Bastard said" do you only want threads like "what is better HTW or SMU?", "taylor or wood"....."




Taylor. next question.

Ronnie writes a book about himself detailing drink and drugs for all to read.

With sub par performances in 2005 some of us on this board questioned just what was going on. Most of those threads were censored/deleted.

Stones, Ronnie, Keith, Jagger, Charlie are all human with human frailties.

Certainly not gods that are above criticism.

Idolatry serves no purpose. At least Ronnie "get's it."

>
> Certainly not gods that are above criticism.
>
> Idolatry serves no purpose. At least Ronnie "get's
> it."


thanks 1cdog...

Barn Owl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> open-g Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If you were standing in the middle of
> > Rattlesnake-Inn and had the nerve to tell Keith
> > straight in the eye - to give it up - would you
> be
> > surprised to get kicked out?
> >
>
> You mean people actually TALK to eack other in the
> Rattlesnake Inn!!


I would offer him a few guitarlessons for$150 an hour.
He really needs it for 30 years already.
>
> I thought everybody there just stood around trying
> to look important, eating prawn sandwiches and
> inserting their heads up each other's backsides.

I can't really figure out the reason why the thread has been closed... if it's Stones' music we are talking about, threads like that are just part of the game... if you listen to "Honky Tonk Women" from Madrid or "You Got Me Rocking" from London 26 August you just cannot overlook that something's clearly wrong with Keith's solos. So what's wrong about chatting a little bit about that with other fans in order to share our impressions?? I don't really think anybody went offensive towards whoever, so...

... hm. in normal life discussing things and being insulting are two different things.
it's no different in internet life. sure i can go to someone's home, spend about five minutes looking around
and then announce loudly that the pictures on the wall suck and whoever painted them is a loser,
just to see what reaction i'll get. or i can try another approach to find out what others think of them.

the august 26th YGMR was hot. Keith plays YGMR differently every time,
which is something very right about it, not "something wrong".

ps: [en.wikipedia.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-02 12:00 by with sssoul.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the august 26th YGMR was hot. Keith plays YGMR
> differently every time,
> which is something very right about it, not
> "something wrong".
>

Ok we kind of disagree here. It was painful for me to watch it live and even more painful to watch it again on "Youtube". Still, I don't think that the thread deserved to be closed.

When this issue was discussed during the tour there were many people on this board who had opinions about Keith´s playing. I don´t think the intention was to insult anyone, but apparently that´s always a risk you take when you complain about something.

guitarbastard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what is the reason for closing the thread "keith
> lead-guitar solos the last tour?"
>
> i really would like to know!


Really easy: Because some people are nasty bastards.

Since that thread is closed...I never saw the need to add guitar solos to SMU, Satisfaction, etc. when played live. The studio recordings have stood the test of time and don't have guitar solos. Sometimes less is more when playing live. If you have a 21 year old Mick Taylor on stage, then maybe you have a reason to let it rip on those songs.

Keith is one of the best song writers and guitarists to ever walk the earth. That doesn’t make him a great live 60+ year old guitar soloist.

With all due respect to all, GB and 1cdog have some strong points about censorship and criticism.

This is BV's site, it's his party. He lets us stay here for free, and all he asks is a bit of common sense - that we act respectfully, don't attack people personally and just behave ourselves. If we find that hard to accept, we're free to leave. Any time.
There have been posts here that have really hurt people's feelings. Both Stones members and others. It's just not nice.
We have to remember we're guests at BV's Stones-party. And calling it cencorship when he decides to close a thread seems a bit "drama queenish". We're not discussing the most important issues in the world here, even though most of us love the Stones - whereas others seem to be logged in to create an unpleasant atmosphere.

but dear gstone: it wasnt a offending thread, just a normal topic. not agressive, not hurting anyone...
as i said: also on internetplatforms poeple should behave and be polite. i totally agree on that. but no matter how much we love the boys, there are also unpleasant aspects of the rolling stones, dont you think?
for instant the ugly silk shirts of jagger ;-) or the horrible back to zero and for godsake some of keith's recent playing (soloing).
i really think that this kind of things should be discussed. the ones who are not interested dont have to read it.
i just dont like the idea of only printing/posting pleasant stuff. it's kind of "narrow". and also critical approaches can lead to "good" results or new ways of looking at something.

The guys who critisized Keith's playing forgot to mention that at some shows he was outstanding. I went to most of the European shows (No, not the Deutsche Bank show in Barcelona, and not St. Petersburg - no Russian visa , and I also missed Budva and Bucurest) and believe me, at some of the shows he was glowing. Played so concentrated, inspired and well that at some points even Mick came over and gave him the buddy hand on his back, like in "well done, brother".

It sometimes seems like people here really forget that we all have bad days at work now and then. And most of us are only half his age (perhaps?), and most of us don't have arthritis (I hope), and most of us don't have to be reviewed after every day at work (fortunately).
What's most irritating here is that people even slaughter shows they never saw. And some ar still on a Brian Jones or Mick Taylor-mission. Those guys are NOT in the band any longer. It's time to realise that they'll never be back, no matter how much people try to hurt Keith.

Great forum at times. Some cool people. But definitely some censorship when it comes to critical comments at times.

People here are passionate about the Stones. And wanting Keith to be more guitarist than legend is something a number of people are passionate about. I don't want the band existing primarily on what they did 30-40 years ago...nor would any fan.

If they tour, and charge the prices they charge, they should be near the top of their game...if not, give it up.

And yes, I DO love the Stones, and would LOVE to see them again, IF I could see them playing at a decent level. Toronto in 2005 was good. I love the band in many ways...and would hate to see Keith remembered as he is now, than as the powerful rhythm guitar player he was (and maybe still could be).

Well, buffalo7478... This is exactly what I'm talking about. People who don't go to their shows critisize Keith for his playing!
I can tell you this much: You've missed several magical Keith moments by not going to the shows this summer. (Not all the shows were great, but some of them realy were. It's a pity you did not bother to go.)

gstone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
And calling it cencorship when he
> decides to close a thread seems a bit "drama
> queenish". We're not discussing the most important
> issues in the world here, even though most of us
> love the Stones - whereas others seem to be logged
> in to create an unpleasant atmosphere.


I think implying that people are "drama queens" is just another example of the unpleasant atmosphere that name calling causes. But should this thread be closed because of that? I certainly don't enjoy being called a drama queen.

Even Stones were censored on The Ed Sullivan Show and at the Superbowl, so we Stones fans can relate.

By the way, WXRT in Chicago played She's So Cold at sunrise today, starting my week off rocking. That is a radio station that plays about 4 Stones songs a day, every day.

gstone what do you think about Keiths soloing at the end of Satisfaction or Sympathy for the Devil on the Licks tour or the BB tour? The thread was not about his overall playing, just about one NEW aspect of it.

in some point you are right gstone. but why dont you answer my general concerns about censorship? and i think you're a bit overprotecting keith! he's not a boy anymore ;-)
to critisize someone, has nothing to do with how much you admire/love someone, but it has to do with beeing objectiv and honest.
just face it: for whatever reasons, keith playing is by far not what it used to be. especialy his leads are just painfull. but on the other hand his singing is better then ever!
thats all!
and once again: censorship (in this context) is quite far away from beeing rock n roll!

Likes and dislikes are not the point. These are only up to ones personal choice.
But there are notes that just don't fit together.
Just listen to the solo from Sympathy on Beggars and compare it to each one that followed up to ABB. Unless you're not deaf you'll notice that they got worse during the years. The worst they were during ABB.

I mean I love the boys, esp. Keith, I followed them for 30 year and I still will furtheron but his solos got really bad.

It's not a question of bashing someone, it's about technical skills that he seemed to have lost in certain way over the years, for what reason ever; though I've witnessed also some ingenious moments during the tour.

So if this should be my last post for just being honest, then I guess it's just the way it shoud be.

>> to critisize someone, has nothing to do with how much you admire/love someone <<

yeah, and criticizing a performance can be thoughtful and respectful, or thoughtless and hurtful.
it's the latter that our host here doesn't tolerate too much of. and meanwhile,
right that Keith is doing things now that he couldn't do 30 years ago, and vice versa,
and it's the same Keith. that's what i sometimes wonder if everyone grasps, when the thoughtless stuff starts.
that's the same cat up there pouring it out for us, on one instrument, which is called Keith Richards.

as for "censorship": when guests come to your home there are most likely limits to what you'll tolerate from them.
same deal here. and yeah: it's rock & roll, and we like it. :E



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-07 21:17 by with sssoul.

dear with sssoul. i read alot of usefull and interesting comments you wrote here. and yeah, there's cool stuff to learn and share on this board. but your "respect bv's houserules" is really a weird argument. ok if i'm a guest somewhere i dont piss on the carpet, steal the silver cutlery and set the books on fire. but i think one should dare to say that the pasta was a bit salty....hope you get what i mean!
anyway, its a cool place here and i'm thankfull it exists. but yeah- i hate censorship, especialy when there is no reason. because thats NOT rock and roll!
cheers,
GB

well ... no, complaining about the food doesn't seem like an especially cool way for a guest to behave -
maybe especially during their first visit, you know? and for sure it depends how it's expressed,
and what else the guest has brought to the party.

>> your "respect bv's houserules" is really a weird argument. <<

you can think it weird if you want, but it's the way it works on iorr anyway.
it's not merely a subjective perspective: it's BV's site, and we are his guests.
there are other forums with different rules, but his are the ones that count here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-07 21:39 by with sssoul.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> to critisize someone, has nothing to do with
> how much you admire/love someone <<
>
> yeah, and criticizing a performance can be
> thoughtful and respectful, or thoughtless and
> hurtful.
> it's the latter that our host here doesn't
> tolerate too much of. and meanwhile,
> right that Keith is doing things now that he
> couldn't do 30 years ago, and vice versa,
> and it's the same Keith. that's what i sometimes
> wonder if everyone grasps, when the thoughtless
> stuff starts.
> that's the same cat up there pouring it out for
> us, on one instrument, which is called Keith
> Richards.
>
> as for "censorship": when guests come to your home
> there are most likely limits to what you'll
> tolerate from them.
> same deal here. and yeah: it's rock & roll, and
> we like it. :E


Exactly! Thank you.

And:

"Re: iorr
Posted by: with sssoul (IP Logged)
Date: January 7, 2008 21:39


well ... no, complaining about the food doesn't seem like an especially cool way for a guest to behave -
maybe especially during their first visit, you know? and for sure it depends how it's expressed,
and what else the guest has brought to the party.

>> your "respect bv's houserules" is really a weird argument. <<

you can think it weird if you want, but it's the way it works on iorr anyway.
it's not merely a subjective perspective: it's BV's site, and we are his guests.
there are other forums with different rules, but his are the ones that count here."



Thank you - once again! Some cats need to learn about good behaviour around here. This is usefull.

I think it's disrespectfull to those who live in countries without freedom of speach to call BV's system "cencorship". Actually he opens his house for us, puts a lot of free labour into this site, and he can decide the rules. But he lets the people speak. His only demand is that people behave. And don't act hurtfully on purpose. Some people really love to twist the knife, pour salt into a deep wound and go on like uncivilized bush dogs. I think it's OK when the host says: Guys - I don't accept this behaviour, and I've told you several times before.

so this the buckingham palace then ? ;-)
whatever withsssoul...just dont take it all too serious. it's about a fantastic rock n roll band. and funny enough, they would never have got that big, if they'd always followed the rules and allways behaved nicely. in fact, the bad boy behaviour was the first key to their success! cheery and peace!

I guess it's safe to say that everyone around dislikes censorhip.
but that's not the point what happend.

the topic was very often addressed while the tour was rolling, so a new thread first of all gets a notion like; oh no, do we have to go through all that >again<?

...and when the going gets thougher & thoughtless + hurtful & respect gets set aside...

maybe thats the point when it gets moderated.

btw, it was one of the first threads in the new year and started on the derail tour since post 1.
I mean, BV is supplying this board as a one-man-show, give him a break.

>> in fact, the bad boy behaviour was the first key to their success! <<

no it wasn't - talent was. talent and glorious raunchy joy & energy,
which are splendid things to share with other people. oh and good looks too :E

maybe the person who started that thread has all of those things to share -
maybe you do too. the thing is: we here only know what you share with us here.

>> just dont take it all too serious. <<

LoFL: you tellin me how to feel?! oppresssssssiooooooonnnnnnn!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-07 23:15 by with sssoul.

I guess the preferred rule for newcomers is first three happy posts then you can do one critical/negative post... fair enough you made your point :-)
should we as fans not share both....? the good the bad and the ugly? even though it was already discussed, there might still be fans who feel the need to discuss it even now.

yeah, Jochem - i noticed you took it on board that restricting your posts to what bugs you
may not be the most graceful way to introduce yourself (or very good for your state of mind).
it was cool that you understood that, even if you feel like making fun of the notion.

>> there might still be fans who feel the need to discuss it even now. <<

to discuss what? people have thoughtful critical discussions here all the time - go right ahead.
it's the blanket woe-is-we stuff that tends to be ... unenlightening.


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

Jochem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess the preferred rule for newcomers is first
> three happy posts then you can do one
> critical/negative post... fair enough you made
> your point :-)
> should we as fans not share both....? the good the
> bad and the ugly? even though it was already
> discussed, there might still be fans who feel the
> need to discuss it even now.

thanks jochem. it's good to have some free minded fans here. felt surrounded by the vice squad! ;-)

>> free minded <<

smile: "free-minded" and "having similar views" aren't the same thing, gb.
even i am open-minded enough to recognize that :E



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-08 00:10 by with sssoul.