Doxa - You are turning the tables on me. I am saying - and the author of the article is saying - that it is stunningly hard to dialogue with Dylan diehards; now you're saying, of course, that I'm the dogmatic one here. You know, that sort of confirms my point, you being "scared" as if I had just committed a crime against freedom of thought, you saying that my attitude p
Forum: Tell Me

Hi Nikolai! Yes, I seldom post now - I'm ashamed to say, the reason is simply that I am much less into the Stones. I still listen to their official albums very often and they are, you know, such a huge part of my musical "genes", but I have not listened to a bootleg in ages, and have very little to say about them therefore. I remember we agreed on lots of Soul stuff; well I&#
Forum: Tell Me

Hey Doxa I did not use the word "freak"! I just thought it was wrong to formulate things as "Dylan is still relevant/stirs controversy" etc. It is indeed a bit of a mystery, the diehard thing - but not so much of a mystery; the author himself has a few plausible explanations - Dylan was there at crucial times, you grew up with him, a lot is projected unto him etc. I only
Forum: Tell Me

Doxa - It's not so much Dylan that sparks the criticism in the article - it's actually you! That Dylan's latest albums are rather weak, his concerts absurdly bad and the Christmas album ridiculous seems to go without saying for the author of this article, as it does for me; and we know very well that to argue about THAT would be either 1) unnecessary for anyone who is not a diehard
Forum: Tell Me

Great read - I agree 100%.
Forum: Tell Me

god that 75 version is some awful singing done there...
Forum: Tell Me

Skipstone, I was the first surprised: no lipsynch! He sings for real, saving his voice and often leaving a verse out, but also sometimes showing that if he went for it, he could still easily do it. I was actually amazed at how his voice has not changed at all. Anyway, I guarantee no lipsynch.
Forum: Tell Me

I know by that time everybody was sick of it, but I think MSG 2002 is excellent. I love the way Jagger sings each chorus differently. Otherwise, Ya ya.
Forum: Tell Me

Well of course MJ in best light. A movie on the Stones will show them in best light. Or rather any entertainer is there to show you something entertaining. It's not like we're the judge or jury or psychologist or priest and they must confess to us, is it? No entertainer has any duty to show anything else but what he wants us to see. Of course there are issues about Jackson as a perso
Forum: Tell Me

SweetNeoCon, I think you miss the point of the movie. Nobody pretended it should tell the truth on MJ's private life or anything like that. And I don't think it has much to do with the Jackson family either. It is quite simply bits of rehearsals patched together to give an idea of what the shows would have been - a mix of a few cameras made by the guy who was in charge of designing the
Forum: Tell Me

Saw it and loved it too. His charisma is unbelievable; wierdo skinny guy hits stage and becomes slick sexy gracious performer. Magic! He does not even need to be fast; he just has that special thing. The version of Human Nature alone is worth going. Unnecessary to mention perhaps, but this blew Shine a Light away as far as I'm concerned. And funnily, the fact that it was a mix of three-fo
Forum: Tell Me

For the first time in ages, I listened to Metamorphosis side A - funny, but weak. Oddly, while I think generally the Stones make the songs by playing them so well, here they play poorly. BUT the songs are not bad really! What's more it struck me that many of them could have been soul classics in the right hands. Example: Imagine the Shirelles doing "I'd much rather be with the
Forum: Tell Me

PalaceRevolution, love the way you put it.
Forum: Tell Me

Bärs, I completely agree! Very well put... The humour is the factor missing in my equation. Also on stage, especially in later years, I love the Stones for that: they are in charge, ultimate stars, and yet so FUNNY.
Forum: Tell Me

"You gotta move" is actually for me a prime example of a song that, done by the Stones, is not moving. Great exercise in exploring blues music, but very very intellectual: all the rawness that was rooted in religious feeling is turned into calculated stylistic effects. No religiosity whatsoever, not even any fear or threat. Of course, that's very personal. And it's not
Forum: Tell Me

Funny, much as I love the Stones, I am never actually moved by their songs - and I rarely feel that they themselves are moved as they perform them. Let me explain. I could roughly outline three relations I have with musicians: The moving movers (Irma Thomas, Otis Redding, Billie Holiday, Dylan); I can't believe it would be possible for them to sing like this if they didn"t mean it. T
Forum: Tell Me

If the subject of this thread is "who is the greatest rock n' roll band in the world", i.e. "who's your favourite band" then it's not very interesting because 1) it's a matter of taste and 2) it ain't a contest really. The topic is interesting if we toy with this label as something that had a meaning even for non-fans; something in the Stones'
Forum: Tell Me

Quotemarcovandereijk In "You can't always get what you want" Sam Cutler makes us believe he came up with the "Greatest Rock 'n Roll Band in the World" line most and for all to boost the confidence of the Stones themselves, who hadn't toured for three years. He was using reverse psychology, trying to goad them into actually believing it. Well that would be
Forum: Tell Me

Even if the label dates back to the sixties, that does not mean that it meant the same thing now as then. As Doxa says, at the time it was a cocky self-assertion; and one can imagine lots of people thinking "of course they are not, pretentious punks that's what they are" and so on. Just as a comparison, I have countless live recordings of soul singers being introduced as &quo
Forum: Tell Me

Sure, it's marketing - a slogan someone came up. But that does not answer @#$%&'s question. After all, innumerable bands have been labelled "the greatest", and the label has not sticked. So it's not enough to come up with a title, and it's not enough to publish it endless times; somehow, it must meet something in the mind of the receiver. I think the relevance of
Forum: Tell Me

It's just edited out with nothing in its place - odd (but indeed better than the incredible original). Who says the others notice nothing? Even if they do, which surely they do, they can only keep going, wait till it's over and hope the audience notices nothing because they are just looking, not listening! Golden rule: on stage, never betray the f*ck ups.
Forum: Tell Me

The LA Times review is just unbelievable. So there's nothing new on the album, it's all borrowed from here and there (and even as recent stuff as 1991 - but even if it was as old as 1871, so what?), but this rehashing of standard arrangements is called an "astute exploration of the roots of bla bla bla". I hear a man who not only has lost his voice, but also his mind it seems.
Forum: Tell Me

I think Let it loose is an impressive attempt from Jagger at doing something he will never really be able to do: be a soul singer. He does well, but somehow it feels a bit forced to me. The second half of the song sounds like someone trying to display more power than he really has. For me, Jagger is especially great at sing/talking; the middle section of Beast of Burden for instance, or the aw
Forum: Tell Me

Great album. Granted, lyrics mostly suck (but not always: New Faces, Mean Disposition, Through and Through are cool) Granted, it's modeled on classic Stones But it works: mature playing, mature singing, mature production. It does not feel like a pathetic attempt at staying young and cutting edge (BT, nor like a pathetic worn out album (AB: it's the album of great musicians at
Forum: Tell Me

Quotepmk251 Bob Dylan? If he died in '67 his place in modern popular music would be secure. Besides, he rises above the word "act." Janis? When she's on she goes where few singers dare. She can make the hairs on my arms stand up, she's so scary powerful. She leaves blood and her heart on the stage. A blues/soul equivalent to Judy Garland. Michael Ja
Forum: Tell Me

That's a revelation, thanks!
Forum: Tell Me

It is tempting to compare BB and LIB because as albums, they are structured the same way. The power opening: I take Sympathy over Shelter. Never understood the craze about Shelter, and Sympathy was and is a UFO in the Rock skies, never done before, never will be approched in terms of originality and pure nonesense, that mad guitar suddenly striking like lightning midway through the song, the a
Forum: Tell Me

So Humanriff, can you explain what you think is deep and valid about the song on a theological level?
Forum: Tell Me

I agree with NorthShoreBlues: there is no spiritual depth in Sympathy for the Devil. Just striking imagery set against a great rhythm. The song says very banal things from a theological point of view: that the Devil is at work in all the horrid events of history. The originality is not in the content, but only in the fact that Jagger actually impersonates the Devil: "Hope you guessed MY name
Forum: Tell Me

Sure! The end climax is one of the moments when Jagger comes to closest to genuine soul singing. Great song.
Forum: Tell Me