ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
A Bigger Bang Tour 2006

Three years of "Banquete de Pordioseros The message board in Spanish
Photo is Cucho Peņaloza by Javier Zapata
[ ROCKSOFF.ORG ] [ IORR NEWS ] [ SETLISTS 1962-2006 ] [ FORO EN ESPAŅOL ] [ BIT TORRENT TRACKER ] [ BIT TORRENT HELP ] [ BIRTHDAY'S LIST ] [ MICK JAGGER ] [ KEITHFUCIUS ] [ CHARLIE WATTS ] [ RONNIE WOOD ] [ BRIAN JONES ] [ MICK TAYLOR ] [ BILL WYMAN ] [ IAN "STU" STEWART ] [ NICKY HOPKINS ] [ MERRY CLAYTON ] [ IAN 'MAC' McLAGAN ] [ LINKS ] [ PHOTOS ] [ JIMI HENDRIX ] [ TEMPLE ] [ GUESTBOOK ] [ ADMIN ]
CHAT ROOM aka The Fun HOUSE Rest rooms last days
ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: A heavily Stones referenced Crowes review Return to archive Page: 1 2
15th May 2006 04:10 PM
Saint Sway heres a really well-written Black Crowes review from thier Amsterdam gigs by Dennis Cook. TONS of comparisons and analogies to the Exile Era Stones thru out.

IMO this review hits it on the head just how I feel about the band and what they're trying to do.

have a read if you dare...

http://www.popmatters.com/music/concerts/b/black-crowes-060324.shtml
15th May 2006 04:17 PM
jb He loved Zep more imo....he never penetrated the Stones camp and I have no respect for him.
15th May 2006 04:23 PM
Some Guy I didn't get into that new black crowe dvd but I will give it a 2nd chance someday
15th May 2006 04:24 PM
Saint Sway where did he mention Zep?
16th May 2006 01:21 AM
Zack "Every bit the [1972] Stones' equal"

Yeah, right.
16th May 2006 01:59 AM
Altamont
quote:
Zack wrote:
"Every bit the [1972] Stones' equal"

Yeah, right.




Yeah. It makes me wonder how much weed these Crowes fans have to smoke before they start thinking absurd things like that. Reminds me of the crowes DVD review that sway posted here proclaiming the crowes to be in the same league as the Stones and Beatles! Laughable.
16th May 2006 11:08 AM
voodoopug
quote:
Altamont wrote:



Yeah. It makes me wonder how much weed these Crowes fans have to smoke before they start thinking absurd things like that. Reminds me of the crowes DVD review that sway posted here proclaiming the crowes to be in the same league as the Stones and Beatles! Laughable.



Sadly, after a while people actually begin to believe their own bullshit. There are very few moments in music history that can even be mentioned in the same breath as Exile (Dust my Broom, Robert Johnson recordings, Johnny B Goode, Voodoo Pugs lead singer in cape, etc).
16th May 2006 01:48 PM
Jumping Jack When will the BCs write their first hit song? When they have one song the equal of any early Stones, then follow it up with another 20 or so big hits, then start writing songs others want to copy 40 years later they can be mentioned in the same breath.

So who is covering Crowes songs? NO ONE!!!

They are Stones wannabees without half the talent Aerosmith had in the 70s.
16th May 2006 10:09 PM
FrankiePeppers The Crowes are a great band, but they are not the Stones. Who is anyway? I think the main point was the energy and style with which they play their shows is similar to what the Stones did in their prime. He may have overdone it a bit though.

This board is filled with complaints about the Stones playing: Ronnie not doing anything, Keith not playing the songs correctly, Sympathy is too disco, the same 18 songs everynight, et al. So if the Crowes come up with completely different sets or do a few of the same songs in different styles and use considerable energy and power doing it, good for them. They are 25 - 30 years younger than the Stones and should be doing it that way anyway, just like the Stones used to play.
17th May 2006 01:05 AM
Make It Funky IMO, I quite liked the Dennis Cook write-up on the Crowes and it was objectively articulate with brilliant accuracy.

It's [so] unfortunate that there are so many downers and nay-sayers on here, who are so subjectively caught up in the "Rolling Stones" mystique, that they seem as delusional as the band themselves! I truly appreciate a rooted (centralised)themed website like the Stones, as I find they are the bulls-eye of music, and all other genres circulate around that "sound" I personally crave. However, it's so refreshing and incenting to appreciate and lust after other genres and targets on the dartboard - particularly, The Black Crowes.

Now, I have to say, I saw the Crowes the other night up here in Canada, and they were truly awe-inspiring. I thought to myself, "gee, why can't the Stones ever play like that???" The Crowes NEVER take it easy, coast, put on "auto-pilot" or fumble their way through a song (kind of like how Elvis did in his Aloha from Hawaii), not only playing poor representations of the songs, but embarrassing themselves so hideously, that, a bar band could play (and does play) better renditions of Stones songs. I never hear bands cover the Crowes tunes, because, quite honestly, I dont think that they could - the songs are very complicated chord-progressions and have got so much feeling that, teh groove could never be recaptured or duplicated to its original form. I'd like to hear the Stones do Remedy with as much conviction. Ive never heard the Crowes do a song in the same way twice, let alone repeated songs each concert/tour. I go to Stones tours to maybe hear 4 songs. And its sick that rocknroll fans like myself have to fork out hunnerds' of bucks just to hear 4 songs, when I can slip into some local bar, spend $10 on two beers and a tip (no cover), and hear better versions.

Another point: Its funny, and I know its a Stones site, but, whenever someone makes a post about a non-Stones band, they always seem to get slagged, "its NOT the Stones...blah blah"... And no one ever takes subjective criticism seriously, because they know that the nay-sayers are delusional and irrational... its like someone saying "gee, the cheese burgers at Maccas are delicious" then someone on here going "but they're not Burger Kings!" I mean.. it's so bloody awfully ridiculous, that, its so unfortunate, because I really like this site, as I share and learn and experience so much quality music from and to here, that there just seems to be so much bullshit and negativity and twisted subjectivity, it depreciates the value of this (wicked) site for music lovers.

In Saint Sway's defense, and on his behalf, I admire his fortitude and perserverence on this site, for he, like me, truly loves rocknroll objectively, and its great to hear such constructive reviews and legitimate opinions that arent biased or protective. I have my tickets for Twickenham, and I'm ready to rock with the Stones again, but I know it won't be as musically impressive as the Crowes show. I go to see the Stones play their tunes, almost to reassure myself they are still alive, and convince myself they wrote all of these tunes, but I go to the Crowes concerts to be blown away musically and to get lost in the grooves, emotions, 'midnight rambler' improvisational jams... (arent the jams what the Stones are best at anyways??)

Long live the Stones music. But please dont be musically negligent when it comes to other bands/interpretations...

Cheers!
17th May 2006 02:11 AM
PeerQueer Black Crowes are a solid band - and better than 80% of the bands out there over the last 20 years.

The are NOT on par with the Stones - they simply have a Stones vibe when they are playing and performing their best.

The fact is, very few modern music acts of the last 50 years are in the same league as the Stones circa 1965 - 1975. I include the Beatles in that as well. The Beatles remain the single most significant Boy Band ever, but their productions were overblown, and style often overshadowed the substance...not to say they too were not at times "great" but I have read many accounts of how John admitted he both admired and envied the Stones. Like most boy bands, then and now, they broke up when after aging a few years and realizing they were trapped within the confines of a then-outdated image. The Beatles were the greater commercial success, while the Stones were the better band - - Period. I have always considered the Stones both the symbolic and literal bridge between the Beatles and Dylan, while at the same time furthering the link between Black and White that Elvis initiated ten years before...

But back to the Crowes - catch them live if you can. Like I said, a very solid band that plays a nice version of rock n blues. Well worth the price of admission.
17th May 2006 07:27 AM
corgi37 No, they dont have a Stones vibe.

They are Stones thieves!

Whats next? The 75 image? 81? What about a 89 Jagger hair do for Robinson?

They are a glorified cover band that 99.99% of the world has forgotten about. I dont know why people here keep bringing them up. And, it's not to say "Wow, the Crowes have 5 great new songs up their sleeves that are so original and they played them live so well!".

No, its more like:
"Wow, before a crowd of 150 people, the Crowes did a set featuring 4 Stones songs, and 15 that SOUNDED like Stones songs.

They are sooooooo 1990.
17th May 2006 08:16 PM
crb69 The Rolling Stones are the rolling stones.

The Black Crowes are the black crowes. Two different bands that play rock n' roll. One similarity between both bands is that the Crowes play improv like the Stones USED to. Every now and then the Stones will jam a little but they are more of a "polished" pop RNR band today. The Crowes are more like the Allmans actually as far as complex chord progressions and soloing in their jams. I give props to them big time for keeping it REAL. Where as the Stones sold out long ago but they can and will always be the greatest RNR band in the world. As far as Chris copying MIck? No way, if they "copied" anyone it would be Led Zep. Anyone who knows this music well should realize that it's all been done already. The trick is to take your influences and create your own music with them tossed into the mix. As Keef said years ago, "whatever you listen to comes out in what you play". The Black Crowes honor the Stones, Zep & Allmans in THEIR music, that's all.
17th May 2006 09:42 PM
M.O.W.A.T. Frankly, I don't see the Stones connection (at least not anymore). Sure, their debut album oozed Stones influences, and to a certain extent, some songs may have passing similarities, but to lump them into a category such as unoriginal or derivative, is absurd.

I saw them Monday night, and believe me, thoughts of the Stones were nowhere in my head. They were very tight when it counted and were able to loosen up to jam for extended periods. Their setlists are made up of what us Stones fan wish the Stones did with theirs: namely, shaking them up and dusting off some real gems (Let's just say that the only "big hits" they played were Remedy and the encore, She Talks To Angels -- wouldn't us Stones fans love to go to a show and here them play deep cuts and then only play Satisfaction and JJF at the very end?!?).

If you were to compare them to anyone, I would have to say that they sound more today like the Allman Brothers mixed in with some Faces more so than the Stones.

That's my 2 cents.
17th May 2006 10:49 PM
full moon The Crowes are excellent...... Period
17th May 2006 10:53 PM
MrPleasant
18th May 2006 10:35 AM
Make It Funky Again, the nay-sayers are making a comparison with added-value, that depreciates their argument. (ie: they sound like the Stones, or they arent the Stones..)

Maybe the Stones fans on here who say they hate the Black Crowes, know deep down that the Stones aren't as good as the Crowes live, and your argumentations are protective devices and defense mechanisms?

Stones tunes are simple structures, usually based on 3 chords. The Crowes do infact sound more like Grateful Dead, Allmans for sure and a bit of Faces/Pie thrown in. I wish they did sound more like the Stones... but they dont.

As for Chris emulating Mick Jagger? Hardly. He looks like George Harrison's illegitate son circa "All Things Must Pass, 1971". If you're looking for a hole, you'll probably fall in it, but there isnt any hole. And if you're looking for similiarities between the Stones and Crowes, you'll probably see them, but there really isnt. It's all in how you are wanting to perceive it.

Ultimately, we should be grateful that the Crowes are still around and provide solid rocknroll blues country reggae groove jams...

cheers!
18th May 2006 11:02 AM
Jumping Jack It is very easy to mix it up when you don't have any war horses or even mediocre hits!
18th May 2006 11:26 AM
PeerQueer
quote:
M.O.W.A.T. wrote:
Frankly, I don't see the Stones connection (at least not anymore). Sure, their debut album oozed Stones influences, and to a certain extent, some songs may have passing similarities, but to lump them into a category such as unoriginal or derivative, is absurd.

I saw them Monday night, and believe me, thoughts of the Stones were nowhere in my head. They were very tight when it counted and were able to loosen up to jam for extended periods. Their setlists are made up of what us Stones fan wish the Stones did with theirs: namely, shaking them up and dusting off some real gems (Let's just say that the only "big hits" they played were Remedy and the encore, She Talks To Angels -- wouldn't us Stones fans love to go to a show and here them play deep cuts and then only play Satisfaction and JJF at the very end?!?).

If you were to compare them to anyone, I would have to say that they sound more today like the Allman Brothers mixed in with some Faces more so than the Stones.

That's my 2 cents.


________________

Agreed.
18th May 2006 12:05 PM
time is on my side Pulled up the article and the first thing I noticed is they (PopMatters) have an advertisement in bold print at the very top begging anyone with a passion for music to think about becoming one of their top writers. Not a promising start.

From the first sentence, where this writer (one of the ones who recently answered the advertisement????) is holed up in his hotel room looking at bootleg STONES movies from 1972 trying to get in the mood for a Black Crowes concert which he already anticipates will be an incredible concert experience, one gets the feeling certain things have already been decided in this reviewers mind that certain things can be termed "forgone conclusions". Before even seeing the concert, the writer has already equated the Black Crowes with the prime TIME STONES of Exile on Main St.

My first reaction- can this writer/reviewer (Dennis Cook = Saint Sway????) or any writer, fresh from some fired up posting on BlackCrowes.com on their laptop computer, be objective???? As the narrative winds along in breathless awe of actually seeing the Black Crowes in Amsterdam, the answer becomes all too self evident.



[Edited by time is on my side]
18th May 2006 01:06 PM
Mel Belli
quote:
PeerQueer wrote:
The Beatles remain the single most significant Boy Band ever, but their productions were overblown, and style often overshadowed the substance...not to say they too were not at times "great" but I have read many accounts of how John admitted he both admired and envied the Stones.



Admired, maybe. But "envied"? I don't think so. I don't know what accounts you've read, but the ones I've read pretty much paint John as viewing the Stones as inferior rivals who were always at least one step behind.
18th May 2006 04:24 PM
gimmekeef This was posted at IOOR from Toronto show last night:

Black Crowes Last Night - not so good
Posted by: Jackass (IP Logged)
Date: May 17, 2006 16:30


Sorry to say folks, little dissapointed in the show last night. Setlist was okay, but they certainly could have thrown a few more hits in there, it's not like they have a huge amount of them. Crowd wasn't really into it and you could tell that whenever they went into one of those jams that goes on forever they lost people's interest. And for those who say Dylan is impossible to understand try figuring out what Robinson is singing when you don't know the song. Sound was not all that great either. Enjoyed the two covers (Up on cripple creek and alabama) but thought Instant Karma was a strange encore. Robinson hardly sang all night which was odd as well. Okay but I was dissapointed.
18th May 2006 04:28 PM
gimmekeef And this review:

Massey Hall, Toronto - May 16, 2006

By BILL HARRIS - Toronto Sun




TORONTO - The Black Crowes didn't have that many hits, so it would have been nice had they played them all last night.

They didn't play Hard To Handle.

They didn't play Jealous Again.

They didn't play She Talks to Angels.

They didn't get around to Twice As Hard until almost two hours into their concert at Massey Hall.

And their encore consisted of one song: John Lennon's Instant Karma.


The Crowes did a nice job with it, actually. But it still was an odd choice, given the many unmined nuggets from their own repertoire.

The Black Crowes always have seemed a little high on themselves, and that's fine, since arrogance is a big part of rock and roll.

But one of the main purposes of arrogance is to annoy the people who don't like you, not the people who do.

Led by the Brothers Robinson (Chris, a.k.a. Mr. Kate Hudson, on vocals and Rich on guitar), the Black Crowes are touring again for no particular reason that we can deduce. Commercially they're about as hot as Hudson's acting career.

In a way that's a shame, since the Crowes had a pretty good bluesy, Southern-rock, hippie-wardrobe thing going back in their heyday.

But that was 15 years ago. Their commercial radar has been on the fritz for a long time.

Tiny Massey Hall was about 25% empty when the band took the stage last night, but the venue slowly filled to near-capacity. That usually means the scalpers cut their losses and held a garage sale.

The current approach of the six-member band, which has the bulk of its original members back, was in evidence a couple of songs into the proceedings: Long solo after long solo after long solo.

Guitar, keyboards, more guitar, drums. Does anyone in the stands want to have a go, too?

Chris Robinson still is a fairly charismatic frontman with a good set of pipes, but he went through several

10-minute stretches where he had absolutely nothing to do except hop and clap. He was reduced to bit-player status and had to pretend he was enjoying it.

Every time Chris stepped away from his mike and stood in front of the drum kit, you almost could hear at least half the audience moaning, "Oh no, here we go again."

This particular style still appeals to some music fans, presumably. Like, if you're old enough to have attended Woodstock in 1969 and your lasting impression was, "You know, those three days of music could have used a few more interminably long solos."

The show last night had the feel of a rehearsal. A good-natured rehearsal with some excellent musicians, mind you, but a rehearsal nonetheless.

"Any time you can play a couple of hours of music in a beautiful venue that doesn't have a rave afterward, that's great," Chris Robinson said early in the proceedings. "I'm not saying Ecstasy is bad, but if it makes you listen to that type of music, it must be evil."

A funny line, for sure. But one might ask Robinson, "What drug does one need to endure the type of music your band is playing these days?"


18th May 2006 05:30 PM
voodoopug
quote:


Tiny Massey Hall was about 25% empty when the band took the stage last night, but the venue slowly filled to near-capacity. That usually means the scalpers cut their losses and held a garage sale.




This is totally humiliating!
18th May 2006 05:37 PM
Altamont
quote:
voodoopug wrote:


This is totally humiliating!




To the band AND the scalpers!
18th May 2006 05:38 PM
pdog
quote:
Altamont wrote:



To the band AND the scalpers!



I feel bad for the audience.
18th May 2006 05:47 PM
Saint Sway an EXCELLENT review!!!

I've highlighted some of the key parts below. ... I love the line about their "commercial radar being on the fritz". So cool. So true.

quote:
gimmekeef wrote:
They didn't play Hard To Handle.

They didn't play Jealous Again.

They didn't play She Talks to Angels.

They didn't get around to Twice As Hard until almost two hours into their concert at Massey Hall.

But that was 15 years ago. Their commercial radar has been on the fritz for a long time.

10-minute stretches where he had absolutely nothing to do except hop and clap. He was reduced to bit-player status and had to pretend he was enjoying it.

The show last night had the feel of a rehearsal. A good-natured rehearsal with some excellent musicians, mind you, but a rehearsal nonetheless.



18th May 2006 05:49 PM
Altamont Instead of hopping and clapping while the the band does ten minute solos, Chris should learn how to juggle or do magic tricks.
18th May 2006 05:52 PM
telecaster A once great band goes down the crapper
18th May 2006 06:02 PM
voodoopug
quote:
telecaster wrote:
A once great band goes down the crapper



welcome back!!
Page: 1 2
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:

PicoSearch
The Rolling Stones World Tour 2005 Rolling Stones Bigger Bang Tour 2005 2006 Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour - Farewell Tour - Rolling Stones: Onstage World Tour A Bigger Bang US Tour

NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED)