if whatever his name is wants to join then he too can criticise bill's fashion sense, keith's filthy beanies and whether or not mick's wearing a wig

Absolutely.

That's the entire point: Albarn as a non-member here simply doesn't have the license to criticize the Stones. If he had mentioned a IORR membership in the interview, everything would be ok. Or at least and at latest coming out of hiding here in the forum, well, ok. But nothing. So no regrets. He deserves the storm.

HANG ON! What if he's a 'lurker'? Where do we sit with that?

Good point! But if that's the case, it's up to him to bring this defense argument forward. Even then, it would be still debatable whether "lurking only status" ensues full, if any, Stones criticizing rights.

I would say - based on my post above - that Mr. Alberns alraedy has a special priviledge and right to critizise the Stones since he is stemming out of same musical scene, or a family, namely that of British rock. They are his musical and cultural daddies or grandpaps. He can say anything of them, but don't you you all foregneirs dare to do that. Especially Americans who didn't even get Britpop ever as you were busy were listening to some bloody grunge - a lame mainstream pop version of the late 70's British punk.

- Doxa

I say he can criticize whoever he wants, IORR membership be damned!

It's just an opinion, and he risks looking like a buffoon, much like Keith did in the 90s taking on Elton John and songs about blondes. Ridiculous.

If you want to go there that's fine, but you also understand that people of the other opinion are going to pile all over you.

My only actual criticism of Albarn was attacking Swift on the songwriting, when he clearly has an opinion about it, but rather than stating it as an opinion, he states it as fact...then has to recant.

What a dufus.

Herald Sun ---- 30 January 2022



ROCKMAN

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Doxa

I would say - based on my post above - that Mr. Alberns alraedy has a special priviledge and right to critizise the Stones since he is stemming out of same musical scene, or a family, namely that of British rock. They are his musical and cultural daddies or grandpaps. He can say anything of them, but don't you you all foregneirs dare to do that. Especially Americans who didn't even get Britpop ever as you were busy were listening to some bloody grunge - a lame mainstream pop version of the late 70's British punk.

- Doxa

I say he can criticize whoever he wants, IORR membership be damned!

It's just an opinion, and he risks looking like a buffoon, much like Keith did in the 90s taking on Elton John and songs about blondes. Ridiculous.

If you want to go there that's fine, but you also understand that people of the other opinion are going to pile all over you.

My only actual criticism of Albarn was attacking Swift on the songwriting, when he clearly has an opinion about it, but rather than stating it as an opinion, he states it as fact...then has to recant.

What a dufus.

I had a pretty same opinion as you do, and I hope it came through in my post that I was just making fun of Albarn's supposed stance. It just reminded of the attitude of British rockers and especially that of British rock press when I was following that scene back in the 80's and 90's (and then, out of curiosity or to fill the holes in my musical learning, the 70's). Especially NME and Sounds.

The British scene was something to follow for those 'hipsters' of the day who wanted to know what new and supposedly exciting was going in music. What was typical for British rock press was to praise the new, largely non-known local acts by the expense of the older ones. And once an act got an international success - read: to be big in America - they were a no-no. They were treated like shit from that on. I especially recall the fate of U2. They were the darling of the press, but once JOSHUE TREE hitted big time and made them an universal superband, they were some sort of sold-out traitors. But then there were new hot bands bands like the Smiths to be praised. When the Britpop took over, the bands like Blur and even Oasis reminded as the darling boys of the press surprisingly long, since they never made that big in America.

The old dinosaurs like the Stones were, of course, like a laughing stock, but jeez hell when this over-critical press had a chance to interview them, they were literally kissing their asses...

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2022-01-29 21:12 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Doxa

I would say - based on my post above - that Mr. Alberns alraedy has a special priviledge and right to critizise the Stones since he is stemming out of same musical scene, or a family, namely that of British rock. They are his musical and cultural daddies or grandpaps. He can say anything of them, but don't you you all foregneirs dare to do that. Especially Americans who didn't even get Britpop ever as you were busy were listening to some bloody grunge - a lame mainstream pop version of the late 70's British punk.

- Doxa

I say he can criticize whoever he wants, IORR membership be damned!

It's just an opinion, and he risks looking like a buffoon, much like Keith did in the 90s taking on Elton John and songs about blondes. Ridiculous.

If you want to go there that's fine, but you also understand that people of the other opinion are going to pile all over you.

My only actual criticism of Albarn was attacking Swift on the songwriting, when he clearly has an opinion about it, but rather than stating it as an opinion, he states it as fact...then has to recant.

What a dufus.

I had a pretty same opinion as you do, and I hope it came through in my post that I was just making fun of Albarn's supposed stance. It just reminded of the attitude of British rockers and especially that of British rock press when I was following that scene back in the 80's and 90's (and then, out of curiosity or to fill the holes in my musical learning, the 70's). Especially NME and Sounds.

The British scene was something to follow for those 'hipsters' of the day who wanted to know what new and supposedly exciting was going in music. What was typical for British rock press was to praise the new, largely non-known local acts by the expense of the older ones. And once an act got an international success - read: to be big in America - they were a no-no. They were treated like shit from that on. I especially recall the fate of U2. They were the darling of the press, but once JOSHUE TREE hitted big time and made them an universal superband, they were some sort of sold-out traitors. But then there were new hot bands bands like the Smiths to be praised. When the Britpop took over, the bands like Blur and even Oasis reminded as the darling boys of the press surprisingly long, since they never made that big in America.

The old dinosaurs like the Stones were, of course, like a laughing stock, but jeez hell when this over-critical press had a chance to interview them, they were literally kissing their asses...

- Doxa

Yes, your posts are always clear, well written with well thought out analysis Doxa, and I do agree with you the lion's share of the time.

It's funny in what you're describing about the British press seems very true in every aspect...but then you get the Beatles and I believe that seems the exception to the rule.