... PRIMITIVE ...

Mickschick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You are really something Mathijs,you always manage
> to tick me off!! You are always saying something
> bad about the STONES! How come you are still
> here.????...

Again: I never said anything bad about the '68-'86 Stones. I indeed do think that the 2006 Stones are just a bad Rolling Stones Tribute Band.

> I do believe that all you did was
> critisize the Stones Bigger Bang

Again as always your not well informed. I found AB the best albumk since Undercover (which is one of my fave albums). Of the entire album I only hated BOMH and SOL.


> talking about them again in a bad way, How does a
> guy like YOU NOT get BANNED from here??

Because I try to only post well-thought arguments. I never just attack the Stones (like some Ronnie bashers), I always try to pose an oppinion, for whatever it is worth.

> Possibly be buddies with BV because all you do is
> MOCK the STONES from Stem to stearn.

No, were not buddies. We do know eachother, but that's all. And again, I only mock the live Stones since '94.

> f you are
> only a fan from 68 to 86 then do your own site
> dedicated to those years! How can you call
> yourself a TRUE fan?

Because the Stones are the greatest R&R in te World only due to their output from '68 to '86 (actually '68 to '78, but I am mildly now. Ever since the Stones only legacy is that they are the bigest Vegas band. Nobody cares about any Stones record since '86. The reason you are on this board is because of what the Stones did in the 60's and 70's, not because of the "Legendary Steel Wheels" album.

> And VEGAS?? Where the heck to you see Vegas Act in
> a STONES SHOW??? Hmmm...Nope don't see it as far
> as I can stretch my imagination....The Rolling
> Stones are in no way a Vegas Act.

Yes they are. I do not see a difference between a Celine Dion show in Vegas and a Stones show in 2006. In fact, the Stones use more session musicions than Dion.


Have you been
> to Vegas? Have you seen a Vegas Act?

Yes, I have been to Vegas (have you ever been to Europe?), and I have seen all the entertainers. There's not a difference to the Stones anno 2006.

> Oh but there is
> one woman, the amazing LISA FISHER! Yea, she is
> something else but...she's no show girl, she's all
> WOMAN and an AWESOME vocalist, and a great asset
> to the STONES SHOW. Vegas?? NO WAY!!

I truly and deeply do not care about Lisa Fisher. I am a fan of the Stones, not of Lisa Fisher. I have no opinion on Lisa. All I know is that I want to see and hea the Stones, and not an average black female singer trying to copy a 30 year olod recording. I want to hear Jagger scream out his lungs like he did in '73 and '75. I really, really do not give a @#$%& about any sesssion man on stage with the Stones. They are hired because the Stones can't pull it off them sleves anymore.

> And I don't see Mick and the boys in matching
> tuxedos, nope, there is no VEGAS CRAP HERE!!
> ITS ONLY ROCK N ROLL!!

I do not see any diference between a guy putting on a tux or a guy who dresses up like Keith Richards to entertain the people.


> And its amazing and if
> you'd bother to OPEN YOUR MIND, and your wallet to
> actually go to a show you'd see it too.... You are
> apparently trapped in a TIME WARP!!

I have seen the Stones live about 40 times, I have seen 6 club shows in Europe, US and England. I think I have seen enough of the live Stones to make up my own opinion.

> I'd like to see you, (and any of the other
> complainers), have the energy they have! I'd like
> to see anyone put out like they do, and do it
> again the next night!!

Sorry, all I hear is a worn out band that is held together by session musicians. And apperently I am not alone, as the European tour didn't sell at all.


> There is Not EVER going to be another band that
> can do what the STONES have done for over 40
> years. I count myself Lucky to have been a part of
> this! I adore them.
> Always will.
>
> STONES FOREVER!
> Mickschick

Well I agrea with you here: there will never be another Rolling Stones. But for me, the Stones are the Stones from '68 to '86, and especially the last few years in my opinion they are only harming their own legacy.

You may thing I am weird, but imagine what a normal, non-Stones fan would think of a 40+ year old woman calling herself "mickschick". Do you hink that's normal? Don't you think that's a bit weird?

Mathijs

Oh BOY!! MATHIJS, You have taken me out of context on a few points here. Especially with the comment on BV. I said "you Couldn't POSSIBLY BE A BUDDIE of BV's" but you took my comment and cut it off to say...

> Possibly be buddies with BV because all you do is
> MOCK the STONES from Stem to stearn.

And it also sounds like I said f you by the way you cut off my comment. you cut of the I

> f you are
> only a fan from 68 to 86 then do your own site
> dedicated to those years! How can you call
> yourself a TRUE fan?

I said, "If you are only a fan..."
So Please, don't mislead or misquote people, that is not right. Comment on me if you like I don't care, the sun doesn't rise and fall on your comments nor mine, but if you qoute me, take it down right, not just what you want, to make it look bad.

I don't see anything to compare A STONES Show to the Celine Dion vegas act. Nothing...


There is a need for enhancement in a show, people expect things to be perfect now-a-day's, and they wouldn't be perfect, if it was just the 4 Remaining STONES now would it? No bassist? Bills gone don't forget. So what the heck? I mean do you dislike the Horn section onstage too? I mean technically they aren't "Stones" either but they are an important part of the whole thing, don't cha think?

you wrote..."I truly and deeply do not care about Lisa Fisher. I am a fan of the Stones, not of Lisa Fisher. I have no opinion on Lisa. All I know is that I want to see and hea the Stones, and not an average black female singer trying to copy a 30 year olod recording. I want to hear Jagger scream out his lungs like he did in '73 and '75. I really, really do not give a @#$%& about any sesssion man on stage with the Stones. They are hired because the Stones can't pull it off them sleves anymore."


Ms. Fisher is her own vocalist, and your remark about her being an average "BLACK" "FEMALE" is not only racist, but sexist as well. Lisa et. al. are a great addition to the whole experience. If you don't like it that is fine, but for me, whatever song she and Mick do together,she does it with style and conviction. And when Lisa, starts out on that stage, you must be one of the only ones that sit down then because,in my experience, EVERYONE SCREAMS AND HOLLERS when she's up there!

At least, that is what they do here in the States, and in Canada. That is what I've noticed. And I've been all over the USA to see them, and to Toronto,Canada seven times, to see them. They all really Like Lisa. But maybe it's just the way it is in this hemisphere. I don't know. No, I've not been to Europe yet...

You've got me topped on shows though Mathijs, I've only seen them about what 27times now. So I guess you've upped me, that is ok, because, I remember the show's I saw in 1978 and see what I've seen in the past 10 years, and hands down they are better performers then they were back then.


And as far as hearing Mick scream his lungs out like he did in the Early 70's, I mean, man wouldn't that be great?? But in all reality no one expects,(except maybe you) for things to be like they were.

Its called PROGRESS...

I think that what they do now, is great. I appreciate them. I'm satisfied!
There are things we can wish for and things that are real, and things that will not ever be able to happen again.

I don't expect Mick to jump as high as he once did either. I miss that, I miss him swinging off a rope too, I wish he'd rip that belt off that jumpsuit and slam it on the stage during Midnight Rambler like he did before, I wish Mick's hair was always long, I wish Brian didn't die, and I wish that Ian was still pounding the piano,I wish Bill were still in the band, but hey, it's not ever going to be that way, I don't expect it to.

I do live in the hear and now, and maybe that is the difference between you and I, Mathijs. Maybe that is what seperates the people who have a "time stamp" on the Stones, and say they were only good during certian periods of time and nothing else they do is worth much of a darn. I don't think that way, I think that every contribution they offer is worth a listen, and I'm so very happy that I can still be a part of it. But of course, that I've said before!

As far as Keith's apparel, like I've also said, Keith is the coolest cat in the world and he is entitled to wear whatever he wants, and he can pull it off, and by the way, you should like that because, he's always been that way... HE's always had his own sence of himself, and I believe, most people wouldn't want to see him any other way.

And as far as I'm concerned...

YOU WROTE...

You may thing I am weird, but imagine what a normal, non-Stones fan would think of a 40+ year old woman calling herself "mickschick". Do you hink that's normal? Don't you think that's a bit weird?

Normal, me? and I don't give a rats behind if I'm over 40, and I callmyself MicksChick on a STONES SITE! Hmmm? Strange, I don't think that is strange. I think that I'm only like more than half the other fans here who have a STONES RELATED HANDLE...
I don't introduce myself at parties as Mickschick! My other handle on AOL has nothing to do with the STONES.
It's all relative.


Pleased to meet you...Hope you guess my name...

My real name is Colleen, does that make you feel better Mathijs? So, if you would like to respond to me, you can be all formal and call me by my given name.

Of course you don't need to respond at all if you choose not to. I just knew you'd post because you always want to get the last word. But I'm not one to allow someone to misquote me. Not without having something to say about it! LOL!!
Well then, take care Mathijs, I'm sure to hear something soon huh??

KEEP ON ROCKIN!!
MICKSCHICK!
One more thing, just so you know, A band can't be it's OWN "Tribute Band"!!

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because I am a big fan of the Stones before they
> became this Vegas act. And as far as I am
> concerned, their legacy from '68 until '86 still
> is important and large enough to stick around
> here.
>
> Mathijs


I understand that, and it's valid to stick around for part of the catalog, but I think most of he people here would disagree that they were a Vegas act from 1987 and upwards. Really Mathijs: You're wrong on this one. You are right sometimes, but here, you are wrong. You think the '68 - '86 era was the most important and you don't like the road they took from 1989 onwards? Well, to me it was clear that "the old" way simply didn't hold up anymore. A new approach was MUCH needed. They took a new approach and came out better than they'd been in the 80s. BTW: What year do you pick as the year they became a Vegas act?

JumpingKentFlash

Even though the live show has certainly taken on some Vegas-like elements starting in 1989, they have put on some great shows from 1989 to present. On a good night they are still one of the best bands in the world. I wish they'd get rid of the backup singers and the horn section (keep the sax, tho) and concentrate more on their entire catalogue rather than just the same hits over and over, but even in their current form they are still enjoyable.

The problem is they set such a high standard in the '60s and '70s there is nowhere to go from there but down. They can't match their recordings or concerts from that era, but really what other band can? None that I can think of.

Hey MicksChick. For what it's worth, I always enjoy Mathijs' posts. Seriously, the guy knows way more about the Stones and their guitars than probably anybody else on this site. He is entitled to his own opinion just like you are.

Hey Lukester!

You Wrote...

"Hey MicksChick. For what it's worth, I always enjoy Mathijs' posts. Seriously, the guy knows way more about the Stones and their guitars than probably anybody else on this site. He is entitled to his own opinion just like you are."

I absoulutely agree that Mathijs has entitlement to his own opinion. As do you and I and everyone else on this board.

But I really doubt that this one particular individual is the end all on The Stones. Personally I think you are limiting yourself if you think that is true. If he is the authority then why isn't he creating his own site, or maybe he can write a book? But then again, I could write a book about the Stones too. Most of us here probably could!

My Husband is also a guitar player, and there is a lot of discrepency between what Mathijs say's and to what is fact. But that's ok. Believe what you want, cause there is no changing some people's thought process. I'm not here to do that. Apparently that job is filled!!LOL!!

I find it amazing that some people think that his is the only opinion that matters. The info isn't always correct. But if it is reasearched and not taken as gospel then you'd know that by now.

But hey, to each is own, I guess!

Also,as far as I can tell,Mathijs seems to not like Women, he slammed Lisa, and he called me weird. I don't believe that you are allowed to call other members names on this site?

I guess I'm not bothered by the name calling cause I can't expect much from a person who certianly doesn't know me. That would just be childish.

And besides he's wrong!

Have a Great Day Lukester, and you too Mathijs!
MICKSCHICK!
((Oh and just for you Mathijs, Colleen....))

I really enjoy Mathijs posts too.
And when he write that Stones aren't good at all these days, a Las Vegas act....he does it under threads where we allready discuss older STones vs. newer Stones. He don't write it under threads like "Stones in Berlin" or "Great concert last night". If he did THAT, I could understand people being offended...but he does not.

Mathijs certainly makes a number of points i can well relate to but i do believe his expectations of the Stones today is a little too high (and unrealistic).

Firstly the Stones don't play the new songs Mathijs has mentioned because they have realistic expectations of their own contemporary worth in relation to their latest product. They know the vast majority of the crowd come to see them to relive their own sense of nostalgia and for those too young to remember it's an opportunity to get a taste of a bygone era which seems so very exciting with the hindsight of forty odd years. Whatever Jagger says about not wanting to be an old fart etc. he's well aware that it's simply impossible to turn the tide of public opinion/ expectation. Those new songs Mathijs mentioned aren't that great anyway within the greater picture and Jagger knows they are never going to be loved in the way the 'classic' Stones music is.

The Stones aren't the only 60s artists still performing but unlike most of the others (excluding the Who possibly) they do have a highly identifiable image that really relates more to people of much more tender years. Dylan and McCartney don't have to worry about putting on a 'performance' because they never did in the first place. In many ways this means they can feel more comfortable being themselves which in turn leads to a more credible musical identity at this stage in their lives. Believeabilty is the Stones biggest hurdle because like Mathijs says they are now resembling a Stones tribute band that many can relate to and enjoy because they invoke happy memories but are less likely to be taken seriously in the present tense. Jagger in particular is in a difficult position. I'd like to see the Stones gain more credibility for their current music but a huge gulf will always exist with integrity in their present set up.

Hi Colleen! Just a few remarks:


Mickschick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh BOY!! MATHIJS, You have taken me out of context
> on a few points here. Especially with the comment
> on BV. I said "you Couldn't POSSIBLY BE A BUDDIE
> of BV's" but you took my comment and cut it off to
> say...

I am very sorry about mis-quoting you. I hope you will accept my explenation of it all being just typos. I am not that well on the keyboard at 1 AM after a few drinks. That's all.


> > f you are
> > only a fan from 68 to 86 then do your own site
> > dedicated to those years! How can you call
> > yourself a TRUE fan?

For years I have had my own website, but updating was taking me just too much time.

> There is a need for enhancement in a show, people
> expect things to be perfect now-a-day's, and they
> wouldn't be perfect, if it was just the 4
> Remaining STONES now would it? No bassist? Bills
> gone don't forget. So what the heck? I mean do you
> dislike the Horn section onstage too? I mean
> technically they aren't "Stones" either but they
> are an important part of the whole thing, don't
> cha think?

Yes, I dislike the horn section too. I like the old Stones: just the five of them, add a pianist, add a sax player, and that's it for me. I do not like 5 guys wearing the wrong jackets doing all the wrong moves. That's Vegas to me.


> Ms. Fisher is her own vocalist, and your remark
> about her being an average "BLACK" "FEMALE" is not
> only racist, but sexist as well.

My remark is what it is: Lisa is in my very own opinion an average black female singer. Black and female are only qualifications, just as "solo guitarist" is a qualification as opposed to "rythm guitarist" Lisa is a musician that can be classed as "black female", as opposed to "white female" or "black male" or "white male". All these are classes of different singers. In her genre I find her average. She's a great back-up singer, and that's where it ends for me. I do not go to see the Stones because she is present, in fact I find her presence on tracks like Monkey Man and Gimme Shelter enoying. I always feel that these tracks are stronger without her. And, I do not care what the general audience thinks of her. For my part she is loved by millions: I don't like her. And I am writing down MY opinion here.

> I don't expect Mick to jump as high as he once did
> either. I miss that, I miss him swinging off a
> rope too, I wish he'd rip that belt off that
> jumpsuit and slam it on the stage during Midnight
> Rambler like he did before, I wish Mick's hair was
> always long, I wish Brian didn't die, and I wish
> that Ian was still pounding the piano,I wish Bill
> were still in the band, but hey, it's not ever
> going to be that way, I don't expect it to.

I do not expect the Stones to be like how you describe them. Of course it is o.k. to get older, to progress, to change. But there's a limit. Sometimes curcumstances can change to such point that it is better to stop at all. And in my opinion, the Stones reached that point in about 1999, when it became clear that Wood will never achieve even a mediocre level of guitar playing.

> One more thing, just so you know, A band can't be
> it's OWN "Tribute Band"!!

Yes they can, if the amount of session men outgrows the amount of original members of the band. Paul McCartney is the best Beatles Tribute available, just as The Who will be when they start touring again.

Mathijs

Hi Colleen!


Mickschick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> My Husband is also a guitar player, and there is
> a lot of discrepency between what Mathijs say's
> and to what is fact.

I never, ever pretended to be Mr. Know-it-all, neither on the Stones nor on guitars. I always hope on a good discussion. For example, the threads about the guitars showed me dozens of pictures I have never seen before, and thought me some great new things.

If your husband feels that I am mistaken I sure hope you will chime in on the thread and point out the mistake to me.

Mathijs

Shifting back to the original subject, what do you guys think about Keith's solo in Dangerous Beauty? Many people think isn't well performed, but I actually happen to like it. It displays how much Keith really still is a blues musician, basically.

Keth's solo was great.But who the riff to that song.Was it Mick or Keith?That is what I'm very much curious.

Dangerous Beauty is one hell of a misnomer! Cave-man rock at its finest. (And no, that's not a complement . . .)

Who gave the riff?

Wild Slivovitz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shifting back to the original subject, what do you
> guys think about Keith's solo in Dangerous Beauty?
> Many people think isn't well performed, but I
> actually happen to like it. It displays how much
> Keith really still is a blues musician, basically.


its a monster of a song. Best riff on any Stones record since 'start me up'

Better song, too. So there.

.

I said something here in this post, what made me conclude that my post wasn't any better than the one I reacted on.
So I whiped it out.

Jelle



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-24 11:48 by sluissie.

Matthijs, I am curious, cause you really like the period till 1986. And you said the band should play only with one sax-player, a bass player etc...
without the extra musicians anyway.

Do you like the songs where they use a trumpet? Terrifying, Out Of Control for example?

I personally really like Steel Wheels. I also like most songs on the records after SW, but nowadays the bass is the thing that I miss most (buried in the mix now), or I miss a sax (solo).

A Bigger Bang is really a great album, one of my favorites together with Steel Wheels, made by the "modern" Stones. Streets Of Love is the only song I can't stand, and I find the live version of Back Of My Hand much better than the album version. And again I cannot hear the bass on almost the whole album.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> its a monster of a song. Best riff on any Stones
> record since 'start me up'
>
> Better song, too. So there.


You think DB is better than SMU? And that DB is the best since SMU? Interesting. Please elaborate.

JumpingKentFlash

I've always thought SMU was an overrated song. Even when it first came out. Its a great riff, but as a song, merely a good one and (by comparison) one of the weaker tracks on a great album

Better riff? yes..I cant think of any since that are as good, if youre talking about that "blocked chords" style of riffing. I Go Wild has a terrific riff too, which worked very well when they played it in concert. Dangerous Beauty, more than any other song on ABB, absolutely screams to be performed live. Its tailor made for the stage

Yes, DB would really be a great song to perform, it is also very suitable to be played on this enormous stage, for a large audience. And because it is very clearly devided, in a structural way, it would not be very difficult to play, would it?

But the same goes for Rain Fall Down, and I would love to see it in Paris or Amsterdam. Can't wait!

Jelle

I like it too, but as for riffing I would go with Back Of My Hand, the OOC bass line riff, RJ (For sure), LWTCDI, Driving Too Fast, You Got Me Rocking, Sad Sad Sad and the like. But I don't think none of them beats SMU. It was described by a music mag (Uncut I think) as "the perfect riff", and I think that's true. Also, I could maybe agree that as a song SMU ain't that new. But I love it because I hear every open G Stones song in it. If you took all the open G songs and put them into a computer which would make all the songs together, you'd come out with SMU. But of course DB is very good too. I like every aspect of it.

While we're on ABB: That fill Charlie makes right when IWTL goes from the solo into the chorus is KILLER. Just heard it this morning.

JumpingKentFlash

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Better riff? yes..I cant think of any since that
> are as good, if youre talking about that "blocked
> chords" style of riffing. I Go Wild has a terrific
> riff too, which worked very well when they played
> it in concert. Dangerous Beauty, more than any
> other song on ABB, absolutely screams to be
> performed live. Its tailor made for the stage

gazza, i completely agree. DB has an incredible riff to it. i love that "blocked chords" style. IGW is another classic, too.

drew

drewmaster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> gazza, i completely agree. DB has an incredible
> riff to it. i love that "blocked chords" style.

The 'Uncut' review described it thus (a review I liked so much I used it as a footer signature on Rocks Off) :

On the nasty "Dangerous Beauty", (Keith) plays with an inspired brutality I dont think I've heard since Neil Young plugged in for the 'El Dorado' sessions, a series of bucking howls, astonishingly loud. His solo on "Driving Too Fast", meanwhile, is like being torn apart by gunfire.

Gazza Wrote:
>
> The 'Uncut' review described it thus (a review I
> liked so much I used it as a footer signature on
> Rocks Off) :
>
> On the nasty "Dangerous Beauty", (Keith) plays
> with an inspired brutality I dont think I've heard
> since Neil Young plugged in for the 'El Dorado'
> sessions, a series of bucking howls, astonishingly
> loud. His solo on "Driving Too Fast", meanwhile,
> is like being torn apart by gunfire.

they're on target. i think it is the tension between build-up and release that makes the "blocked chord" style (in the hands of a pro, like keith) so exciting. another song that comes to mind is "twice as hard" by the black crowes. gazza, do you know/like that track? (if there are any non-stones "blocked chord" gems you'd recommend, i'd love to know about them. thanks!)

drew

I dont know it, Drew..maybe I should go and download it somewhere. I've never personally been able to 'get' the Black Crowes. In theory I like their approach to things in that they seem to be 'just about the music', but their songs have just never got to me. Things werent helped when I saw them open at all 3 Wembley shows for the Stones in '95, when I thought they were terrible. I think that just soured me, unfortunately.

Good Morning again Mathijs,

First of all, I accept your apology for misquoting me.Typing and drinking doesn't work very well! But it would be nice if you said you were sorry for calling me weird! LOL!!

Maybe we should just email eachother and argue LOL!!

So anyway... I have to say that the Lisa comment is derogatory, Maybe because I'm an American,and since the 1960's, most of us try not to use launguage like that to discribe an individual,its called being politically correct. Its trying to respect others, and their culture. It just sounds wrong. Here's a copy of what you said

"My remark is what it is: Lisa is in my very own opinion an average black female singer. Black and female are only qualifications, just as "solo guitarist" is a qualification as opposed to "rythm guitarist" Lisa is a musician that can be classed as "black female", as opposed to "white female" or "black male" or "white male". All these are classes of different singers. In her genre I find her average"

Totally contridicts the classification of Solo Guitarist, or Rhythm guitarist,
She's either a Vocalist, or not. Regardless of whether she's White,Black, Hispanic or an Alien! She may be classified as back up or saprano, tenor, Pop Singer, Rock Singer or whathaveyou, but to flip it like your saying isn't right. You don't say,Ronnie is an Average Male White guitarist. Or Mick is an Awesome Male White Singer. Do you understand what I'm trying to say here? It just doesn't sound right. It's offensive.
You shouldn't use their sex or color to describe the person.

Here's our shared comments...
I said...
> One more thing, just so you know, A band can't be
> it's OWN "Tribute Band"!!
Your reply...
Yes they can, if the amount of session men outgrows the amount of original members of the band. Paul McCartney is the best Beatles Tribute available, just as The Who will be when they start touring again.

Totally dissagree, Paul does sing Beatles Songs, as he can because the Beatles wrote them, He was a Beatle,so he's entitled to play them. HE also plays his own songs. He doesn't play as a Tribute to the Beatles, he IS a Beatle.

As far as the Who goes, Roger and Pete will be playing as THE WHO, in Toronto in December, me and my Guy will be traveling to see them there, and due to the Fact that they are both Members of THE WHO and they will be playing their own songs they wrote as THE WHO, they will not be Tributing, they will be playing their OWN material. I'll keep you posted on how well the Who did their OWN STUFF!!!

Lynyrd Skynyrd also plays the old stuff and the new stuff, but they aint no tribute band!!! They are Still SKYNYRD!

A "Tribute Band" is a band who doesn't have any 'original' members in it. They did not write the material, they pay homage to the band they love and they then do the 'best they can' to COPY the original songs written and recorded by another group.

When the Stones do a tribute, they do other songs,witten by other bands, like when they do the O'Jay's "Love TRAIN" that is tributing another band.

The Stones are The Stones, and they dont pay tribute to themselves. They pay tribute to us in still sharing their music with us. And Thank God for that!

So anyway Mathijs,that is that for me, I'm sure I'll get a rebuttal from you and thats fine. I almost look forward to it!!

Take Care
Rock ON
MICKSCHICK
(Colleen)

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I dont know it, Drew..maybe I should go and
> download it somewhere. I've never personally been
> able to 'get' the Black Crowes.

Writing as someone who also isn't interested in the band, the song drew mentions is their best one, certainly worth a download. Though you might find you've heard it before.

It's also the first song on their first album. How often must that have happened over the years--a band's best song is first song, first album?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-25 00:05 by cc.

Mickschick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good Morning again Mathijs,
>
> First of all, I accept your apology for misquoting
> me.Typing and drinking doesn't work very well! But
> it would be nice if you said you were sorry for
> calling me weird! LOL!!

No problem Colleen: my apologies for calling you weird!

>
> Totally contridicts the classification of Solo
> Guitarist, or Rhythm guitarist,
> She's either a Vocalist, or not. Regardless of
> whether she's White,Black, Hispanic or an Alien!
> She may be classified as back up or saprano,
> tenor, Pop Singer, Rock Singer or whathaveyou, but
> to flip it like your saying isn't right. You don't
> say,Ronnie is an Average Male White guitarist. Or
> Mick is an Awesome Male White Singer. Do you
> understand what I'm trying to say here? It just
> doesn't sound right. It's offensive.
> You shouldn't use their sex or color to describe
> the person.

Well, I do not agree with you, but this is also most probably something cultural. In The Netherlands it is perfectly o.k. to address the origins of somebody in order to understand somebody better. It can be very helpfull in understanding somebody to know his or her background. This is different to the U.S., where discimination to this day is a bigger problem than in Europe (not that we don't have it of course). In my opinion there is a large difference in sound, timbre, voicing and technical abillities between a black and a white singer. The sound of a black soul singer is totally different to a white country singer, and there aren't too many white soul singers or black country singers. Every "colour" has it's own cultural and physical background, and sounds different. Remember Jagger and Elvis sounded too black? You have the the same qualifications in soccer: a Brazilian player is a totaly different player then an German player: both the cultural background and physiques are totally different.


>
> As far as the Who goes, Roger and Pete will be
> playing as THE WHO, in Toronto in December, me and
> my Guy will be traveling to see them there, and
> due to the Fact that they are both Members of THE
> WHO and they will be playing their own songs they
> wrote as THE WHO, they will not be Tributing, they
> will be playing their OWN material. I'll keep you
> posted on how well the Who did their OWN STUFF!!!

haha, well let's just agree to disagree. I do find the Stones the best Stones Tribute band in the World, and the same for The Who. In the case of the Who it is perfectly alright with me, the blew me away on Live 8. But, I never have been a big fan of the Who, and I do not know too much about them. As long as I see Roger and Pete, it's the Who for me.

Mathijs

cc Wrote:
>
> Writing as someone who also isn't interested in
> the band, the song drew mentions is their best
> one, certainly worth a download.

agreed, cc ... their best track.

gazza, its worth downloading, like cc says.

drew



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-25 01:41 by drewmaster.