| January 27th, 2006 04:09 PM |
|
|
| Jumping Jack |
When the jealousy stops we have a problem. Until then they are still the greatest!!!
|
| January 27th, 2006 04:13 PM |
|
|
| Saint Sway |
quote:
Jumping Jack wrote:
When the jealousy stops we have a problem. Until then they are still the greatest!!!
post of the year! |
| January 27th, 2006 06:20 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
quote:
How come the Stones always get bashed for being too old? What about when The Who goes on tour?
It's easy, no Who album in almost 25 years and they're a nostalgia act. The Stones released 5 album in the last 25 years with almost 0 classics, modern sounding songs and silly lyrics for their age.
quote:
I never hear the old comments regarding them or bands saying, "I don't want to end up like the Who. They are old men trying to be young."
Just see the lead singles from ABB and you get the answer. |
| January 28th, 2006 09:55 AM |
|
|
| Ihavelotsajam |
Yeah but the fact that the Stones don't want to age is not their problem. What does it matter if they don't immediately write the typical old-fart-turned-wise songs the minute they hit 60? I don't get it. Those who think they are not aging by what is conventionally defined as "gracefully", well then don't trash the Strokes, since you seem to agree with them (and the Strokes are just parrotting the conventional beliefs anyway, its not like they are putting some brain power into what they are saying about the Stones). I think the songs on ABB are more fun that the songs on the new Neil Young album. And it's not like there are that many artists who know how to age gracefully. Neil Young and Bob Dylan have never been the Stones in their lifetime, their "transition" into old men was not really a transition at all. Mick can obviously still 'rock' so why not. And the fact that the Who is still touring but has even less material than the Stones shouldn't be a reason to let them off the hook, but the exact opposite. I know people who have heard ABB and couldn't fathom it was 'old men' playing it. The problem is, no one is hearing ABB, and at this point I'm sure neither did that drummer guy. WHich is why everyone keeps saying the Stones are still "trying" to rock, rather than they can still rock without trying.
[Edited by Ihavelotsajam] |
| January 28th, 2006 02:42 PM |
|
|
| texile |
quote:
Mathijs wrote:
Whether you agree with it or not, from a musical point of view the Stones haven't made anything interesting for non-Stones fans since Tattoo You, and their tours have been roughly the same since 1989. So, if you 25 years old and part of one of the biggest bands in the world right now (whose third album is heralded by both press and audience) and you're not a Stones fan (The Strokes isn't remotely like the Stones ever were, they are much more in the vein of The Jam, Clash and American late 70's punk), it's not that strange you say you don't want to end like the Stones.
Remember, Jagger said about the same things from 1965 until 1973, when he started to be accused himself of being too old.
Mathijs
absolutely correct - in fact, many of us bitch about this fact all the time .....but among ourselves as fans.
when a punk-poseur like frizzetti say this shit, its obnoxious.
i can tolerate david lee roth saying similar things because dlr IS a stones fan and has praised them before so his rants seem more like dissappointments -
whereas - frizzetti just sounds clueless.
i always thought jagger getting all this 'old-man' flack is karma for mocking elvis all those years -
jagger was more brutal than frizzetti in his comments.
|
| January 28th, 2006 02:42 PM |
|
|
| texile |
quote:
Mathijs wrote:
Whether you agree with it or not, from a musical point of view the Stones haven't made anything interesting for non-Stones fans since Tattoo You, and their tours have been roughly the same since 1989. So, if you 25 years old and part of one of the biggest bands in the world right now (whose third album is heralded by both press and audience) and you're not a Stones fan (The Strokes isn't remotely like the Stones ever were, they are much more in the vein of The Jam, Clash and American late 70's punk), it's not that strange you say you don't want to end like the Stones.
Remember, Jagger said about the same things from 1965 until 1973, when he started to be accused himself of being too old.
Mathijs
absolutely correct - in fact, many of us bitch about this fact all the time .....but among ourselves as fans.
when a punk-poseur like frizzetti say this shit, its obnoxious.
i can tolerate david lee roth saying similar things because dlr IS a stones fan and has praised them before so his rants seem more like dissappointments -
whereas - frizzetti just sounds clueless.
i always thought jagger getting all this 'old-man' flack is karma for mocking elvis all those years -
jagger was more brutal than frizzetti in his comments.
|
| January 28th, 2006 02:59 PM |
|
|
| Shawn20 |
He probably won't have to worry about staying around too long. The market will take care of that. The arrogance of these young bands. Time will not be on their side....no it won't. |
| January 29th, 2006 04:37 AM |
|
|
| Highwire Rob |
quote:
FPM C10 wrote:
Attention Fab - your 15 minutes is up...
MORETTI WARY OF TURNING INTO...
[Edited by Highwire Rob] |
| January 29th, 2006 08:11 AM |
|
|
| speedfreakjive |
Moretti is in Texile's words, a 'punk poseur'. To diss the Stones at this stage is pathetic. They'll be a small irrelevant memory in most people's minds when they reach 60. |
| January 29th, 2006 08:56 AM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
Just another example of a young lion trying to assert himself in the pecking order. I dont think Fab has anything to worry about. He'll be playing cruise ships in 5 years, and will only be known as "the guy who used to slam it into Drew Barrymore".
But, whats the bet, in say 10-15 years, he'll be telling people at the YMCA "Ya know i played on the same stage as the Stones! Buy me a drink, and i'll tell ya about it." |
| January 29th, 2006 03:01 PM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
They serve drinks at the YMCA in Oz? |
| January 29th, 2006 03:18 PM |
|
|
| CraigP |
I think that The Strokes have been more-often than not compared to The Velvet Underground, especially since their singer's style sounds a bit like Lou Reed's (but not nearly as good). |
| January 29th, 2006 05:18 PM |
|
|
| texile |
at least the stones created thier own myth and persona -
the johnson storkes merely mimic both musically AND in thier dress....
those skinny trousers, leathers, funky shoes are so derivitive of late 70s punk, early 70s stones.....
a joke and nothing authentic about it... |
| January 29th, 2006 05:56 PM |
|
|
| maumau |
quote:
Mathijs wrote:
Remember, Jagger said about the same things from 1965 until 1973, when he started to be accused himself of being too old.
Mathijs
that means that mj said these things when he had already settled himself as the lead of the best rock and roll band in the world
i don't think this ferretti of this would-be-VU band is in a position like that
i think he will never be (their third album syas loud that their game is already over as a press-hyped cover band of cale and reed and tucker and morrison |
| January 29th, 2006 07:57 PM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
SS!!!
Actually, i dont know. I am not sure if our YMCA is still open. I think it closed years ago. In fact, i dont even know where it ever was.
The YMCA in Hong Kong serves booze. The have a great bar. They also have fantastic breakfasts. I stay at the Holiday Inn, but dont mind a little walk for some Christian eggs and holy bacon.
And, many, many Swedish back packers stay there!
|
| January 29th, 2006 08:48 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
I heard today the new Strokes album and it was a letdown, some good songs but average and without substance. I can't think on 2-3 more records from this guys. |
| January 30th, 2006 12:25 AM |
|
|
| texile |
quote:
Soldatti wrote:
I heard today the new Strokes album and it was a letdown, some good songs but average and without substance. I can't think on 2-3 more records from this guys.
that says it all.....
where were the stones at this point in thier career?
12x5? |
| January 30th, 2006 04:54 AM |
|
|
| Mathijs |
What else can you do? If you want to be part of a NEW movement in any form you of course slagg the old movement. If an artist doesn't have the feeling there's anything to improve, no progress will ever be made. You see this in arts, you see this in music. The Pistols thrashed the Stones, made one terrific album and dissapeared. What would have happened if they would have embraced 70's glamrock and the Stones? They would not have been the Pistols and they would not have invented an entire new movement. It's only logical the Strokes disses the Stones. There's nothing else they can do.
And the Stones do make it easy to criticise by other musicians. They tour with a setlist that's consists mainly of hits from 30 years ago, performed by half of the original Stones with guitarists that are shadows of their former selves. The staging and lighting has been the same since 1989, only they now charge $450.
If you're The Strokes, and you feel you offer something new, if you feel you're treading new grounds, all be it on a smaller scale, you criticise the Stones.
Mathijs
|
| January 30th, 2006 11:43 AM |
|
|
| RollingstonesUSA |
Fuck him, he has no soul, hope he burns in hell.... |
| January 30th, 2006 02:37 PM |
|
|
| Surround Sister |
Fabrizio´s envy is the only thing that´s sad here. |
| January 30th, 2006 03:26 PM |
|
|
| texile |
quote:
Mathijs wrote:
What else can you do? If you want to be part of a NEW movement in any form you of course slagg the old movement. If an artist doesn't have the feeling there's anything to improve, no progress will ever be made. You see this in arts, you see this in music. The Pistols thrashed the Stones, made one terrific album and dissapeared. What would have happened if they would have embraced 70's glamrock and the Stones? They would not have been the Pistols and they would not have invented an entire new movement. It's only logical the Strokes disses the Stones. There's nothing else they can do.
And the Stones do make it easy to criticise by other musicians. They tour with a setlist that's consists mainly of hits from 30 years ago, performed by half of the original Stones with guitarists that are shadows of their former selves. The staging and lighting has been the same since 1989, only they now charge $450.
If you're The Strokes, and you feel you offer something new, if you feel you're treading new grounds, all be it on a smaller scale, you criticise the Stones.
Mathijs
right again - the stones invite this criticisms by not taking chances or doing anything truly innovative -
look at neil young and dylan...
these guys are constantly challenging thier audiences - not insulting their intelligence by pandering to some phantom demographic ...
like george lucas, the stones haven't evolved with their core audience - they're stuck with some persona... |
| January 30th, 2006 06:14 PM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
Good and valid points. But, Dylan & Young are playing to 2,000 people. Like it or not, the Stones HAVE to be big and over the top. I agree too about the staging being pretty much what i was in 89, but i do think this stadium set is different. But, the impression i get is that they rely too much on the vid screen. The actual light show is pretty crappy. Dunno if that makes sense.
Personally, i'd be really fucking pissed off if i paid good money to see Dylan and he played only very obscure songs. |
| January 30th, 2006 06:16 PM |
|
|
| pdog |
I have to admit, the new strokes album is very good, and has become a favorite release of mine for this new year...
Ryan Adams 29 is also very good... |
| January 30th, 2006 06:58 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
It's very hard to be the Rolling Stones in 2006, actually is EXTREMELY hard since 1983. |
| January 30th, 2006 07:05 PM |
|
|
| Saint Sway |
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
Personally, i'd be really fucking pissed off if i paid good money to see Dylan and he played only very obscure songs.
I couldnt disagree more
I'd pay a cool grand if the Stones did a show of obscure Stones.
hearing the same greatest hits that they every tour, every night is only worth $50 IMO |
| January 30th, 2006 07:13 PM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
They serve drinks at the YMCA in Oz?
it IS Oz!
|
| January 30th, 2006 07:13 PM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
Personally, i'd be really fucking pissed off if i paid good money to see Dylan and he played only very obscure songs.
Never seen him have you?
you should
|
| February 2nd, 2006 01:13 PM |
|
|
| Honky Tonk Man |
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
What he fails to realize is that The Strokes have ALREADY sold out. They did that the second that they signed with a mega-giant record lable and were on the cover of Spin & Rolling Stone.
Really? Maybe I'm out of touch, but THEY WERE on Rough Trade over here in the UK. Maybe they're with a different company in the States, but I'm not sure. Rough Trade is considered to be a cool "Indie" label. First band to sign to them was The Smiths.
|
