|
|
| Boomhauer |
Sir Stonesalot:
I was born in 1982.
And you may be right. With all of the different music back then, Black and Blue may not have fit in, but..........................it's still a good album. |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
Black and Blue is a fine album!
|
|
|
| Dandelion* |
The Stones were not influenced by punk by putting out Some Girls - they were just reminded of what they started.
Hey look - an on topic post by me!!!! I'm exhausted! |
|
|
| Dandelion* |
quote:
Boomhauer wrote:
Sir Stonesalot:
I was born in 1982.
That's funny I coulda sworn you were 12... |
|
|
| Gazza |
>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.
its been documented in several Stones bios that no less a figure than Ian Stewart was so pissed off during the "Some Girls" sessions that he loudly complained "what the FUCK do we have to sound like the Sex Pistols for?". That's a good enough an authority on the musical influences on that album for me. |
|
|
| MarthaMyDear |
Who wanted to sound like the Sex Pistols??? |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
I never said Black & Blue WASN'T a good album.
What I mean is that in 1977 Black & Blue wasn't what poor, out of work, living in a squat, spotty, crank fuelled teenagers wanted to hear. They wanted revolution rock...and got Melody and Fool To Cry! They wanted their heroes to rip the establishment a new ass...and the got Hey Negrita.
The Stones had ALWAYS been a thorn in the side of the establishment...but in 1977 it looked like they were gonna just be some more rich rock stars who care more about their bank accounts, than in creating more songs like "Street Fighting Man", or "Mother's Little Helper".
The Stones music was not speaking to disaffected British youth. At the time, even Stones fans were scratching their heads over Black & Blue.
But this isn't about Black & Blue per se....it's about the direction music in gerneral was heading. It sure as shit wasn't going in the way that spoke to a lot of kids. Kids like Joe Strummer and John Lydon, they couldn't relate to a jet set band like the Stones had become.
So "No Elvis, Beatles, Or The Rolling Stones in 1977" is DEFINATELY a lament! It's Joe Strummer BEGGING for his heroes to give some sense of direction. A direction that Joe could relate to. In 1977 The Stones were in no condition to give direction to ANYONE...hell they didn't even have any direction THEMSELVES.
I don't really expect any of you to understand this...Boomer is not old enough, and Maxy...well, I doubt he ever had to stand in line for the dole, or sleep in a squalid squat. I really doubt that Maxy had much to be pissed off about. I don't really even know WHY I understand it. I grew up middle class, and I wanted for nothing.
But the first time I heard "Clampdown", I knew that this was just....RIGHT. Believe me, it wasn't easy being a punk where I grew up. Where I grew up everything was AC/DC, Kiss, and Led Zepplin. I saw a picture of Johnny Rotten, I think it was in Creem magazine, he was wearing a shirt that said "I love Pink Floyd", except he had x'd out the word love, and wrote HATE above it. So I did that too! I didn't even make it to the front door of the high school before a bunch of rednecks jumped me. I had to fight CONSTANTLY. I remember being sent home more than once to change my bloody clothes...sometimes my blood, sometimes theirs, usually both.
If I seem a tad defensive about this, I hope you'll understand WHY. I bled for that music. And I'd STILL bleed for it today. I didn't get into the Stones until 1989...I'd been a punk for 10 years before that. I "grew up" on The Clash, The Sex Pistols, The Ramones, The Dead Kennedys et al. I took a lot of shit for it too. From my parents, from my friends, from the redneck goon squad. I learned how to stick up for myself, and I never backed down. If anything it only stiffened my resolve. As far as I could tell, punk was the only music that had something to say...that said that it was OK to be yourself...that it was OK to give the finger to authority. Teachers, parents, the government, anyone who tries to tell you what to do or who to be.
So if that little line from 1977 steps on your toes and hurts your feelings...tough shit. It needed said, and it was right. For some of us, it wasn't about Malcolm's hype.
|
|
|
| MarthaMyDear |
I love your posts, SS!!!   They are so right-on-the-money... Even without me reading them... They just... They just... They just... ARE... So, you just... BE, ok.?!?!?! STAY NICE!!!
*** Martha *** |
|
|
| Boomhauer |
Hey Dandelion, or whatever, listen here............
I swear I don't give a shit what you think, smart-ass.
[Edited by Boomhauer] |
|
|
| 100 Years Ago |
great post to read...a couple of thoughts:
One '70s band that I think influenced punk that has not been mentioned was Mott The Hoople, they were glam but with a fuck all punk attitude (ex. Violence, Crash Street Kids), Guy Stephens produced their early stuff (Brain Capers)
SG sounds to me like it was influenced by punk, in so much as the back to basics approach of the record, it was the official end of the lead/rhythm guitar era and the advent of the "weave," MT solos wouldn't have fit the sound or the era, there's no way it can be denied that the simplicity of punk influenced SG, and to a lesser extent everything up to DW (which was guitar wise was an intruiging punk/hard rock mix, ex. Fight, Dirty Work)
the Clash were a great band, that defined their own version of punk, the song "1977" has always sounded like a plea of desperation to these ears.
|
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
Thanks 100YA. I'm glad I'm not the only one.
I've never really listened to Mott. I'll have to check 'em out. |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
Yeah, SS, you would like the MOTT LP. It's a pretty terrific early 70s record that sorta comes on like English New York Dolls with a serious Dylan fixation.
What I find interesting about this whole discussion is that by 1981, the Clash were being looked at by the hard line punk rockers -- particularly, from what I understand and have gleaned, the British ones -- as a bunch of sellouts to the old guard who were no longer providing a decent soundtrack to the punk revolution. I remember reading Joe Strummer mention that a punk rocker came up to him and said, "My GRANDMOTHER likes 'Wrong 'Em Boyo'! What am I supposed to do now?!?" Certainly whole sides of Sandanista explore the same type of personalized musical interest that earmark Black and Blue -- one of those albums musicians make primarily for themselves. I know that it sounded pretty offensive to punks at the time -- I've had conversations with some Britpunks that consider the Clash a great hope that turned unspeakably foul. Billy Childish and His Mighy Caesars actually recorded a single, as Thee Stash, called "I'm Selling Jeans for the USA b/w Should I Suck Or Should I Blow".
So the Clash knew what it meant to be considered old and irrelevant three years after they said those famous words, which, lament or not, were also a brilliant piece of propoganda that said something very important, which was: You don't need to pay those rich assholes to play music for you -- you can play it yourself. And you don't have to be 'good' - you just have to rock.
Me, the first time I ever heard "London Calling", I thought, 'Gee, this has the same vibe that does Exile On Mainstreet.' And while I still think that it is an overlong record and I've never managed to crack the secrets of side four (little help? What's the deal with Lover's Rock?), the first three sides of that album are everything a rock and roll album should be.
As far as Some Girls and the punk influence, I see it primarily like this: Punk, particularly British punk, as opposed to New York punk or Detroit punk, was very much about the here and now> The songs were supposed to be very direct and based on life as experienced for real, not in some idealized hypothetical universe. Goats' Head, It's Only Rock and Roll, and Black and Blue, although all fine albums (and Black and Blue is the best of the bunch, by the way, a really radical Stones album and probably their finest "sleeper" record ever) existed in a kind of rarefied, introverted and fantastic world that didn't necessarily impact on any listener's existence, contentwise. Beautiful records, but not really about anything other than being the Rolling Stones. Some Girls is about being the Rolling Stones and much much more -- The gay garbageman of When the Whip Comes Down, the detailed scenes of New York in Miss You, the sleazy vulgarities of Some Girls and Respectable, and most of all the bizarre structure and social criticism of Shattered, they may not be punk as in "OY PYUKE ON THOT!" but they certainly show a band paying much more attention and lip service to their environment.
There was a lot going on in music in 1977 -- the disco thing, love it or hate it, was so ubiquitous that it was inevitable that it influence the Stones, and thank god that Miss You is such an amazing result. Willie Nelson was having his big crossover period and that Urban Cowboy bizness was everywhere. And then there was punk rock, which was a genuine threat. And the Stones soaked it all up, ran it through their coke addled musical think tank, obsessed over their potential irrelevance, got down to work, and out popped Some Girls. I think that the Stones are at their best when they are listening to contemporary music, acting like musical spongies, and reflecting everything they see and hear onto a record.
Basically the climate was right for the Stones to make a record as good as Beggar's Banquet, and that's almost what they did. |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
Lemme see if I can wrap my brain around this.
You are saying that punk was not somuch a direct result musically on SG, as it was infuential in building a climate for SG to come into being?
On your point about the other punks calling the Clash sell outs....that was 1981...I was talking specifically about 1977, when the offending lyric in question was written.
Punk was destroyed by money, as most good things are. Punk was destroyed when people started wearing Mohawks and Doc Martens as a uniform. To me, punk was all about NON conformity. But when money turned it into a fashion...it was over. Something as intense as punk can't really last very long....not without burning itself up.
There is still a punk scene I'm sure....at least I hope there is. And I really hope some of the original ethos is still there.
|
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
Lemme see if I can wrap my brain around this.
You are saying that punk was not somuch a direct result musically on SG, as it was infuential in building a climate for SG to come into being?
Yeah -- I think that Some Girls is more a snapshot of everything that was going on in popular music at the time, not just exclusively punk. But punk was essential in getting the Stones to pull their heads out of their own rarefied air and seize the moment as it were. I am in complete agreement in all your song by song punk rock analysis except for Girl with Far Away Eyes, which seems to me more of a Dead Flowers/Dear Doctor continuation, rather than punks playing country standards. When punks play country it sounds like Social Distortion.
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
On your point about the other punks calling the Clash sell outs....that was 1981...I was talking specifically about 1977, when the offending lyric in question was written.
Yeah, I know. I just thought it ought to be brought up. It is interesting that it took 15 or so years for anyone to call the Stones out but only five for the punk climate to turn in on itself and start feeding on its own. For the record, I think "1977" has a perfectly wonderful lyric, be it lament or attack. It also echoes back to the Stooges "1970", the first proper 70s punk rock track, appropriately enough.
By the way, I think it would do any Joe Strummer nay-sayer well to recall all the nice things he had to say about the majesty of Tumbling Dice (a far cry, songwise, from Street Fighting Man) in that issue of Uncut where they did the 50 greatest Stones songs.
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
Something as intense as punk can't really last very long....not without burning itself up.
There is still a punk scene I'm sure....at least I hope there is. And I really hope some of the original ethos is still there.
Oh, my, yes. There are several. There's crusties and bikies and emos and straight edgers, there's mathies and agits and pop punkers. Depending on how you define it, there's garage punk, there's the lingering remnants of riot grrl, and there's a whole new fascination with Suicide's original sound. The ethos -- or at least the lifestyle -- is still fairly compelling, although for a member of the machine like myself, their tendency to shun deodorant can be off putting. Sometimes the music is even OK. But to me, it rarely has the great combination of resourcefully primitive music and a willingness to take no prisoners like the Brits had in '77 (as defined by the Clash, Buzzcocks, Sex Pistols, Wire, X-Ray Spex, and the Adverts, to namecheck some of the better bands). Thankfully, if you dig deep enough you learn that it takes quite a while to exhaust the good stuff.
Hey -- have you spent much time with the great late 70s/early 80s LA punk bands? Me, I really go for the Gears. |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
>Far Away Eyes, which seems to me more of a Dead Flowers/Dear Doctor continuation, rather than punks playing country standards.<
Well, Mick just tossing off the lyric in that silly way, just always struck me as a rather punkish way to deliver the lyric. I suppose that the actual music is played rather straight up Bakersfield.
>For the record, I think "1977" has a perfectly wonderful lyric, be it lament or attack. It also echoes back to the Stooges "1970", the first proper 70s punk rock track, appropriately enough. <
Lament or attack? More than likely, both.
I was gonna take AZQB on when she attacked RubyFriday on his assertion that the Ramones were not the start of punk, but I decided against it. I've learned that you just can't talk to diehard Ramones freaks about the origins of punk. They just don't want to hear it.
It's pretty hard to find the real beginnings of punk....some would even say that Jerry Lee Lewis was a punk. And they can make a pretty good case, except the Killer could really play, and the piano isn't a mainstay punk instrument.
I tend to go along with you on this one. It all points back at the Stooges for me. If those Stooges albums ain't punk, then I ain't bald!
>Hey -- have you spent much time with the great late 70s/early 80s LA punk bands? Me, I really go for the Gears.<
I never really went much farther than X and The Germs. X just wigs me out. I still say that they were one of the best American bands ever. I really dug the DKs too...though they were from farther up north.
And then, of course, we have The Cramps. Try wearing a Cramps shirt to a kegger at a hunting camp. What a glutton for punishment I was. I just picked up some neato Cramps stuff that Nasty might need to have.
|
|
|
| Dr. Frankenstone |
Black And Blue...? The only song that saves it is The Hand Of Fate!!!
This is easily defined as one of the Stones' BEST songs!!!
Just because it is surrounded by a load of drivel,
it seems to be easily forgotten.
Some Girls is considered punk? I don't think so.
It wasn't a reflection of Punk Rock,
it was a reaction against the wimpy Black And Blue.
If you want REAL punk, listen to The Dead Kennedy's, The Germs, and Black Flag. All other so-called "Punk Bands" were actually quite pale in comparison. The Clash may have had elements of Punk on their first album, but that is it.
[Edited by Dr. Frankenstone] |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
nasty
"...Tumbling Dice (a far cry, songwise, from Street Fighting Man)..."
the only phrase in your last two posts that i would take issue with ('tho i agreed with the sentiments of the sentence)
that aside, nasty, once again you have done it - quality posting - i wish i had said that 'cos it's right on
i've been thinking on this thread and the varied responses only confirm the words of another whose name i either don't know or can't remember but their truth is universal so feel free to steal them...
"punk changed everything and it changed nothing"
|
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
quote:
stonedinaustralia wrote:
gmf i'd take issue with that to some degree
at the same time as the new musical movements were fermenting in the UK (part. London)and the US (part. NYC) there was a growing ground-swell of similiar feeling here
remeber birdman were doing gigs as early as '74 and the saints recorded i'm stranded at the same time the pistols and the ramones were working up their first efforts
i do agree 'tho it was about '79 when the whole english "punk" thing from a fashion pint of view (i.e. safety pins and tartan bondage trousers) caught on in a big way but that was just posers looking to jump onto a stylistic bandwagon
but make no mistake there was definitely an australian "punk" (for want of a better word and that one itself is prettty loose by definition) scene brewing up as early as '76 - i know - i was there - maybe not so much from a socio/economic point of view but certainly from a musical one
and SS wasn't that bernie rhodes (and not guy stevens) who said he wanted "complete control" and, as you say, got laughed out of the pub??
[Edited by stonedinaustralia]
SIA , I'm guessing that in the mid to late 70s if any Aussie state tuned into British Punk before the rest it would've been SA due to the abundance of ex-pat poms. I can't even recognise the safety pin circus, even in London; that reeks of overkill. So you are prolly right in what you say, as I've said to you before, I tend to overstate my point all to often to my own deterement, but I still say Australia was clueless on punk in 76/77.....Oh! And being there from a musical stand point, as you say; well, that's all that matters at the end of the day,innit? Everything else was just scenery, baubles for tourist cameras. |
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
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.Though I liked the Ramones.
In the shadow of the great Punk swindle it were bands as Dr.Feelgood(the Wilco Johnson line up),Inmates,Eddie & The Hot Rods,Jam,Stranglers,Mink De Ville who filled the gap in the mid 70�s Rock�n�Roll.And then came Stiff........
Actually albums like 'Down At The Doctors', Ramones, This Is The Modern World, and Damned, Damned ALL- complimented the likes of 'Anarchy', and 'Give 'Em Enough Rope'. It was a shared crusade, and it rocked! |
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
quote:
Boomhauer wrote:
I don't get it. Why is Black and Blue considered weak?
I happen to like the damn album.
Absolutely! I love 'Black& Blue', so Mick went all camp again, at least in 75/76 that camp was a little threatening, sort of down an' dirty camp, and 'Black& Blue is terribly UNDERATED. A few jaded critics in 76 didn't like it and convinced half the fucking world it was at best, "elegantly wasted". Tell me what's wasted about Hand Of Fate, or Hey Negrita. We all have albums we tend to think of as half arsed I know, but 'Black& Blue'?.....And I still say "The Cockbump Dance" kept the generation gap going another few years at least. |
|
|
| JumpinJackFlash |
Some Girl's being compared to punk rock, what a crock of shit that is, bro. I've got the tab book for that album and it's alot of basic chuck berry riff's again, which is a good solid backround that the Stones have stuck with thru and thru, and showed success. When punk rock came out, it was the old rebel rouser's having a look and saying, 'What the hell is this shit". I mean a sfar as playing 3 chords and being as loud as you can, I'll stick with The Who, and I do like that style of music, but more in the form of lou reed, david bowie, and what not. Old Keith wouldn't change his style and form for some gas sniffing, uneducated punk's that want to be loud, Never. And you say, well the Stones were not making anti messages like they used to, well, no shit, they had there run at that, and everybody freaked out back in '69, to hard to control, and thee wasn't a movement in '77 like there was back in the old day's, people were not being slaughtered on tv every night like they were in the old day's. And besides, what was the real message punk's were trying to get out, sniffing gas, cutting theirselves up, not the scene I'm looking for. Besides, that whole seen is washed up now, they are nothing but rich kids wearing ripped up clothes that go back home and eat when they are hungry. No offence to you SS or anybody, but man I can tell you for sure, you were born in 1982. Also, I have that Sex Pistol's album, and besides their hit, it suck's garbage, that's why I stick to the Stones baby. I thinki there are alot more blues, country and rock n roll in that Some Girls album than any even disco. But punk influence, not a chance. 3 chords and a bunch of screaming lyrics about some drag queen everybody know's on the corner, and you got yourself a punk tune. |
|
|
| corgi37 |
With this post, i have created a monster. I feel...so cool. I agree with an earlier Maxy post, any band that slags my band, is an enemy. Punk was a fashion. Just like the pitifully outdated hippies the punks hated. "Peace man, have a flower. I said have a fucking flower!" WHACK! I guess some people really got off on the whole spirit of the "do it yourself" kind of thing, but dont believe the hype. Just for an average shit at the heel pub band to get going would require at least $20,000 worth of equipment. That is, if you include axes, pa, drums, mixing desks, cables, etc. No one can convince me that the Sex Pistols were just a con to buy t-shirts from that old crook, Malcolm McClaren. Shit, the Pistols found out a bit too late that they were being duped, hence, so was everyone else. But i guess people got hooked on the general spirit of what they thought punk meant. To me, punk meant zip. The Stones never bagged anyone who went before them. Instead, they studied, learnt, and improved. But really, the only good thing about 1977 was a fab 1 hit wonder band from Canada called Promises. Their single "Baby its you" had a top clip. I can see those breasts now! |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
"Maxy...well, I doubt he ever had to stand in line for the dole, or sleep in a squalid squat. I really doubt that Maxy had much to be pissed off about."
Are you insinuating the good life for young Maxy?
I grew up in a single parent household watched mainly by my grandmother who could not control me. I was the ONLY white kid in my school on the free lunch program which was a separate line in the lunch room.
Little Maxy looked like a grain of white rice being carried by black ants on that line.
(Laugh Track).
Lil' Maxy quite often sat with the school shrink when some personal scriblings were discovered that were quite twisted.
Oh I had plenty to be angry about my friend so don't go there. I've written before about my arrest just before what was to be my first Stones show in '81. A turning point in life that has turned my into quite the opposite of what I was probably going to be.
The Stones of the period that you deride spoke to me big time. Black and Blue was left behind during one of my fathers infrequent visits (he was a DJ in NY) and it turned me on to no end. So you can chalk up one wild youth that thought the Stones were the balls. Within months I had about ten Stones albums.
But all this is personal preference and not gospel. I think Nasty is closer to the truth that you or I, SS'y. The Stones have always been about soaking up the current scene and spewing it out through the Stonesian meat grinder. I can not agree that I have to thank the Clash for Some Girls anymore than I need to thank Donna Summer or Smokey Robinson or Willie Nelson.
If that comment was more a lament, than I got it wrong. I'd have to read more about it. I can say that I was an avid reader of Rock and Roll magazines in the '70's and most writters I read took that as a call to arms. Maybe that was the writers twisting it and the Clash meant it differently. Who knows.
But I can say this, and I'm sure EVERYONE here can agree on this:
Billy Preston killed Punk.
(Laugh track w/standing "O")
I will not argue with a fellow C10 brother about this anymore. Not worth it. Punk helped him though his youth. The Stones mine. It's all good.
(Standing "O", again, right after they all sat down again)
Maxy!
|
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
quote:
stonedinaustralia wrote:
nasty
"...Tumbling Dice (a far cry, songwise, from Street Fighting Man)..."
the only phrase in your last two posts that i would take issue with ('tho i agreed with the sentiments of the sentence)
"punk changed everything and it changed nothing"
All I meant was that it was not a radical call to arms (or could not be perceived as a radical call to arms -- as has been noted Jagger is actually saying that he can't join the revolution even thought that song was touted (SFM) as a call to revolution -- much like the Clash's lament was perceived as a statement of purpose). Not that it was not of a similar level of quality. Which it obvioiusly is.
quote:
stonedinaustralia wrote:
"punk changed everything and it changed nothing"
WORD.
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
>Far Away Eyes, which seems to me more of a Dead Flowers/Dear Doctor continuation, rather than punks playing country standards.<
Well, Mick just tossing off the lyric in that silly way, just always struck me as a rather punkish way to deliver the lyric. I suppose that the actual music is played rather straight up Bakersfield.
Here you bring up a good point -- Probably the punk influence on Some Girls and the subsequent tour was much more profound on MICK than it was the rest of the band. He generally leads them into new territory, and they hold him back with roots and grit. I seem to remember that Keith HATED the way Mick sang Far Away Eyes, thought it cheapened the song (just like I think I remember hearing he hated the way Mick affected on "Dear Doctor"), although I think that it is perfect and hilarious and totally appropriate to the lyrics. Mick's whole schtick in '78 is a pisstake on punk. The t-shirt ripping, the swearing, the tendency to nasalize the vocals -- all definitely punk rock. When he drops into that "SHE DOESN'T FAHHKING KNOW ME" part of "Just My Imagination" on the second disc of Handsome Girls he is doing Johnny Rotten. And there is not a single thing wrong with that.
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
It's pretty hard to find the real beginnings of punk....some would even say that Jerry Lee Lewis was a punk. And they can make a pretty good case, except the Killer could really play, and the piano isn't a mainstay punk instrument.
I tend to go along with you on this one. It all points back at the Stooges for me. If those Stooges albums ain't punk, then I ain't bald!
And then, of course, we have The Cramps. Try wearing a Cramps shirt to a kegger at a hunting camp. What a glutton for punishment I was. I just picked up some neato Cramps stuff that Nasty might need to have.
Yeah, you've got all those 60s bands who were grinding out loud/hard/fast imitations of the Stones and the Pretty Things, you've got rockabilly losers from the 50s who were twice as mean spirited as Jerry Lee, you've got insane one man band bashers like Hasil Adkins, and you're gonna start defining punk with the Ramones? Nah. Although they did bring song lengths down to a proper 2 minutes, which neither the MC5 nor the Stooges ever did. But I figure 70s punk HAD to start with that first Stooges record -- if only because it had I Wanna Be Your Dog on it.
And, yeah, the Cramps prooved that anything ever recorded in the entire spectrum of rock and roll music is punk rock. Their first two albums are as important to rock and roll as the first two Rolling Stones albums, and equally as radical. What did you get that would make Nasty happy?
|
|
|
| sirmoonie |
Great thread! Keep going! You guys are brilliant.
Nasty re: Far Away Eyes. I think its that Stones book called something like "Song by Song" where author gives his take on each song album by album. Keith apparently liked the song quite a bit and thought Mick nailed it several times with a serious country vocal (ala Dead Flowers) right up until the last take when he turned it into a parody. And thats the one that ended up on the album. Too bad, IMO. |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
Yeah thats the book. It also tells of how horrified the rest of the band was when they came back after letting Mick do the vocals to Emotional Rescue all night alone.
They couldn't believe the Bee Gee like falsetto.
They also couldn't believe they found him on the studio floor with a pool cue up his ass.
(Laugh track w/applause)
MACKY! |
|
|
| jb |
Bottom line, it's a week later, and no one is talking about him anymore. |
|
|
| ~AzQb |
[quote]
I was gonna take AZQB on when she attacked RubyFriday on his assertion that the Ramones were not the start of punk, but I decided against it. I've learned that you just can't talk to diehard Ramones freaks about the origins of punk. They just don't want to hear it.
...i dunno, SS. Don't think it's so much THAT as tHiS: Joey and those guys, never ones to clamber onto the "rockstar" shitpile, weren't about to toot their own horns-- which left{and leaves} it up to the rest of us.
The truth is, they had bashed their way around poverty and three chords and two minutes without any MacClarens or Sids, without hype or hyperbole, and began something REAL by going over to England at the time they did.
I don't have illusions about the Ramones-- never did-- but i DO take offence at the lie that "they never meant much to the history of punk".
Let's give credit where it's due, i say 
They were bashing while mCcLAren was running Sex on King's Road-- and i'll be damned if you, or anyone else, chooses to forget this.
~
|
|
|
| Maxlugar |
I think the great Ray Davies said it best in Price of the Punks:
A well known groover, rock 'n' roll user,
Wanted to be a star.
But he failed the blues, and he's back to loser,
Playing folk in a country bar.
Reggae music didn't seem to satisfy his needs.
He couldn't handle modern jazz,
'Cause they play it in difficult keys.
But now he's found a music he can call his own,
Some people call it junk, but he don't care,
He's found a home.
He's the prince of the punks and he's finally made it,
Thinks he looks cool but his act is dated.
He acts working class but it's all bologna,
He's really middle class and he's just a phony.
He acts tough but it's just a front,
He's the prince of the punks.
He's the prince of the punks and he's finally made it,
Thinks he looks cool but his act is dated.
He tried to be gay, but it didn't pay,
So he bought a motorbike instead.
He failed at funk, so he became a punk,
'Cause he thought he'd make a little more bread.
He's been through all of the changes,
From rock opera to Mantovani.
Now he wears a swastika band
And leather boots up past his knees.
He's much too old for twenty-eight,
But he thinks he's seventeen,
He thinks he's a stud,
But I think he looks more like a queen.
He's the prince of the punks and he's finally made it,
Thinks he looks cool but his act is dated.
He talks like a Cockney but it's all bologna,
He's really middle class and he's just a phony.
He acts tough but it's just a front.
He's the prince of the punks and he's finally made it,
Thinks he looks cool but his act is dated.
He acts working class but it's all bologna,
He's really middle class and he's just a phony.
He acts tough but it's just a front,
He's the prince of the punks and he's finally made it,
Thinks he looks cool but his act is dated.
He acts working class but it's all bologna,
He's really middle class and he's just a phony.
He acts tough but it's just a front,
He's the prince of the punks.
Thanks Ray.
I know this has only added to the debate.
Pete Townsend once called Ray Ravies a genius. Said he could not come close to Ray's talent.
Indeed Petey, Indeed.
|
|
|
| ~AzQb |
MaXY!
oooooooooooooooooooo !
KlosetVonKinKkinkILY~
I like that
~RoTfLmAO~! |
|
CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]