X



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-08-20 21:09 by UrbanSteel.

I don't know about the Arctic Monkeys meself. But I do know Oasis is crap (terrible). And I have never cared for the Pistols but I don't not like them.

I guess this makes me...a cantankerous old man?

Me, I care more for bands & artists ol' Keef do like than the opposite.

Sounds like my Dad 30 years ago. I love him but he'd be better off keeping his mouth shut on this occasion, especially if he hasn't even listened - it's just ignorant.

I think one of the most recent bands I've heard Keith give his approval was AC/DC.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-03 19:18 by Justin.

Well AC/DC rocks and is excellent period.

I've heard Oasis and it just...The Beatles already happened. I just don't get it.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-09-24 06:55 by parislocksmith.

Cant really see the word "hate" nor "hatred" in the article.
For me its a strong word.

Yeah, parislocksmith, Motörhead is two years younger than acdc.
But Lemmy aint that young, is he?

Cant get upset over his Oasis-words; but I doubt he's honest about Pistols.

Anyhow, looks like Keef closed his ears externally sometimes 1973...
Thats about simultaneously as I did.

Theres a lot of old stuff one can discover without always goin' for the latest.

You'd never, ever hear Mick say something so close-minded.

[thepowergoats.com]

Bob Dylan also complained about the audio quality of cd's...
Anyway, I do think that some british young rock bands are really really excellent, way better that the american ones, I have to say...

jamesfdouglas, ever heard of dialectics or yin/yang??

The flashier & the hit-list-ier Jagger gets, the more stubborn Keef.

You won't see me bragging up the horrendous Strokes. That shit is terrible. I'd be embarrassed to say I was in that band and am from NYC...

It's a shame and not typical. Ronnie seems to at least try and keep up judging by
his "fiends." Anyway, if you haven't heard someone just say you haven't heard someone - it doesn't make it all "crap."

Well, Keith is basically saying that he's not interested in the topsellers of UK rock scene, he's not saying that all younger bands/musicians are crap.
I can't stand Oasis either - and Keith is right.... CDs sound tinny compared to vinyls or live music.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-04 00:25 by Erik_Snow.

Quote
jamesfdouglas
You'd never, ever hear Mick say something so close-minded.

That's because Mick listens to new stuff to keep The Stones relevant and Keith's quite content to stick to the formula. If it hadn't been for Mick, the last relevant Stones album would have been Exile on Main Street.

Well, these sort of comments sell newspapers and magazines I guess....

Rolling Stones Tribute

Play Rolling Stones

It turned out that Keith said Mozart and not Motorhead, btw!


Belgrade-Bucharest-Budapest-Brno

We're talkin''bout a boy that grew uop beside a radio.
Its goddammit the umpteenth time this issue is brought up last fortnite.

Keef has brought more new influences into the Stones sphere than anyone.
Shame on ya bashers!!!

Here's sumfin keef-ish:
Lee Perry/Upsetters - Big Noise

<<I think one of the most recent bands I've heard Keith give his approval was AC/DC.>>

I seem to recall Keith saying some nice things about The White Stripes in a Rolling Stone interview from '02.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-09-24 06:54 by parislocksmith.

Keith doesn't care about the new english bands because lots of them have been influenced by the Stones or the beatles.Instead of having a paternalistic view on those bands he prefers to hate them all which is a more rock and roll approach to the problem. You go Keith!!! and all those little buggers won't last anyway and Keef knows it.
Mops

As my username indicates, I've been a big Keith fan since their first album and through the years I've always agreed with his views on music, for the most part. I still agree with everything he says. The original Fabulous Thunderbirds were the last great recording/live band in the Stones' blues/rock tradition. If it's not based on Jimmy Reed or Chuck Berry, it's not Keith Richards approved, with some exceptions of course. I agree.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-04 03:16 by keithfan64.

I wish he would listen to some new music...just to spark some of that fire in him to write and create on a whole new level. What he is doing by not listening to anything new leaves him in almost a time capsule from the 70's.

That is sorta good considering he grounds the Stones to its roots and keeping the same magic and style...but it is also bad as it is incredibly limiting, in my opinion.

Rolling Stone ran an article a few issues about the poor qaulity of music, how it's mixed (too loud, to few breaks). Keith and Dylan both have relevant points.

josh.
np: lucky in love - mj

Then again there are some CD records that sound fantastic. So it's all the monkey behind the wheel. Why music is being mastered like that makes no sense to me whatsoever.

...... richards talks to much .. . weird,, cause the 'stones' use to be cool in the /60s, 70s........... most of us know that was a long time ago.......

Quote
Nikolai
That's because Mick listens to new stuff to keep The Stones relevant and Keith's quite content to stick to the formula. If it hadn't been for Mick, the last relevant Stones album would have been Exile on Main Street.

I couldn't agree more.

[thepowergoats.com]

I think that he sounds to close minded but I agree in every word he said.About these bands and about english bands.