Tell Me :
Talk
What a great post GasLightStreet! I would have added Mick Taylor as the element who was "playing with math, distorting it - distorting time". He was crucial to that wonderous version of JJF.
i just thought that needed to be quoted
well done sir
Believe me, Mick Taylor is a part of that. Yes I didn't say it but I thought it would be kinda given, I didn't mention Woody as well. It just is.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-08-01 03:39 by GasLightStreet.
LOL
Thank you.
...........Yes, should not have left out 1963-1969, but my guess is you (GLS) were likely were a too young in that era, as you stated.
I was born in 1970.
Raised on The Rolling Stones, The Who, The Beatles, Janis Joplin, The Doors and Jimi Hendrix.
As great as they all are, the Stones were the most played.
So... duh. But The Who. Those horns. That rhythm.
It's only happenstance if there's some kind of question, right? Otherwise, it is what it is. There's no mystery about it: excellent music.
A little later on I had read about the Stones vs Beatles bit and asked my dad about it and his response was putting on Jimi Hendrix at Woodstock, and after 5 minutes or so, he said, I've never heard anyone else do that.
I said I don't know, that's why I'm asking!!!
He said, They're all great. The Beatles are great at being The Beatles, The Rolling Stones are great at being The Rolling Stones... and Janis, holy crap...
He kinda went off a bit with her.
7 decades later... the entire atmosphere of Hendrix/Joplin/Doors/Zep/Beatles/Who and Stones is... not done.
It will be done with, directly, soon.
When these geezers start dying, and it will be a small window of, say, 3 years, there will be holy hell to pay as a fan.
Regardless that the music will "live on", whoever is alive the day after Keith dies will shudder with 'I thought he'd outlive us' kind of thing.
That's a joke. By December of 2024 they'll both be 81.
No matter what kind of shape Mick is in, let's see...heart valve replacement.
That doesn't exactly bode well. OK of course he's been on stage.
He wasn't on stage when his issue began.
I hope they all get to die at home, wherever that may be when it happens, because dying in a hospital... that's provolone cheese sticks.
Thank You. Catweazle and Nostradamus would be jealous.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
The Sun, The Moon And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: August 1, 2024 00:28
It occurred to me, sitting on my porch, looking out at the disjointed landscape of my front yard, that the power of The Rolling Stones is set, in one way, yet evolved within that setting, of 1969 - their first true volume powered tour to the masses, with attitude, identity growing with every show, nuance that was a secret.
To be able to have volume and perform unabated.
Perfect example:
Jumpin' Jack Flash, from GIMME SHELTER (and GYYYO).
Keith Richards is The Sun - flaring out riffs to various degrees across the musicscape, playing with math, distorting it - distorting time; clumpy yet sex; daggers yet sheets. Burrowing yet flying.
The Moon is Bill Wyman - lurking, casting shadows that we don't know are there, ever changing yet consistent; seemingly standing still; the literal push and pull of tides (Charlie).
Mick is the space within and surrounding, the atmosphere and space, always fitting, even if it's bizarre.
Jumpin' Jack Flash from 1969 personifies this at its finest but the rest of the show, that tour, fits as well. How those songs rolled, vamped, redefined rhythm, like seeing mating deer in a field or hundreds of alligators in a bayou feasting and mating, the constant diving, rolling, dodging, a lunge of mass proportions - the brilliant existence of chaos in a confined space.
Never again would they have that hold on the Universe in that wholeness - yet would grasp it here and there: certain songs in 1972, 1973, 1975-76, 1978 and 1981/82 would equal that existence of playing with math (Honky Tonk Women, for one, between 1975 and 1981), the sonicscape, the sound sphere they rolled in, and ebb and flow of the tides created. The absolute heave and ho, while raunch filled the air.
By 1989 it was long gone, a whole different thing, and between the gleam and genius of 1968-1972, glimpses of that brilliance occasionally but bleached with precision. They would find occasional brilliance in the studio - the elegance of I Think I'm Going Mad, the swagger and roll of She Was Hot and Tie You Up, the slinkiness of Miss You and Emotional Rescue, the cold clammy dark dampness of Fingerprint File, the heartbreak of autumn with Memory Motel, the precise and delicate knitting of She's So Cold, the barrels of Hang Fire and Shattered, the cinder blocks and sinew of Love Is Strong and Slave, the smooth lumpiness of Neighbours, the absolute boogie and steam engine chug of Rocks Off, the madness and chaos of Lies, similar yet dirty Summer Romance, the dragging foot sex of Dance, the gutter of Down In The Hole, the lumber of Dancing With Mr D, the threads being torn apart yet not completely with Tumbling Dice.
Brian Jones, Mick Taylor and Ronnie Wood fill in, fly in, occupying with melody, with movement, searing and tearing, chiming and glowing, resounding and bouncing.
There are other bands that have their sound and feel - The Beatles, The Who, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, AC/DC, Queen, The Cult, The Police, U2, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Nirvana, STP, Drive-By Truckers, Men At Work, The Bang, Neville Brothers, Little Feat, Allman Brothers... loads of others, so many others. All great and fantastically successful in what they do (did) - but not with such primal urgency as The Rolling Stones.
Some moments equal to. Why not? They're all great at what they do and have great songs and fantastic live performances. And just like The Rolling Stones, not all the time, ha ha.
If there was ever some kind of award for screwing up, The Rolling Stones would win it.
Not one of those bands, or any artists (Bob Dylan, Prince, Frank Sinatra etc) have ever had a time of complete all powerful existence within the rhythm of the Earth via music that made people question their existence, changed the way they feel their spine, and view the future with doom or exuberance.
Zeppelin came close but, not dismissing Led Zeppelin by any means, but perhaps their rumble was too long - The Rolling Stones were concise. Other artists had moments but never really kept it going to a certain level (my opinion).
The latter years of the Stones, say 1986 onward... anything really striking? For some people, yes - good and bad.
I get absolute joy out of quite a few songs post 1983 - but it's not summoned in any similar way as to pre-1986. I hold UNDERCOVER in high regard because of a number of things, it was my time of coming in on my own, one being they were expanding, Keith had dialed in some sounds he worked on with SG and ER, Mick's singing, backing vocals, had reached perfection, which really started to peak with EMOTIONAL RESCUE, absolutely magnificent backing vocals on U, with the band still maintaining a bluesy sound when necessary; Ronnie hadn't gone ape too much, Bill and Charlie were tighter than welding, and the dip into the now was full on (Too Much Blood), it wasn't uncertain, hopeful and dirty like Miss You and Emotional Rescue - safe songs of the now at the time.
Too Much Blood went way over the banks and flooded the entire landscape - and it's awesome. You'll notice they never did anything like it again. It never made any hits comps but it's still really something out there different.
After U, it's a bit of a mess yet clean: they never returned to being outright inventive or daring, dirty or messy.
I'm not talking about success on the charts or copies sold - simply the culture and nature of The Rolling Stones. They evolved. Can't stay in 1969 or 1972 forever.
HACKNEY DIAMONDS revealed, after many songs were recorded and Charlie died... that they still indeed have it - it's just now, it's different, it's not 1969 or 1978.
But 1969 - and extended through 1973?
Absolute definition of rock'n'roll.
To be able to have volume and perform unabated.
Perfect example:
Jumpin' Jack Flash, from GIMME SHELTER (and GYYYO).
Keith Richards is The Sun - flaring out riffs to various degrees across the musicscape, playing with math, distorting it - distorting time; clumpy yet sex; daggers yet sheets. Burrowing yet flying.
The Moon is Bill Wyman - lurking, casting shadows that we don't know are there, ever changing yet consistent; seemingly standing still; the literal push and pull of tides (Charlie).
Mick is the space within and surrounding, the atmosphere and space, always fitting, even if it's bizarre.
Jumpin' Jack Flash from 1969 personifies this at its finest but the rest of the show, that tour, fits as well. How those songs rolled, vamped, redefined rhythm, like seeing mating deer in a field or hundreds of alligators in a bayou feasting and mating, the constant diving, rolling, dodging, a lunge of mass proportions - the brilliant existence of chaos in a confined space.
Never again would they have that hold on the Universe in that wholeness - yet would grasp it here and there: certain songs in 1972, 1973, 1975-76, 1978 and 1981/82 would equal that existence of playing with math (Honky Tonk Women, for one, between 1975 and 1981), the sonicscape, the sound sphere they rolled in, and ebb and flow of the tides created. The absolute heave and ho, while raunch filled the air.
By 1989 it was long gone, a whole different thing, and between the gleam and genius of 1968-1972, glimpses of that brilliance occasionally but bleached with precision. They would find occasional brilliance in the studio - the elegance of I Think I'm Going Mad, the swagger and roll of She Was Hot and Tie You Up, the slinkiness of Miss You and Emotional Rescue, the cold clammy dark dampness of Fingerprint File, the heartbreak of autumn with Memory Motel, the precise and delicate knitting of She's So Cold, the barrels of Hang Fire and Shattered, the cinder blocks and sinew of Love Is Strong and Slave, the smooth lumpiness of Neighbours, the absolute boogie and steam engine chug of Rocks Off, the madness and chaos of Lies, similar yet dirty Summer Romance, the dragging foot sex of Dance, the gutter of Down In The Hole, the lumber of Dancing With Mr D, the threads being torn apart yet not completely with Tumbling Dice.
Brian Jones, Mick Taylor and Ronnie Wood fill in, fly in, occupying with melody, with movement, searing and tearing, chiming and glowing, resounding and bouncing.
There are other bands that have their sound and feel - The Beatles, The Who, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, AC/DC, Queen, The Cult, The Police, U2, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Nirvana, STP, Drive-By Truckers, Men At Work, The Bang, Neville Brothers, Little Feat, Allman Brothers... loads of others, so many others. All great and fantastically successful in what they do (did) - but not with such primal urgency as The Rolling Stones.
Some moments equal to. Why not? They're all great at what they do and have great songs and fantastic live performances. And just like The Rolling Stones, not all the time, ha ha.
If there was ever some kind of award for screwing up, The Rolling Stones would win it.
Not one of those bands, or any artists (Bob Dylan, Prince, Frank Sinatra etc) have ever had a time of complete all powerful existence within the rhythm of the Earth via music that made people question their existence, changed the way they feel their spine, and view the future with doom or exuberance.
Zeppelin came close but, not dismissing Led Zeppelin by any means, but perhaps their rumble was too long - The Rolling Stones were concise. Other artists had moments but never really kept it going to a certain level (my opinion).
The latter years of the Stones, say 1986 onward... anything really striking? For some people, yes - good and bad.
I get absolute joy out of quite a few songs post 1983 - but it's not summoned in any similar way as to pre-1986. I hold UNDERCOVER in high regard because of a number of things, it was my time of coming in on my own, one being they were expanding, Keith had dialed in some sounds he worked on with SG and ER, Mick's singing, backing vocals, had reached perfection, which really started to peak with EMOTIONAL RESCUE, absolutely magnificent backing vocals on U, with the band still maintaining a bluesy sound when necessary; Ronnie hadn't gone ape too much, Bill and Charlie were tighter than welding, and the dip into the now was full on (Too Much Blood), it wasn't uncertain, hopeful and dirty like Miss You and Emotional Rescue - safe songs of the now at the time.
Too Much Blood went way over the banks and flooded the entire landscape - and it's awesome. You'll notice they never did anything like it again. It never made any hits comps but it's still really something out there different.
After U, it's a bit of a mess yet clean: they never returned to being outright inventive or daring, dirty or messy.
I'm not talking about success on the charts or copies sold - simply the culture and nature of The Rolling Stones. They evolved. Can't stay in 1969 or 1972 forever.
HACKNEY DIAMONDS revealed, after many songs were recorded and Charlie died... that they still indeed have it - it's just now, it's different, it's not 1969 or 1978.
But 1969 - and extended through 1973?
Absolute definition of rock'n'roll.
Re: The Sun, The Moon And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
skytrench
()
Date: August 1, 2024 01:31
Quote
GasLightStreet
Keith Richards is The Sun - flaring out riffs to various degrees across the musicscape, playing with math, distorting it - distorting time; clumpy yet sex; daggers yet sheets. Burrowing yet flying.
The Moon is Bill Wyman - lurking, casting shadows that we don't know are there, ever changing yet consistent; seemingly standing still; the literal push and pull of tides (Charlie).
Mick is the space within and surrounding, the atmosphere and space, always fitting, even if it's bizarre.
What a great post GasLightStreet! I would have added Mick Taylor as the element who was "playing with math, distorting it - distorting time". He was crucial to that wonderous version of JJF.
Re: The Sun, The Moon And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
ProfessorWolf
()
Date: August 1, 2024 02:58
Quote
the dragging foot sex of Dance
i just thought that needed to be quoted
well done sir
Re: The Sun, The Moon And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: August 1, 2024 03:38
Quote
skytrenchQuote
GasLightStreet
Keith Richards is The Sun - flaring out riffs to various degrees across the musicscape, playing with math, distorting it - distorting time; clumpy yet sex; daggers yet sheets. Burrowing yet flying.
The Moon is Bill Wyman - lurking, casting shadows that we don't know are there, ever changing yet consistent; seemingly standing still; the literal push and pull of tides (Charlie).
Mick is the space within and surrounding, the atmosphere and space, always fitting, even if it's bizarre.
What a great post GasLightStreet! I would have added Mick Taylor as the element who was "playing with math, distorting it - distorting time". He was crucial to that wonderous version of JJF.
Believe me, Mick Taylor is a part of that. Yes I didn't say it but I thought it would be kinda given, I didn't mention Woody as well. It just is.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-08-01 03:39 by GasLightStreet.
Re: The Sun, The Moon And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: August 1, 2024 03:38
Quote
ProfessorWolfQuote
the dragging foot sex of Dance
i just thought that needed to be quoted
well done sir
LOL
Thank you.
Re: The Sun, The Moon And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: August 1, 2024 04:54
Marvellous reading, GasLightStreet!
One vital objection though. You are leaving out what went before. That is, their first period as R&B band. Thereafter, their phase as a progressive popband with three albums (one of which we know that you do dislike) and a string of defining "noisy" single A-sides with great B-sides as well.
One vital objection though. You are leaving out what went before. That is, their first period as R&B band. Thereafter, their phase as a progressive popband with three albums (one of which we know that you do dislike) and a string of defining "noisy" single A-sides with great B-sides as well.
Re: The Sun, The Moon And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
gastonl74
()
Date: August 1, 2024 05:06
Espectacular!!
Re: The Sun, The Moon And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: August 1, 2024 10:08
"The Sun, The Moon And The Rolling Stones"
always loved that classic quote...
...but , speaking as a Brit, the Rolling Stones have been a damn sight more reliable than the sun these last sixty-odd years.
always loved that classic quote...
...but , speaking as a Brit, the Rolling Stones have been a damn sight more reliable than the sun these last sixty-odd years.
Re: The Sun, The Moon And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: August 1, 2024 10:20
HHHhaaaaaaa ...Lurv ya humor Spud
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: The Sun, The Moon And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
austrianstones
()
Date: August 1, 2024 18:57
The sun, the moon and the rolling stones .... and we`re still under the cheese bell ( if these are the right words, and qoute by keit in 25x5)) ! For me this is my "life" Tx for the thread 
Tx for the thread Re: The Sun, The Moon And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
stonesurvive
()
Date: August 3, 2024 07:49
poQuote
Witness
Marvellous reading, GasLightStreet!
One vital objection though. You are leaving out what went before. That is, their first period as R&B band. Thereafter, their phase as a progressive popband with three albums (one of which we know that you do dislike) and a string of defining "noisy" single A-sides with great B-sides as well.
...........Yes, should not have left out 1963-1969, but my guess is you (GLS) were likely were a too young in that era, as you stated.
Re: The Sun, The Moon And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: August 5, 2024 10:27
That's the amazing thing isn't it. Even for folks now over the age of 65 or so, this band has been around since before our very earliest childhood memories.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-08-05 10:30 by Spud.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-08-05 10:30 by Spud.
Re: The Sun, The Moon And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: August 5, 2024 11:25
Quote
Spud
That's the amazing thing isn't it. Even for folks now over the age of 65 or so, this band has been around since before our very earliest childhood memories.
I was born in 1970.
Raised on The Rolling Stones, The Who, The Beatles, Janis Joplin, The Doors and Jimi Hendrix.
As great as they all are, the Stones were the most played.
So... duh. But The Who. Those horns. That rhythm.
It's only happenstance if there's some kind of question, right? Otherwise, it is what it is. There's no mystery about it: excellent music.
A little later on I had read about the Stones vs Beatles bit and asked my dad about it and his response was putting on Jimi Hendrix at Woodstock, and after 5 minutes or so, he said, I've never heard anyone else do that.
I said I don't know, that's why I'm asking!!!
He said, They're all great. The Beatles are great at being The Beatles, The Rolling Stones are great at being The Rolling Stones... and Janis, holy crap...
He kinda went off a bit with her.
7 decades later... the entire atmosphere of Hendrix/Joplin/Doors/Zep/Beatles/Who and Stones is... not done.
It will be done with, directly, soon.
When these geezers start dying, and it will be a small window of, say, 3 years, there will be holy hell to pay as a fan.
Regardless that the music will "live on", whoever is alive the day after Keith dies will shudder with 'I thought he'd outlive us' kind of thing.
That's a joke. By December of 2024 they'll both be 81.
No matter what kind of shape Mick is in, let's see...heart valve replacement.
That doesn't exactly bode well. OK of course he's been on stage.
He wasn't on stage when his issue began.
I hope they all get to die at home, wherever that may be when it happens, because dying in a hospital... that's provolone cheese sticks.
Re: The Sun, The Moon And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: August 5, 2024 13:21
I suppose Charlie's sad passing put a dent in our beliefs that they were immortal...
...so let's just enjoy them whilst we can and be thankful that their works will outlive us all.
...so let's just enjoy them whilst we can and be thankful that their works will outlive us all.
Re: The Sun, The Moon And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
ProfessorWolf
()
Date: August 5, 2024 20:06
not me i'm just gonna continue believing that mick and keith will live into there mid 90's and die a month apart
Re: The Sun, The Moon And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: August 5, 2024 21:44
Quote
GasLightStreet
Keith Richards is The Sun - flaring out riffs to various degrees across the musicscape, playing with math, distorting it - distorting time; clumpy yet sex; daggers yet sheets. Burrowing yet flying.
The Moon is Bill Wyman - lurking, casting shadows that we don't know are there, ever changing yet consistent; seemingly standing still; the literal push and pull of tides (Charlie).
Mick is the space within and surrounding, the atmosphere and space, always fitting, even if it's bizarre.
Brian Jones, Mick Taylor and Ronnie Wood fill in, fly in, occupying with melody, with movement, searing and tearing, chiming and glowing, resounding and bouncing.
Thank You. Catweazle and Nostradamus would be jealous.
Re: The Sun, The Moon And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
Lynd8
()
Date: August 5, 2024 22:07
I was born in 1962 - they've always been there like the sun and the moon for me
Re: The Sun, The Moon And The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: August 17, 2024 08:22
I wish I could've come up with this post/thread before... well, 2024. People that have died possibly would've commented. And that would've been great.
But here we are and it rolls on... until it doesn't: BV making changes at some point.
Maybe elsewhere several will be talked about as years go by, which is fantastic... but it's all on the end. All of it. Well, not EVERYONE posting here but in general.
The Rolling Stones are, like Paul McCartney, on the verge of hanging it up. It won't be much longer. Within five years, which is realistic, they will stop.
And a few others unless.
We are in the end of an era. We can celebrate it all we want - when it's done it's done. Celebrating doesn't mean anything 6 or 12 months later.
They've been going since 1962.
That's a really long time. A very long time.
If the Stones suddenly charge $3000 a ticket you'll know what's up: that's it.
I hope that's not the case but the way things keep going up, well, cut it off and just charge a ton anyway. SOMEONE will pay it.
Although based on the numbers for the 2024 tour, not all sell outs... they couldn't sell out the cheap seats for some shows.
But that's those tickets. The whatever $$$ tickets up front... no problem.
It's not something one can pinpoint. Not selling out on his show this year vs 2 or 5 years ago doesn't mean anything other than not selling out - except that it sold out before so...
It does not work that way.
Maybe that many people weren't interested. Icon or not, so what.
Their loss? Not exactly.
But here we are and it rolls on... until it doesn't: BV making changes at some point.
Maybe elsewhere several will be talked about as years go by, which is fantastic... but it's all on the end. All of it. Well, not EVERYONE posting here but in general.
The Rolling Stones are, like Paul McCartney, on the verge of hanging it up. It won't be much longer. Within five years, which is realistic, they will stop.
And a few others unless.
We are in the end of an era. We can celebrate it all we want - when it's done it's done. Celebrating doesn't mean anything 6 or 12 months later.
They've been going since 1962.
That's a really long time. A very long time.
If the Stones suddenly charge $3000 a ticket you'll know what's up: that's it.
I hope that's not the case but the way things keep going up, well, cut it off and just charge a ton anyway. SOMEONE will pay it.
Although based on the numbers for the 2024 tour, not all sell outs... they couldn't sell out the cheap seats for some shows.
But that's those tickets. The whatever $$$ tickets up front... no problem.
It's not something one can pinpoint. Not selling out on his show this year vs 2 or 5 years ago doesn't mean anything other than not selling out - except that it sold out before so...
It does not work that way.
Maybe that many people weren't interested. Icon or not, so what.
Their loss? Not exactly.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.