Quote
treaclefingers



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.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
treaclefingers



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.

Yeah, that's true! I guess the benefit of the Beatles was that they 'understood' to call it quits in time, and the 'serious' critical rock press was just taking its early steps when they were gone. Especially after the death of Lennon, the remaining Beatles members were like above critisism, like some elder holy men and to bitch them would be like bad manners (but at the same they were totally irrelevant, no one taking seriously any longer). I think for the Stones to achieve this 'holy, untouchable' status would take some decades more, even the death of critical rock press. Nowadays no one really bothers to criticise them, and even the British press (and whateber there is left of the once critical music press) seem to handle them with a silky gloves, and recognize their unique cultural significance and the miracle of the world that they still exist (a living link to the times when England ruled the world culturally). Of course, nothing compared to the status of the Beatles that is today is something like Royal Family's. But for some reason, only Mick's doings seem to inspire still some critical words (that is also a sign that his doings have still a some kind of significance, that is, his doings are taken seriously).

- Doxa

Quote
treaclefingers

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.

Quote
Stoneage
Not so sure about that. The taking risk part I mean. The just continued doing what they do (with longer and longer intervals). Like most people do. They didn't set new borders or challenged the music industry.

Quote
GasLightStreet


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

Quote
Paddy

Quote
treaclefingers

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.

Some artists get a pass because they went out at the top of their game, either disbanding or dying. If it’s Kurt Cobain & Nirvana or Morrison & The doors, they’re frozen in time and never release a bad album. The Beatles disbanded and went out at the top of their game and are frozen at Abbey Road.

The Stones kept going and by Blue and Lonsome had come home. They took the harder path, some of it worked and some didn’t, but they stayed the course. Another thing regarding the stones is, could a Cobain still sing the same way at even 40, his voice and his rasp are a young mans. It’s harder to do sing like that as you get older. The Stones, over the course of their career have delivered live 95% of the time. The odd bumb note and intro, the odd @#$%& up gig, but that’s comforting, it’s a real band in a real live situation, no backing tracks.

Lots of artists never took the risks the Stones did.