|
|
| Gazza |
>Keith was a rhythm monster and Mick T played so brillaintly it is hard to imagine how great they could have remained if Mick and Keith did not force Mick T out of the band.
yeah but in much of the 70's they played for about 70 minutes a night, could be as often awful as they were brilliant (youre basing your judgement on the most frequently circulated high quality recordings - not an "average" show) and Jagger's onstage singing was often little more than breathless hollering.
Mick is a better singer onstage since 1989 and IMO a better live performer since he toned down the arse wiggling limp wristed stuff which had become passe and beyond parody by the mid 70's. If you ask me about the difference between 70's shows and shows in this decade, its swings and roundabouts. Some minus points and some plus points. Thankfully theyre still doing it. And pretty good too.
Josh - Mick Taylor left the band of his own free will. He wasnt forced out. he also thought the band was about to fall apart anyway and considered it a good career move to quit. His loss. Its a good job Mick and Keith didnt think the same way.
Also, GHS and IORR - both of which he played on - were very good albums but a significant dip in quality from the peaks of 1968-72. Excellent band though they still were (and continued to be since at sporadic intervals),the creative decline of the band had already started by the time he left. IMO it had more to do with Mick and Keith no longer living and working regularly together in close proximity, Keith stumbling through the decade in a heroin haze and the end of their working relationship with Jimmy Miller.
|
|
|
| Lambchop |
quote:
SHINE A LIGHT wrote:
ok, some here do not like the stones/some members of the band. WHY are you nice folks on a rolling stones' site....they're terrible!! perhaps you should go to a site for a band which you do admire/love.
I hate the Rolling Stones. Bloody corpses still pretending to be alive in order to cash their social security checks.
I like you though. |
|
|
| Mrs. Tiffany |
Dear Message Board:
I hate the Rolling Stones, too!
I like Lambchop!
I like the Beach Boys!
I like morrocco!
I like Cinnamon!
|
|
|
| Lambchop |
I LOVE you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/20/arts/20FAIT.html
Reason and Faith, Eternally Bound
By EDWARD ROTHSTEIN
Published: December 20, 2003
One might have expected the forces of Reason to be a bit weary after a generation of battling postmodernism and having its power and authority under constant scrutiny. Reason's battles, though, continue unabated. Only now it finds its opposition in the more unyielding claims of religious faith. This latest conflict is over seemingly incompatible ways of knowing the world. It is a conflict between competing certainties: between followers of Faith, who know because they believe, and followers of Reason, who believe because they know.
This battle echoes others taking place between fundamentalist terror, which claims the authority of Faith, and Western modernity, which claims the authority of Reason. But some of Reason's combatants — as if reading from the postmodernist strategy book — are also challenging the heritage of the West, arguing that it, too, has been riddled with absolutist faith, that the reasoned achievements of the Enlightenment are still under threat and that a new understanding of the past must take shape, in which Reason's martyrdom and trials take center stage.
One motivation for Reason's latest salvos is political. A Gallup poll last year said that about 40 percent of Americans considered themselves evangelicals or born-again Christians. They include the president, the attorney general, the speaker of the House and the House majority leader.
Critics of the Bush administration's policies sometimes cite such beliefs as evidence of the administration's potential fundamentalism and intolerance. In the recent book "A Devil's Chaplain" (Houghton Mifflin, $24), for example, Richard Dawkins, the Oxford University evolutionary biologist, worries about American responses to the attacks of 9/11 because "the United States is the most religiose country in Christendom, and its born-again leader is eyeball to eyeball with the most religiose people on Earth."
Mr. Dawkins has long been a harsh critic of religion, which he considers a form of infectious virus that readily replicates, spreading its distortions. Last summer he lobbied in The Guardian for adopting "bright" as a noun to mean atheist (as in "I'm a bright. You're a bright").
The philosopher Daniel C. Dennett echoed his urgings in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times. Mr. Dawkins and Mr. Dennett argue that brights are a beleaguered group confronting a growing religious right; they urge brights to emerge from their closet and boldly proclaim their identity.
"So, what's the opposite of a bright?" Mr. Dawkins imagines someone asking, "What would you call a religious person?"
"What would you suggest?" he coyly responds.
There are of course approaches that are less blunt and more liberal minded, but the sense of embattlement and polemic has become familiar. In the recent book "The Closing of the Western Mind" (Knopf, $30), for example, Charles Freeman argues that Western history has to be retold. Over the course of centuries, he points out, the ancient Greeks recognized the importance of reason, giving birth to the techniques of modern science and mathematics, and establishing the foundations of the modern state. But then, he writes, came "the closing of the Western mind."
In the fourth and fifth century, he writes, the Greek intellectual tradition "was destroyed by the political and religious forces which made up the highly authoritarian government of the late Roman empire," particularly with the imposition of Christian orthodoxy. For a millennium doctrine ruled. Reason became heresy.
It is precisely this sort of heresy that Jennifer Michael Hecht celebrates in "Doubt: A History" (HarperSanFrancisco, $27.95), which outlines the views of those who rejected dominant doctrines of faith or proclaimed disbelief in the existence of God. Her loosely defined roster of doubters ranges from the ancient Greeks to Zen Buddhists, along with such familiar figures as Galileo, Hobbes, Gibbon, Tom Paine and Thomas Jefferson.
Reason and Faith, Eternally Bound
Published: December 20, 2003
(Page 2 of 2)
Ms. Hecht is more generous than Mr. Dawkins, noting that just as there are believers who "refuse to consider the reasonableness of doubt," so, too, there are nonbelievers who "refuse to consider the feeling of faith." But her sympathies are committed to the doubters, including such unusual figures as the Islamic philosopher and physician Abu Bakr al-Razi (854-925) and Annie Besant, who wrote a "Gospel of Atheism" in 1876, helped reform London schools with free meals and medical care, and later in life became a theosophist and a translator of the Bhagavad-Gita.
Ms. Hecht's goal is to provide an affirmative history for doubters. "To be a doubter," she writes, "is a great old allegiance, deserving quiet respect and open pride."
What, though, is the nature of this doubt? Its demarcation from faith is not as precise as these descriptions suggest. Doubt can become a rigid orthodoxy in its own right. In contemporary life, as Ms. Hecht seems to know, doubt has become almost axiomatic (as if it were a matter of faith).
Meanwhile faith itself is riddled with doubt. As Ms. Hecht points out, many religious texts (like Job or Augustine's "Confessions") are also accounts of doubt.
Yet in these arguments faith is often portrayed as monolithic, a host for intolerance and inquisition. And while that has been part of many religions' history — and is, as Mr. Freeman shows, part of the history of Christianity — the nature of faith is far more complex.
In his recent book, "The Transformation of American Religion" (Free Press, $26) for example, the sociologist Alan Wolfe suggests that evangelical Christians in the United States cannot be thought of as they once were. Religion, he argues, has been transformed by American culture to become therapeutic, individualistic and less interested in doctrine than in faith.
Nor is faith always unreasonable. Religious beliefs were fundamental to the abolition of slavery in the 19th century and to the civil rights movement in the 20th. Faith may even be latent in some of science's triumphs, inspiring such figures as Newton and Kepler. The conviction that there is an order to things, that the mind can comprehend that order and that this order is not infinitely malleable, those scientific beliefs may include elements of faith.
Reason also has its own problems. Isaiah Berlin argued that the Enlightenment led to the belief that human beings could be reshaped according to reason's dictates. And out of that science of human society, he argued, came such totalitarian dystopias as the Soviet Union.
Reason then, has its limits. The philosopher Robert Fogelin's new book, "Walking the Tightrope of Reason" (Oxford, $22) is subtitled "The Precarious Life of a Rational Animal" because, he argues, reason's own processes negotiate a precipice. Mr. Fogelin quotes Kant, who described a dove who "cleaving the air in her free flight, and feeling its resistance, might imagine that its flight would be still easier in empty space."
Failing to understand what keeps her aloft and taking a leap of faith, the dove might set off in "empty space" — a vacuum — and plummet. But reason might lead to the same end: if something offers resistance then logically can't one proceed more easily if it is eliminated? So why not try?
The problem is that the bird can never fully comprehend the medium through which it experiences the world. In many ways, Kant argued, neither could the mind. Reason is still the only tool available for certain knowledge, but it also presents questions it is unable to answer fully.
Some of those questions may remain even after contemporary battles cease: how much faith is involved in the workings of reason and how much reason lies in the assertions of faith?
|
|
|
| glencar |
My head hurts! |
|
|
| glencar |
But back on topic: Keith hostility will always be with us. I don't understand how there isn't more hostility towards other acts. Jimmy Buffett? Puh-leeze! Elton John sucked for years & still does. |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
glencar wrote:
But back on topic: Keith hostility will always be with us.
Yes, as long as humans are humans, the green eyed monster is still the green eyed monster, and some guys wish they could be THAT FUCKING KOOL. (and if anyone knows ANYONE (besides Dylan) who might be able to out-kool Keith, I'm all ears. |
|
|
| Gazza |
>Elton John sucked for years & still does.
so I've heard.....
|
|
|
| Jason P. |
The nerve of anyone to sneak up on this board, and all of its comfy hero-worshipping members and dare to state the sad and sorry truth about the Rolling Stones being "60 year old" men without overdrive. They don't have "drive", although "neutral" they've got in spades. Maybe "reverse"?
60 year old men making a bloody mockery of what the Rolling
Stones were. Rolling Stones are...aren't the Rolling Stones
no mo', oh hero worshippers.
Listening to them plinkplink along like Bob Dylan plinkplinks along, on his neverending tour.
Mere existence as a band does not greatness make.
The Stones have been proving this for over a decade now.
Making millions off of their own legend. Dragging their own
name through the mud of stadiums and theatres alike...
If the Big Rolling Stones aren't good enough to stand up to
"bashing" (ooh, how scary "bashing" sounds, especially to
true believers, apparently), then the Stones aren't good enough to be out and about, raking in the millions. |
|
|
| glencar |
Dudey, it is a Stones board. We'll pick apart many things & deconstruct even more but bashing just for its own sake is quite juvenile. But it's your world so have at it! |
|
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]