ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board

July 14, 1971
Villefranche sur mer, Villa Nellcote, FRANCE
Basement of Keith Richards' house
By Dominique Tarlé

[THE WET PAGE] [IORR NEWS] [SETLISTS 1962-2003] [THE A/V ROOM] [THE ART GALLERY] [MICK JAGGER] [KEITHFUCIUS] [CHARLIE WATTS ] [RON WOOD] [BRIAN JONES] [MICK TAYLOR] [BILL WYMAN] [IAN STEWART ] [NICKY HOPKINS] [MERRY CLAYTON] [IAN 'MAC' McLAGAN] [BERNARD FOWLER] [LISA FISCHER] [DARRYL JONES] [BOBBY KEYS] [JAMES PHELGE] [CHUCK LEAVELL] [LINKS] [PHOTOS] [MAGAZINE COVERS] [MUSIC COVERS ] [JIMI HENDRIX] [BOOTLEGS] [TEMPLE] [GUESTBOOK] [ADMIN]

[CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [RESTROOMS]

NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED) inside.
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:

PicoSearch
ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: Neil Young on The Stones Return to archive Page: 1 2
04-02-04 02:34 PM
Nasty Habits I like Mystery Train. I think it's a really interesting book. But it's not a biography. It's a book about rock aesthetics, and as I recall, it's not afraid to be vulgar on occasion. I do not find anything much that Greil Marcus has written after punk rock very innaresting, however. Haven't read all the Helm bio, although I have read passages.

This is an interesting discussion because there has always been lots of debate about the nature of writing about rock. Is it totally stupid? Totally worthless? A big waste of time? Should it be intellexshell ala Marcus or Christgau or Landau, faux literary (and very often vulgar in a Hemmingway type of a way) ala Tosches or Booth, factual and reportorial like Guarlink, straight new journalistic post-Thompsonian woo woo ala Flippo or Sloman, or pure raving and ethically demanding enthusiasm like Bangs or Marsh? Or should it call attention to the ridiculousness of the whole affair like Meltzer? I think that as long as it evokes the artist being discussed and makes the reader want to hear the music being talked about, gives the reader new insight into favorite tunes or introduces new music to a reader in an honest way . . . honest not in terms of facts but in terms of the author's genuine response.


04-02-04 02:57 PM
T&A the BEST rock'n'roll is not morally corrupt, IMO. The Stones best work, IMO, doesn't fall into that category, either. Dylan blows the Stones away as a rock'n'roll artist - and you can't call his work morally bankrupt.
04-02-04 03:10 PM
Gazza >I do not find anything much that Greil Marcus has written after punk rock very innaresting, however.

"innaresting" Heh heh. You have to read "Shakey" to appreciate that word!

"Invisible Republic" wasn't bad!

>This is an interesting discussion because there has always been lots of debate about the nature of writing about rock. Is it totally stupid? Totally worthless?

What was that line that Frank Zappa said about rock critics and their readers?
Something like "people who cant write,writing about people who cant talk,for people who cant read"
04-02-04 04:32 PM
Saint Sway just wanted to add another Neil Young quote to this thread...
he once called the Stones "the greatest garage band of all time" - a HUGE compliment from the Godfather of Garage Rock

thanks again Sir Stones for the great Shakey quotes. I nominated this for Thread of The Year
04-02-04 04:41 PM
Nasty Habits I wonder how this thread got from "I thought that Shakey had too much profanity in it" to "rock and roll has no morality" (to "rock and roll is morally corrupt".

Of course rock and roll is not morally corrupt, and I am surprised that SS would claim that rock and roll had no morals, unless he is just baiting for a argument. Rock and roll maybe sometimes stands against existing lame morals ("We're young and have no use for your petty morals") and/or those all 'round hangups, but most of the time it establishes its own moral universe. Living outside the law, honesty, and all of that . . .

As far as Shakey and profanity goes, I ain't always thrilled with the way the vernatural has tonally overtaken the strait'n'arrow with its hi energy verbspeak going bangs bangs bangs alla time -- I mean Lester was great(ing) and all that (bastid was moral as hail, too -- hihorse sumbitch), but alot of his chillins oughta be shot -- sometimes overvulgar rockarollwrite bugsa fuckoutta me too - but I dint notice it so much in Shakey, and I am general sensitive bout zat sotta thang, so I know where ya comin' from but I didn't notice it once while I was readin' Shakey . . . not sayin' yer wrong I'm just sayin' . . .


[Edited by Nasty Habits]
04-02-04 05:18 PM
Sir Stonesalot >The Stones best work, IMO, doesn't fall into that category, either.<

Then we are obviously living in 2 different worlds. Your idea of what is the Stones best work, and my idea of what is the Stones best work are completely 180 degrees opposite.

When I think back upon my fave rock and roll artists, only Dylan touted any kind of morality....and that was only in certain phases of his career. Most of the rest railed against it. Fuck the rules, fuck authority(political, religious, or otherwise), do what you need to do to be happy. Freedom. Perhaps that in itself is a morality of sorts? I'll have to think on that.

I think where we may be getting into a problem here is what we consider to be rock and roll? I think perhaps things that you classify as rock and roll are probably different than what I consider to be rock n roll, or perhaps you just interpret things differently than I do?

I dunno. All I can tell you is that the language used in Shakey is no different than the language that I use, no different than the language I hear everyday.

I suppose we should just agree to disagree.
04-02-04 05:20 PM
Joey " I wonder how this thread got from "I thought that Shakey had too much profanity in it" to "rock and roll has no morality" (to "rock and roll is morally corrupt". "






" Of course rock and roll is not morally corrupt, and I am surprised that SS would claim that rock and roll had no morals, unless he is just baiting for a argument. Rock and roll maybe sometimes stands against existing lame morals ("We're young and have no use for your petty morals") and/or those all 'round hangups, but most of the time it establishes its own moral universe. Living outside the law, honesty, and all of that . . . "




" As far as Shakey and profanity goes, I ain't always thrilled with the way the vernatural has tonally overtaken the strait'n'arrow with its hi energy verbspeak going bangs bangs bangs alla time -- I mean Lester was great(ing) and all that (bastid was moral as hail, too -- hihorse sumbitch), but alot of his chillins oughta be shot -- sometimes overvulgar rockarollwrite bugsa fuckoutta me too - but I dint notice it so much in Shakey, and I am general sensitive bout zat sotta thang, so I know where ya comin' from but I didn't notice it once while I was readin' Shakey . . . not sayin' yer wrong I'm just sayin' . "




04-02-04 05:24 PM
Lazy Bones Lol...Joey, I wish I had your time. You crack me, brother.
04-02-04 05:26 PM
Joey " Lol...Joey, I wish I had your time. You crack me, brother. "




04-02-04 11:01 PM
T&A SSA:

I mean no disrespect when I say: if that's the world you live in - you and I are definitely living in different ones and you're welcome to yours!

Tod
04-03-04 04:07 AM
VoodooChileInWOnderl
04-03-04 04:20 AM
beer like i said earlier. "Get Off My Cloud" is a much better Stones song than Satisfaction. at least N. Young is kinda on the same page with me regardin this. and ol' Brian's playing guitar with Keeeth: Incredible!
so sayeth the bard. not me folks, i dunno nuthin.
Page: 1 2