|
|
| sasca |
I wonder if it has much to do with the quick-fix culture - people can only express themselves quickly - they can't take the time to learn an instrument well while remaining passionate. If they do manage to know it well, they fall back on the easy option of virtuosity for its own sake. Its not like that in other cultures.
If you can maintain your passion, virtuosity can open up new areas of expression. Lack of virtuosity can mean you are forced to be inventive.
Whatever works is good. |
|
|
| doo doo doo Dude |
Can you blame Strummer for saying "no Stones in 77"? After all, at the time Jagger was bouncing around on stage riding a giant penis and doing the infamous cock dance with Billy Preston.
As stated, we can thank the Clash and punk for Some Girls and the badass tour that followed. |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
quote:
RubyFriday wrote:
I�m always astonished that a Stones fan doesn�t see the poorness of Bands like the Pistols.Musically they had nothing to offer.
Other than great songs like Anarchy in the UK, God Save the Queen, Holidays in the Sun, Submission, etc.
|
|
|
| RubyFriday |
I didn�t say musical ability is a must...but it helps a lot.
I said,they had nothing to offer beside the great media hype.I had (too) many discussions in those days with punks telling me how much better the Pistols were,in musical and social aspects.But in truth it was a great marketing machine and McLaren did his part pretty well.
Feelings ? Well,okay,I can�t argue with that.I was talking about musical history and as I said ,I liked the Ramones though they are not an important part of Rock history.
I agree on ELO and Queen.
Give a listen to Down By The Jetty and Malpractice from Dr.Feelgood.The later albums are not so good.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry Nasty,but in my opinoin the mentioned songs are sh..
Though we are both dealing with used records,our tastew differs a lot
[Edited by RubyFriday] |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
quote:
RubyFriday wrote:
I liked the Ramones though they are not an important part of Rock history.
Give a listen to Down By The Jetty and Malpractice from Dr.Feelgood.The later albums are not so good.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry Nasty,but in my opinoin the mentioned songs are sh..
Though we are both dealing with used records,our tastew differs a lot
[Edited by RubyFriday]
True enough, as do our notions of importance to rock history, since I consider the Ramones absolutely crucial.
I have tried so hard to like those Dr. Feelgood records. Every time I've seen a copy of Malpractice I've played it. I think they have great taste in cover tunes and I would certainly like to participate in the "fun", but those albums just never zu'd my zazz.
Give me barely competant idiots screaming bloody murder at women and the powers that be with humor and resourceful rock recycling and I am usually pretty happy.
That said, I think it is a very good thing that the Sex Pistols never made a real second album.
At least we'll always have the Flamin Groovies (at least up to and including Shake Some Action).
What's your take on the NYDolls?
And I didn't know you were dealin.
|
|
|
| sasca |
I love the NY Dolls. They make me laugh.
[Edited by sasca] |
|
|
| RubyFriday |
It�s a pity you don�t find the entrance to Down By The Jetty.I love that album and the guitar of Wilco Johnson.Saw them live in 75 and they were absolutely great.I was disappointed by his solo efforts though.I agree ,they did very good covers like Route 66.
Yes,I�m dealing with records,not CDs,but I have no shop.Flea markets,Ebay,Setsale lists etc. |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
quote:
RubyFriday wrote:
It�s a pity you don�t find the entrance to Down By The Jetty.I love that album and the guitar of Wilco Johnson.Saw them live in 75 and they were absolutely great.I was disappointed by his solo efforts though.I agree ,they did very good covers like Route 66.
Yes,I�m dealing with records,not CDs,but I have no shop.Flea markets,Ebay,Setsale lists etc.
That album I see a whole lot less than Malpractice. Will try it again when I see it next time -- I am eternally hopeful that I will one day get it, since lots of people with good taste tell me I should like them.
Flea Markets - Ebay, Setsale lists -- do you do shows? Sounds good to me -- sometimes the shop thing drags a body down, and I vastly prefer dealing vinyl to CDs. Would love to know yr. Ebay handle.
BTW, I've been meaning to ask -- where does your signature quote come from? I love it.
|
|
|
| RubyFriday |
Just started with Ebay,till now I did auctions in Record Collector and Oldie Markt.I was thinking about a shop,too...but the permanent costs......
The signature...Here was a Stones documentary in 82,called the First 20 years,done by Rossacher/Doleszal(Who did also the 40 years Let it Bleed docu).Some celebrities were asked what they think of the Stones and Zappa gave that quote. |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
Did Frank mean that he knew that if he went to a Stones concert he would get a blow job or that a blow job would be one of his top priorities on his day off?
Anyway, I gotta jet -- closing time, trash day, and all like that.
Still want to know your take on the Dolls. They make me laugh, too, sasca.
|
|
|
| RubyFriday |
Well,it�s too late to ask him. I think it was his kind of saying : You will have a good time at a Stones concert...
I don�t know so much of the Dolls,I heard them 100 years ago.They were okay,but seems ,they didn�t impress me so much. |
|
|
| TheSavageYoungXyzzy |
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
Some people say Queen made brilliant music. I say Queen made brilliant music that is completely boring.
Ayyyy-fucking men.
And that's why I don't like "Waiting On A Friend". Sounds too much like that.
-tSYX --- Can you feel the fire? |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
The Punks can make fun all they want....
But the Stones even of '75 - '76, maybe ESPECIALLY the Stones of '75 - '76, rocked harder and longer than every last one of them.
I could give a shit if Mick looked like Bianca and rode a confetti spewing penis.
Any band that says something like "No Stones in '77" is my enemy.
Sorry.
I didn't see the Stones going around in '63 going "No Chuck Berry in '64!" Or calling Muddy Waters an old fart or similar put downs. It sometimes comes down to respect. I don't give a flying shit if their management dreamed up that shit for them. They could have stopped it but they didn't.
So for that, fuck The Clash and every other punk band. No, Scratch that. All except for the Ramones. I have not heard a song by them that I don't like. But tell me of a quote by them saying "No Stones in '77 and I'll hate them too.
Maxy!
[Edited by Maxlugar] |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
You are taking that line out of context.
I always took that line as a LAMENT! Sort of like...music sucks, where are these guys!
Check out the cover of London Calling...it's their homage to Elvis's first album.
Joe Strummer credits the Stones version of "Not Fade Away" as his inspiration to become a musician. And of "Street Fighting Man" as a model of what all good Clash songs should aspire to be!
The Clash wanted the Stones to write another "Street Fighting Man", and what they got was "Fool To Cry". |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
No way that was a lament.
They were so jealous they couldn't perform a song like Midnight Rambler ala LA '75.
|
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
Yeah, whatever. |
|
|
| MarthaMyDear |
I'll take the Sex Pistols over the Clash ANY day... The Clash just bore the SHIT out of me... "The Great Rock 'N Roll Swindle" was just a JOKE, anyways... Just meant for ENTERTAINMENT which, to me, is what music is generally for and about anyways... We're talking MUSIC here, not GOD, LOVE, PEACE, spirituality, or a REASON FOR LIVING, for Christ's sake... Being a punk rocker, to me, was a BLAST filled with MANY EXCELLENT and HILARIOUS and just memories good and bad that run to either extreme of those spectrums, etc., which not alot of people will ever have... I didn't jump on any bandwagon, IMHO... And, if anyone thinks so, then they were the people/person who missed-out on those amazing shows and memories, etc.... Not me!!! I wouldn't change my past for ANYTHING!!!   And, I'm damn proud of it (met alot of cool people in that scene, also)!!! Anyways, PEACE and ROCK ON LISTENING TO THE SEX PISTOLS MORE THAN THE CLASH 'CAUSE YOU HAVE GREAT TASTE!!! HE!!! HE!!! HE!!! YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS I know I do, so thank you very much!!! :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
:P :P :P PEACE!!!
*** Martha *** |
|
|
| Dr. Frankenstone |
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
Oh Good...I thought this was another one of those JB bashing posts
Aren't all of these posts JB bashing posts?
Well, they should be...F**king Lawyer!
|
|
|
| RubyFriday |
quote:
TheSavageYoungXyzzy wrote:
And that's why I don't like "Waiting On A Friend". Sounds too much like that.
Ah come on ! "Waiting On A Friend" doesn�t sound like Queen in any way.You like fast numbers that�s normal in your age.You will discover the soulful ballads when you grew up. |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
quote:
Maxlugar wrote:
I didn't see the Stones going around in '63 going "No Chuck Berry in '64!" Or calling Muddy Waters an old fart or similar put downs. It sometimes comes down to respect.
Maxy!
[Edited by Maxlugar]
That may be true, but they put down EVERYBODY'S mama and were disrepectful to entire swaths of showbiz tradition. |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
Fine but not their influences.
I have nothing against Joe Strummer by the way. |
|
|
| ~AzQb |
and as I said ,I liked the Ramones though they are not an important part of Rock history.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you fuckin mAD???
The Ramones "started" punk.
They were FIRST.
Before ANYone else--befORE the Pistols-- they were gigggin and ggiggglin' {LOL}
They broke open the whole fucking thing.
Get your facts down before you post-- THAT might help a bit.
Thanks! |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
>Any band that says something like "No Stones in '77" is my enemy.<
>fuck The Clash <
>But tell me of a quote by them saying "No Stones in '77 and I'll hate them too. <
>I have nothing against Joe Strummer by the way.<
Really? Sure sounds that way to me. I mean, Joe wrote "1977".
It ain't Joe's fault that you can't wrap your narrow focus around something that needed said...in 1977.
Look at the time Maxy. In 1976 the Stones gave the world their worst tour to date, and their weakest album to date. They didn't even have a lead guitar player! Woody was just a hired hand at that point. On top of that, it looked as if Keith might go to the slammer for a VERY long time....in 1977.
I find it amazing that you can't see this.
The music industry in general needed a kick in the ass. So if you wanna kick the music industry in the ass, who do you go after...it's icons. Elvis, The Beatles, The Stones....who else is worth mentioning?
The Clash wanted the "nasty" Stones, and the Stones gave them a drag queen burlesque.
Wasn't it YOU who bitched up a storm about getting 40 Licks instead of a new album? The Stones didn't give you what you wanted, and you were pissed about it. You boycotted the thing. And yet you blame the Clash for feeling cheated by Black & Blue, and Mick's fey glam cock humping? the Stones had always been full of testosterone...but at that time it was about ESTROGEN! I'd have been pissed too!
Evidently the Stones got the message. Some Girls.
Instead of fucking the Clash, you should be THANKING them.
|
|
|
| Boomhauer |
I don't get it. Why is Black and Blue considered weak?
I happen to like the damn album. |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
Oh come on Boomer. It's pretty damn weak when you hold it up to the Stones earlier efforts. Where are all the great rock anthems that the Stones were known for?
Look at the singles from that album. You see anything that really ROCKS?
No. It was all ballads and funk. Nothing wrong with that now...but in 1977 it was just another signal of the death of real rock & roll. Even "Crazy Mama" is pretty weak when you put it up against things like "Street Fighting Man".
Look, you can't look at a song like "1977" through 2003 eyes. "1977" is a time capsule. To understand the song, you havce to look at it with 1977 eyes.
Were you even alive yet in 1977 Boomer? |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
As a person I have nothing against Joe, is what I meant. I feel very bad for his family.
'76 was fine tour in my opinion. So he was still in glam mode? I saw plenty of eye liner on Ronnie and Keith in '81 and Mick in tights with knee pads after the Clash supposedly shook them awake.
Me not buying a greatest hits album because I have every song five times over is not the same as another band going out there bashing their supposed influences.
Now lets talk about Some Girls. I have never gotten this theory that Some Girls is a punk album or even all that Punk influenced. I know exactly what the writters and critics say about it but I don't agree. They can go on and on with their Emperor's New Clothes all they want. I remember when it came out everyone saying the Stones went Disco. That was wrong too. It's a very fine diverse album. Like all their great ones.
Let's see:
Miss You - Disco flavored blues.
When the Whip Comes down - Nice rocker. No more punk than If You Can't Rock Me or Crazy Mama, to name some tunes from just before Punk.
Just My Imagination - Motown cover tune done with typical Stones attitude. No different than Aint to Proud to Beg.
Some Girls - Very differnt kind of song. Hard to Label. Punk? I wouldn't call it that.
Lies - There ya go! Punk for sure.
Far Away Eyes - Country
Respectable - More Chuck Berry than Punk. But it comes close. Ok lets say it is just for shits and giggles.
Before They Make Me Run - Just a rock song. A mellow rocker at that.
Beast of Burden - Blues flavored love song.
Shattered - Another hard one to label. But Punk is not one of them. Very "New York" and "Urban" feel but not really a punk tune.
So lets tally it up.
One pure Punk song and another border line, out of 10.
I would thank Keith for kicking smack and putting some serious studio time in because it could quite possibly be his last album before jail and Mick for writting some great tunes of ALL flavors before I thanked the Clash for Some Girls.
And I'd also thank Ronnie Wood for giving the band a kick in the ass as well.
I'll go out on a limb here and say Some Girls would have happened without The Clash saying no Stones in '77. |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
Yeah, let's look at it...from someone who actually KNOWS what punk is.
Miss You - Disco flavored blues.
Agreed
When the Whip Comes down - Nice rocker. No more punk than If You Can't Rock Me or Crazy Mama, to name some tunes from just before Punk.
No way. That song is a straight up punk influenced song. The attitude, the snarl, the progression, the aggression, all punk. And the machine gun ending? Definately punk.
Just My Imagination - Motown cover tune done with typical Stones attitude. No different than Aint to Proud to Beg.
Agreed.
Some Girls - Very differnt kind of song. Hard to Label. Punk? I wouldn't call it that.
I would. Not as fast as a punk band would play it, but DEFINATE punk influence.
Lies - There ya go! Punk for sure.
Agreed.
Far Away Eyes - Country
Yeah, with a punk attitude. This is EXACTLY how a punk band would play a country standard.
Respectable - More Chuck Berry than Punk. But it comes close. Ok lets say it is just for shits and giggles.
You've seen the SNL rehearsal of this right? That was more punk than anything the real punks were doing! This one is certainly punk influenced.
Before They Make Me Run - Just a rock song. A mellow rocker at that.
Beast of Burden - Blues flavored love song.
Agreed on both of these.
Shattered - Another hard one to label. But Punk is not one of them. Very "New York" and "Urban" feel but not really a punk tune.
Of COURSE it's punk. It's one of the best New York punk songs ever written!
So let's look at the REAL tally, shall we?
I count 6 songs that were directly influenced by punk rock. That's more than half of the album bro. If that ain't "influence", I don't know what is.
You better be careful Maxy...you are starting to sound like a JB clone. |
|
|
| RubyFriday |
quote:
~AzQb wrote:
The Ramones "started" punk.
They were FIRST.
Before ANYone else--befORE the Pistols-- they were gigggin and ggiggglin' {LOL}
They broke open the whole fucking thing.
Get your facts down before you post-- THAT might help a bit.
Thanks!
The Ramones invented Punk ....that�s the joke of the day !
Have you ever heard of bands like The Stooges,MC5 and The Dictators ? Before you accuse other people,YOU should have your facts together ! The word Punk was first mentioned in music journalism in 1970...And btw nobody here said the Sex Pistols came out before The Ramones.
That was poor,I expected a better answer
[Edited by RubyFriday] |
|
|
| ~AzQb |
Rub!
Look at the chronology in terms of TIME.
The Ramones went over first.
It's a fact, rube.
~ |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
I don't think it's that clear.
Especially the Far Away Eyes explaination.
Damn SS'y!
|
CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]