|
|
| no_cole_porter |
Bitching.
I Just Bought The January Copy Of Uncut, The Big Stones Special. Just Depressing. I Have Yet To Read A Single Comment In The Whole Thing That Doesn't Talk About How The Stones Are No Longer Making Good Albums, How Their Glory Days Are Behind Them....
The Same With This Board. Everyone Is Always Bitching About How Ronnie Is So Terrible. Bitching About How The Stones Have Lost Their Touch. Bitching About The Last Good Album Was Tattoo You. Bitching About How Why Can't We Get Another Exile? What The Fuck.
Shouldn't We Be Happy That We Still Get Great Material And Albums From The Band?
I Am So Depressed From Hearing Everyone Slag Off On Ronnie, Hearing Them Slag Off On Mick's Solo Album, Slag Off Their Albums....I Think Ronnie's Great, I Think Mick's Album Was Great, I Loved Bridges And Voodoo And Steel Wheels.
People Need To Just Be Happy That The Stones Are Still Standing, Still Relevant, Still Putting Out Great Product, And Still The Greatest Rock And Roll Band In The World.
Thank You
[Edited by no_cole_porter] |
|
|
| The Eggman |
AMEN! |
|
|
| marko |
finally!i totally agree with you.People are whining because
they don´t have anything else to do. |
|
|
| Cardinal Ximinez |
Well, I kinda object on a technicality here. There IS a bunch of slagging, and some of it isn't really deserved. BUT! It just so happens that we are all humans, and we all have different tastes. I happen to LIKE Ronnie being in the Stones. I may bitch about his lack of hard playing on the last couple of tours....but then again, so has Keith! And as for Mick's new album, I think it sucks. I'm glad you like it, but I don't, and I have as much right to bitch about it as you do to praise it. I'm not being bitchy, I'm being honest. I refuse to say I like something when I don't actually like it.
So what's this all about n-c-p(I love your handle, BTW)? Would you like this place to be all peaches & cream with a cherry on top? Sugar & spice & everything nice? Do you know how fucking dull that would be? Come on, reality isn't like that either.
The way I see it, you can love it, like it, or hate it. Makes no difference to me. I am what I am, I say what I feel, and if you don't like what I say, too bad. Feel free to disagree. |
|
|
| SlackerZ |
I'm totally agree with no_cole_porter, come on Cardinal, you can't say that songs like Joy, Too Far Gone, Brand New Set of Rules, Hideaway? Come on you didn't like them? The new mick's solo album is great i love it, i must say the first time i listen to it, i didn't like it too much, but after i hear from top to bottom again, i started to like it even more and more. I tell you the same thing happen to me with voodoo lounge, it took me time to catch i don't know how to say the atmosphere that has, and again bridges, but after listening very carefully to them i just love them!! Hey and this thing not only happened to me with the last albums, aslo happened with Goat's heap soup!! And believe or not with sticky fingers! But then i listening to them very carefully i really enjoy them, and i still do that, they are all great!! And if you have to ask me what's your favourite stones album? I have
to say to you right now i am listening to december's children, that is my favourite album! Hey yesterday i listen steel wheels at the time that was my favourite album,
after december i will listen to bridges and that will be my favourite album! Same thing happens to me if you ask me what's my favourite song!
I apologize for not being objective, but that's me and that is the efect the stones done to me!! They are the greatest,
and the more i hear from them the more i like them!!
Sorry that's my opinion!! |
|
|
| F505 |
Believe me or not but people who are bitching just make the greatest compliment to the Stones you can imagine. That band has made so many classic albums that every new product that doesn't reach the highest peak must render account. The Stones themselves have put these standards on a very high level. That makes them vulnerable. A bad Stones record is in a way worse then any other record from any other band.
But this on the other hand proves their ultimate greatness. |
|
|
| Gazza |
>The Same With This Board. Everyone Is Always Bitching About How Ronnie Is So Terrible. Bitching About How The Stones Have Lost Their Touch. Bitching About The Last Good Album Was Tattoo You. Bitching About How Why Can't We Get Another Exile? What The Fuck.
Shouldn't We Be Happy That We Still Get Great Material And Albums From The Band?
I agree with you to a certain extent.
However,dont tar us all with the one brush....while its true the Stones have already probably given us their finest work - thats not necessarily all bad. As implied above,the fact that those albums were so great raises a higher standard than any other band. Personally - and Ive said it before here - I'm very thankful that my favourite band is still here and on top after 40 years. No one but a Stones fan can say that because no other band has done it. We're a privileged bunch and maybe a bit spoiled - cos sure as hell we'll miss them when theyre not around anymore. Theres also simply a lot of boredom around cos theyre not active at present....once the next album comes out,sure there'll still be bitching from some people who refuse to let the band evolve and develop and who think the Stones should make "their" idea of a Rolling Stones album - but the concerts that follow will blow everyone away as usual.
I dont expect them to be matching "Exile" with every new release - that said,I thought "Bridges to Babylon" was a terrific album - with the exception of "Some Girls",their best since "Exile" and I dont give a shit if anyone thinks I'm nuts for saying it. They still make bloody good albums,are still looking to try new ideas and improve themselves and they still give incredible concerts. All of which are more than I could dare expect from a band of musicians of their age. I just wish theyd record & perform more often,although I still dont think they owe us that either. The only gripe I have with the Stones at this stage of their career in all honesty (as most people who know me know by now!) is how out of touch they are re:ticket prices.
We dont ALL bitch about Ronnie either - I saw him in Dublin 4 weeks ago and I thought he was great. Much better than I'd dared hope. That said,like everyone I'm concerned about his "liquid intake" in the last few years and what its doing to his health. He does seem to have got over the worst of it and hopefully he'll be back on form on the next tour. His playing in dublin (and at Shepherds Bush in 99 when I saw him give the best performance with the Stones I've ever seen from him) suggests he can still cut it when he needs to. I'd much rather have Ronnie in the band than Mick Taylor for numerous reasons I've gone into before. Taylor coming back is a non-issue anyway.
For the record,I liked Mick's album. It was no better or worse than I figured it would be. I liked it on its own merits and not by comparing it to a Stones album. I'd rather have a band album though. Mick's an easy target for many folks to bitch at anyway (unfairly in my view)
Thing to remember is to get the bitching in perspective. Theres over 300 registered users of this board. Only a few people are actively bitching or complaining in the way youre referring to. They're consumers too and its their right. Maybe the rest are kinda happy like you the band are still doing what theyre doing and the way theyre doing it! Besides,a bit of debate is healthy isnt it?
|
|
|
| hayo |
I do agree with the cardinal. This is after all a stones forum.
The stones made great and uh lesser great songs. The nice thing about discussions is that we can disagree. That is what makes discussing interesting!
Sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't. A good healthy discussion is fine by me, as long we have respect for each others opinions.
I think it is absolutely okay to not like everything the stones say, do or most importantely, record.
It's all about the music,
Peace,
Hayo. |
|
|
| Cardinal Ximinez |
SlackerZ, I don't like "Goddess". I've already gone into this here before, and I don't care to get into it again. Let's just say, it's not my style, and leave it at that. I know that it prolly seems like I don't like Jagger from the tone of my recent posts. Not true at all. I love the guy. BUT, I don't like the way this latest solo venture was done, or handled by his PR people. It all seemed so, glitzy, polished, and un-rock and roll to me. Like I said, not my style.
I know what you're saying about certain things taking a bit of time to catch on. It's not really that way with me so much. For some quirky reason that I don't understand fully, I know after 3 or 4 listenings if I'm gonna like something or not. If I don't get a spark in that timeframe, I'm just not gonna get it at all.
Again, please don't misunderstand me. I'm extremely thankful that the Stones are still with us. And when they hang it up, I'll be quite sad. Even when that day comes though, I'll be satisfied with what their output and legacy is. You simply can't have a 40+ year career without dropping a couple of stink bombs though. No shame in that, it's just the nature of the beast.
However, I still stand by my opinion that we don't all have to like everything the band does. I think part of being a true fan, is having the courage to dislike something the band, or members of the band have done. If you just blindly love everything the band does, simply because it was done by the band, then you are selling yourself short...you are just being a sheep. |
|
|
| The Eggman |
glitzy, polished, and un-rock and roll
Hmmm Cardinal....
i Belive that's called GLAM ROCK, something the Stones in the 70's were pretty good at!!! |
|
|
| Cardinal Ximinez |
You gotta be kidding me Eggman. The only thing "Glam" about the Stones in the 70's was Mick's makeup. You telling me that the 70's style Stones sounded like Bowie, Gary Glitter, T. Rex and Queen? What the hell were you listening to? |
|
|
| no_cole_porter |
Cardinal Ximinez....About The No Cole Porter, In The August 1999 Issue Of Q Magazine, Charlie Was Talking About How The Beatles Were No Cole Porter....I Thought It Was Such A Great Line. |
|
|
| Cardinal Ximinez |
Yeah, n-c-p, I recognized the reference...that's why I like the handle so much...a fine display of taste & creativity on your part. |
|
|
| The Eggman |
GLAM ROCK is more than a music
and Jagger and Richards helped shape it |
|
|
| Cardinal Ximinez |
BULLSHIT Eggman. Glam was shaped by David Bowie, Marc Bolan & Lou Reed as the 70's started. Ziggy & The Spiders played their last show in 1973. The Stones were still in drunked junkie Exile mode then. Slade, The Sweet, Gary Glitter, Marc Bolan, Bowie, Lou...ALL preceded the '75/'76 Stones. The Stones and Mick had absolutely ZILTCH to do with the Glam movement...if anything, Mick copped some fashion tips. Period.
School yourself before your start making wild claims. Read these books:
Glam: Bowie, Bolan, And The Glitter Rock Revolution
by Barney Hoskyns
20th Century Rock & Roll: Glam
by Dave Thompson
Strange Fascination: David Bowie
by David Buckley
Blood & Glitter
by Mick Rock
You'll not find the Stones mentioned at all in ANY of those titles, or any other book on the subject. I wonder why? Oh wait, maybe it would be because The Rolling Stones had NOTHING to do with the Glam movement. |
|
|
| Miss U. |
Yeah, No Cole Porter!
NCP isn't saying we have to like EVERYthing by the Stones; I certainly don't....but his point:
"Everyone Is Always Bitching About How Ronnie Is So Terrible. Bitching About How The Stones Have Lost Their Touch. Bitching About The Last Good Album Was Tattoo You. Bitching About How Why Can't We Get Another Exile? What The Fuck."
is very true. And I think Exile is WAY over-rated.
And the Stones didn't begin the Glam Rock movement, but Mick certainly followed in his image; I love that Stones-era, how Mick looked. But perhaps Brian Jones was a whisper of what was to come; certainly the first rock star to dress in an androgynous way, wearing women's jewellry, women's silk shirts, makeup etc.
|
|
|
| Joey |
I could not agree more . Everyone is always bitching about Ronnie's poor playing and how he just goes through the motions up on stage and how Keith has to cover his ass during every single gig .
Enough is enough ........who cares if Ronnie sucks or not , or that he is just a cardboard cutout of himself and is not even 1/2 the player he used to be . Is it our fault that Mick Taylor quit the band ?????? I think not .
Everyone just needs to chill out for awhile , realize that Mick Taylor was probably the greatest thing to ever happen to a band called the " Rolling Stones " and that most fans of Rock and Roll music regret the day he ever left the group . Life goes on , Steelie still drinks , I smoke dope and lose my bag from time to time , but it is cool . We need to relax , put on Brussels , and listen carefully to the lead fills and non - ersatz soloing that emanates from Taylor's axe . Satiation is the key to life , and the Rolling Stones help one achieve that beautific and soulful nirvana that other humans on this orb can only dream about .
By the way , has anyone on this board seen my dope ? I noticed it missing last night around four AM when I got up to take a little pee pee .
You wouldn't want your young Joey to start jonesing and Chasing the dragon again now would you ??????
" Take a huge bite out of my ass Ronnie '
Joey , C10
|
|
|
| Miss U. |
Joey, I know how you feel, but all the dope in the world won't bring Mick T or Brian back, honey! Doesn't hurt to dream.
Musta been Woody who took your Chiba, & that means Woody's off the booze & ready for a comeback!
"kiss my ass Mick T."
|
|
|
| The Eggman |
U read those books |
|
|
| Cardinal Ximinez |
Of course I read those books...I happen to own them. Do you think I just make shit up? I go to a lot time and expense to learn about Rock music...the what's, where's, and why-for's. It interests me, so I educate myself.
You should try it sometime. You won't come off like such a dumbass all the time. |
|
|
| The Eggman |
oK MISTER ALL HIGH AND MIGHTLY
iam glad u can read, and even better u can read about Rock Music, but when i read i dont devote myslef to oone subject but expand my horiszons and read about more intelligent things
Where do YOU GET OFF? seriously? |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
I think Gazza comes closest to hitting the nail on the head when he says the thing that pisses him off about the Stones most is how out of touch they
are on ticket prices. Out Of Touch is unfortunately the best way to
describe the band. Not necessarily out of touch with the times, but out
of touch with what the Stones such an incredible band to begin with.
Here is a band whose core members at one time would sit around and listen to the most scratched up, poorly recorded 78 of some bluesman from 1927 over and over to get to the point of the song, to hear that one great moment of "truth". After 40 years (monkey math -- how can this be the 40th anniversary of the Stones if the 25th Anniversary was Steel Wheels in 1989?), I get the feeling that searching for the truth in music has either turned out a dead end or has been abandoned in the face of the pressures and pleasures of being a Rolling Stone.
The way the current Stones play and compose music has little or none of the joy of creation that is evident for anyone to hear in the albums, studio outtakes and concert tapes from up until the initial "break up" in 1984. This aspect of the Stones' music peaks in the Mick Taylor years. It's not just Mick Taylor I miss when I long for '69-'73. It's hearing Jagger get totally lost in the lyrics and singing them like he believes them. It's hearing Keith play at a consistently extraordinary level of energy and precision. It's hearing Charlie hit all the right beats in all the odd places and never being predictable. It's hearing the excitement the horns and piano add without cluttering up the sound. And speaking of uncluttered, hearing Bill Wyman's bopping bass instead of the constant rubadub rumble of Darryl Jones. And of course hearing that little blonde guy with the tiny fingers compose the greatest guitar melodies on the spot, night after night. That band DUG it, knew they were cocks of the walk, and they never played a song quite the same way twice. You can tell they're listening to each other and responding in their playing, which is why it is so great.
Even when things just get less specific post-Taylor, pre-Steel Wheels, shows from '75 (when there's no fuckin' Billy Preston sopping up the sound with his crappy synthesizer) to '82 still have a spontaneous and chaotic energy that is totally rock and roll. It's more difficult to believe that everybody is as 100% committed to making the best music in the world for its own sake, but they still unleash energy like no other band. The Stones of the 90s do not play total rock and roll -- their arrangements are stilted, too concerned with recreating the sound on the record, and lack any real sense of creative energy.
People take it out on Ronnie, because Ronnie's playing sounds unfocused, uninspired, and at times, incompetent. But Keith doesn't play with the same fire or commitment either. Jagger sings his lines, but it never sounds like his life depends on it, and his lack of attention to his work shows as he forgets lyrics all over the place. There are too many people onstage -- it sounds like an Elvis Presley style Las Vegas version of the Stones. Not the real thing. It's a job, and while they do it competently, it's doesn't sound like there's any real NEED there.
What is so frustrating about this is that we all know they can still be the band we want them to be if they'd just give up the "biggest, money grubbingest, most coldly calculated rock and roll band" title they've claimed since the Steel Wheels tour. I really dug a European double CD I heard from Bridges when they played Saint of Me and seemed genuinely caught off guard that the crowd would not stop singing Saint of Me, so they start accompanying the crowd, Ronnie on wah-wah pedal, because they're getting ready to play Out of Control. And then Mick says "You're Out of Control!" And they start that song to even more enthusiasm. That was very cool -- the Stones getting a crowd off playing great new matierial. But then when they tried to recreate that spontaneous moment on the No Security tour it didn't work -- recreating spontaneous moments in a calculated way is not rock and roll.
The Stones ARE rock and roll. They are the culmination of the rock and roll band. When they were great, nobody did it better. Even when they're just good, they're cooler, more natural, more amusing, and more interesting than just about anyone else. But it's lame to see the music get squandered and short changed in the face of the giant cash machine. This is why people bitch. What if the Stones went into the studio and cut an album like Dylan did with Love and Theft? What if they had a producer who wasn't trying to make them sound professional and contemporary? What if Jagger calmed down on stage and just sang, and didn't make the ridiculous poses that he insisted on trucking out on, say, the Saturday Night Live performance of "Visions of Paradise"? What if they really stripped it all down and just made music again? I think the "bitchers" on this list believe that an album like that would not only sound great, but would sell in quantities that no second guessing of market forces could possibly match.
It's impossible to give up on the Rolling Stones. The aural evidence fans have access to proves that they are giants and geniuses. But there's equal evidence to support that for the past decade or so they've put nowhere near as much energy into playing music as making money and putting on "big" shows. Screw that. If they sounded like they still toured and recorded albums because they loved that more than anything else, I don't think anyone would be complaining.
Love. It's a bitch. |
|
|
| Cardinal Ximinez |
Wow Nasty. Great post. You made some very good points.
Now for my dear stupid Eggman....
I'm sorry you don't think Glam is worth reading about. Yet you would like to claim that Jagger and Richards shaped the whole movement. Interesting that you would want to make a huge generalization like that, without taking the time, or making the effort to see if what you are saying is actually correct.
I can't figure out if you really are this lame, or you're just pretending to be so lame. And if you are pretending, why? What's the point? To try get my goat? That would be a HUGE waste of time on your part. I'm obviously far superior to you in every way, so your lame attempts to bait me are a pathetic waste of your time.
Seriously, I'll tell you where I get off....in bed with my wife. I would imagine YOU get off in the bathroom with your hand and the latest copy of Glamour magazine. Just don't let your mommy catch you. It could hospitalize her.
When are you gonna learn? |
|
CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]