ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
On the Road World Tour 2002 - 2003

Mick Jagger and Robbie Robertson by Robert Risko 1987
[Ch1: Sike-ay-delic 60's] [THE ROLLING STONES] [Ch3: British Invasion]



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:


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

Topic: Chris Robinson Slagging the Stones Return to archive Page: 1 2
06-24-02 10:28 AM
sandrew Black Crowes fans may have caught one of Chris Robinson's recent solo shows. A friend of mine saw him at the TLA in Philly last week. I saw him at the 9:30 Club in DC Saturday night. At the TLA show, someone yelled, "Play the Stones," to which Chris replied (this isn't verbatim, but close enough): "You can pay $300 to hear 'Satisfaction nine times.'"

At the DC show, he told a story about when the Crowes opened for the Stones in Montpelier, France. Bob Dylan was there too. And this was when, Chris said, "Like a Rolling Stone" was the Stones' "mastermind single." Robinson went on to joke about how Dylan joined the Stones onstage for "Like a Rolling Stone," but didn't sing when prompted by Mick.

The Stones, Robinson said, have to play songs the same way every night because "the light show is so expensive." After they got through the song, Keith thanked Bob, who replied, "Fuck you." Finally, Robinson said, "I've seen Bob about 30 times and never had to pay $350."

I know Chris Robinson is a big Stones fan, as is his brother Rich. But as a hippie idealist, it's clear he detests the Stones in their current corporate incarnation. The way he sees it, Dylan manages to stay above it all and true to his art.

Now, I'm no neo-hippie, but I couldn't help thinking to myself, "Damn it, he's got a point." Dylan and Springsteen don't feel the need to charge as much as the Eagles, Who, and the Stones - and they still are very comfortable millionaires.

Chris Robinson is mouthy and self-righteous. But he's not wholly off the mark on this, I'm afraid.
06-24-02 10:42 AM
nankerphelge Well ol' Chris and his band of merry men couldn't fucking keep a lid on it for what 10 years before the lifestyle ate them up. They had potential, but like so many bands, couldn't handle the pressure and imploded. No biggie -- they aren't the only ones. But my point is this -- had they managed to hold it together for what, 15, 20, 25 years in that biz -- had they garnered the respect, stature and success that the Stones did -- do you think they could have handled it any better. Probably not -- Dylan has handled it pretty masterfully I must say -- but even he went off the deep end for a while in the mid 80s. I think Robinson has a point, and it's on top of his little head -- I'd like to see him do better -- but he's already proven that he can't.

My 2 cents for what its worth
06-24-02 11:16 AM
Joey Agreed Nanky !!!!

He is just jealous because he could not keep his band together like the Who and the Stones .

06-24-02 11:42 AM
Mr T Chris is right ideally - but maybe the reason he's never had to pay $300 to see Dylan is because - why would you pay to hear Bob Dylan sing. I mean, nothing against his songwriting at all - but do you actually expect the songs' lyrics & meaning to get more powerful in concert? BS - your just gonna hear the guy make an ass of himself presenting a horrible rendition, in which the vocals will assuredly be a hundred times more horrible than they are on the record. Bob Dylan's just not exactly an ideal live act for that reason - so less people are gonna want to pay that much to see him. I always liked a lot of his stuff, but he's probably one of the last acts I'd ever pay to see.

and Nanky,
it really doesn't matter how long the Crowes' lasted - I saw them in September, and I was impressed. Cost me $40 or $50 a ticket - I forget, I would probably pay as at least much as the Stones to see the Black Crowes again(And I went to that show thinking they'd be OK at best). And anyway, if you'd actually read all those articles, you'd probably know that the Crowes didn't actually break up - its a hiatus & Chris is doing a solo career. In fact, if you saw one of his performances - it would be pretty clear he's NOT trying to find an alternative to the Black Crowes, just goinf thru a different phase. And given the Crowes' rocky history(this isn't their first hiatus) - there's no reason to think this one will be any more permanent from the last. Besides, the Robinsons are the only members to stay in the band for the entire span of their career - so since the 2 of them pretty much make up the band - how long do you think 2 brothers can ignore each other - especially since htey aren't even on bad terms.

the Crowes formed in 87 and had a 15 year run before going on indefinate hiatus in 2002. I don't remember Cream, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, the Jimi Hendrix Experience, The Yardbirds or most 'legendary' band for that matter lasting as long as the Crowes - so staying together obviously has no impact on the quality of the music
06-24-02 12:16 PM
T&A Uh, I think there is ample room for disagreement on the Dylan vocal comments. Dylan is, in my humble opinion, the greatest rock and roll SINGER of them all. Unlike Jagger and Daltrey, Dylan's vocal "spin" night in an night out is what brings fans back again and again. That's why I go see him and would gladly pay $350 or whatever it takes. Bill Graham, who had a pretty fine ear/eye for talent, also said Bob was the greatest of them all - as a singer.

-- "everything's alright in the critic section"

06-24-02 12:43 PM
KeepRigid Chris made similar comments during the No Security tour- "Why don't they just play corporate gigs?". (Didn't stop him from attending a show, though, did it?)

I've always been a big Crowes fan, but if Chris really wanted to practice what he preaches, he'd accept that everybody gets to do it their own way. (And also the Golden Rule: NOBODY fucks with the Stones.)

The Crowes haven't imploded, but when they return from their 'hiatus', it would be nice to see them no longer bitching about the exact same things they were complaining about a decade ago.

Hey Chris- a little less energy trying to justify your own beliefs, and you likely won't have time to voice so much concern over everybody else.
06-24-02 12:55 PM
Mr T I would take what he says with a grain of salt. Chris is obviously a big Stones fan. He's also right that charding $300 a ticket is taking yourself too seriously. But when he says stuff like that live - its the same as Mick saying "Hillary Clinton - gimme a blowjob" in the middle of Rip This Joint in concert. For some reason - bitching about other people's affaris on stage makes the crowd cheer. Every band in the world does it - from Bian Wilson at the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame, to the Stone Temple Pilots bashing Creed at half their shows. For some reason, the crowd just goes nuts hearing some asshole's opinion on stage. That what rock and roll singers do - right? the opposite of a moose: horns in the back, ass in the front?

as for Bob Dylan being the best singer ever - well, that may be true if not for terms likes "range" "keys" "holding a note" - call it style if you want, but any musician I ever talked to will call it poor vocals. Likewise, any musician I know(myself included) would be IMPRESSED AS HELL seeing Chris Robinson in front of the Crowes last September.
06-24-02 01:23 PM
Riffhard Chris has always been an opinionated son of a bitch.I was at the Atlanta show when the Crows opened for ZZ Top.They got booted from that tour on the same night because Chris was slagging the sponser of the tour onstage.I think it was Miller Light.
As for Chris ripping on Jagger.That's no real shock.That has always been his MO.He is quite obviously a fan of the Stones.I mean just look at his stage antics.They are so Jaggeresque it's not funny.So not only does he rip on Mick,but he also rips off Mick!
By the way Mr.T,Steve Gorman the drummer has always been in the band.Chris,Rich,and Steve are all original members.

06-24-02 03:13 PM
Sir Stonesalot Mr. T, you are now 0-2 today.

As a sometimes singer myself, I can tell you that there is WAY more to presenting a song than merely range, and holding a note. Have you ever been to see Bob do a show? Have you caught him at any time from the early 90's on? He is a MASTER vocalist. Notice I use the word "vocalist". If you want to see a singer display "range", go see Celine fucking Dion. But Bob uses his voice as another instrument in the band. Nobody phrases as well as Bob. I have a copy of the show I saw at Penn State last fall. There are points in that show where the crowd noise dies away to complete silence. We were all standing in AWE of musical GENIUS on display. You see, what makes Bob so special, is that after all these years, he still means every single word. I have witnessed Bobs vocals completely eviserate an audience. His voice was a razor, and we all stood in a puddle of our own guts. And we all loved every SECOND of it! In fact, we begged and pleaded for more! There are a very few artists that can capture a crowd, and make them hang on desperately to every utterane. Bob Dylan is one of those rare few.

Again, you are entitled to your opinion Mr. T. But your opinions do indeed puzzle me. You obviously have enough good sense to love the Rolling Stones....but how on earth did they slip through?
06-24-02 03:16 PM
mattb So were his comments made while he fronted the band that became famous by being another Stones wannabee band or did he wait until he left?
06-24-02 03:25 PM
Mr T Riffhard, I know - but Gorman's the one who quit at the end of 2001 which led to the hiatus

Sir Stones, sorry - I gotta disagree. As far as "vocalists" - I've seen some impressive shit, and Dylan isn't what I have in mind of that. I haven't seen him - but I've heard a lot of his stuff. By the way - Celine Dion is a poor example. If you want range, talk about Christina Aguilera(don't know if that's the right spelling - and don't really care) - that's is fuckin skill. I'll agree that Dylan is the master of power and emphasis - I've been listing to him since I was 8(again - for every bad remark I make about him, I could probably make 2 good ones), and the emphasis - making the right words matter the most with the right strength was Dylan's claim to fame. I consider Dylan to be more of a poet - somebody who knows how to say things with power verbally - that doesn't really make a great "singer" to me - but as I just said, he does have other strengths.
As far as singers go, I'm more concerned with range & soul - say what you want about Dylan's greatness, but when he learns to shatter glass with his range like Freddie Mercury(I don't think its the *range* exactly that shatters glass when Bob Dylan sings - lol) - then I'll be impressed by him as more than a poet

byt he way - if I'm 2-0, what was the other one. And if it has to do with the Crowes not being a great band - you didn't see the show I was at. I was THERE, and I STILL can't believe how good that was
[Edited by Mr T]
06-24-02 03:37 PM
Staffan Yes, The Crowes ARE great. Chris sings damned good, IMO.
Sir Stonesalot; I agree with what you say about Bob. Do you think Neil Young is a bit like that too? I clearly do.
Would be interesting to hear you opinions of that.
06-24-02 04:13 PM
Saint Sway When your able to line your pockets and sell a boat load of records by basically copping another bands sound I think that the last thing you should do is dis them onstage. How about Chris sends the Stones some royalties instead of bitching about them.

I dont get these comments at all because I know that Chris likes the Stones because his band covers their songs. Anyway, heres my thoughts on his recent comments...

"Play the Stones," to which Chris replied (this isn't verbatim, but close enough): "You can pay $300 to hear 'Satisfaction nine times.'"

1. this is pretty funny coming from a guy that played 'Hard To Handle' at EVERY show last year

2. I'm paying the same amount of money ($50) to see the Stones in a smaller venue (Roseland) than I paid to see the Black Crowes at larger venues like The Beacon Theatre & Radio City Music Hall

3. I'll agree that $300 is too pricey a ticket, but millions of fans aparently dont have a problem with it because the Stones are selling out plenty of venues.

4. Its easy to stand on a soap box and to poke fun at the Stones high ticket prices when he knows damn well that if he ever charged $300 for Black Crowes tickets that not one single person would go.

At the DC show, he told a story about when the Crowes opened for the Stones in Montpelier, France. Bob Dylan was there too. And this was when, Chris said, "Like a Rolling Stone" was the Stones' "mastermind single." Robinson went on to joke about how Dylan joined the Stones onstage for "Like a Rolling Stone," but didn't sing when prompted by Mick.

1. I have no idea what hes talking about. I have a copy of this show and Bob duets on it. Rolling Stone magazine also ran a photo of Bob & Mick singing together in the same mic.

2. Chris has been telling this same story every other nite. Its not even a funny story unlike the one about Noel Gallagher that he tells EVERY nite so I dont know why he bothers to keep telling it...

3. LARS was the Stones "Mastermind single"... this is really funny coming from the mastermind that wrote and released 'Lickin' as a single (with the even more 'masterminded' Lickin remix on the b-side)

The Stones, Robinson said, have to play songs the same way every night because "the light show is so expensive."

1. The light show, eh? So whats Chris' excuse for playing the songs the same every nite?? I'm guessing its not the 40 bucks he dropped on candles!

After they got through the song, Keith thanked Bob, who replied, "Fuck you."

1. Really? We all know that Bob is close friends with Keith & Ronnie.

Finally, Robinson said, "I've seen Bob about 30 times and never had to pay $350."

1. What shows does he ever have to pay to get into? He didnt seem to have a problem being on the guest list for Jaggers show at the El Ray Theatre in LA.

2. He didnt dare say anything about the Stones ticket prices when the Crowes got to open for them in London a few years ago.
06-24-02 04:26 PM
Mr T Sway - actually - Hard To Handle was dropped for 1/2 of last year. They played a lot of gigs without doing that song. Hell, they didn't even play the single off their record when I saw them - they're setlist has a LOT of flexibility.

And they may have been rip-offs of the Stones for the first 2 albums - but that's way over - unless all you are talking about is the stupid stage dances - but then again, that's what Robinson criticized the band for - $300 light shows. The Crowes' stage show couldn't be more of the opposite.

Ya know, people used to bitch that Aerosmith were nothing but Stones rip-offs, back when they were great. Now look what happened - they sound nothing like the Stones and their new stuff SUCKS BALLS. I'd rather people just made great music without worrying about who they sound like

By the way - Lickin rocks
06-24-02 04:33 PM
sandrew Saint Sway - That's a damn fine analysis.
06-24-02 04:38 PM
Saint Sway actually, the Stones DIDNT play 'Satisfaction' at all on their last tour (look it up)

and the Crowes have been playing HTH virtually non-stop on the Sho'Nuff, By Your Side, Brotherly Love & Listen Massive Tours (check the Crowesbase Mr.T)
06-24-02 04:39 PM
Sir Stonesalot Celine Dion, Christina...whatever. And how did I KNOW that you were gonna bring up Frddie Mercury. The whole time I was typing that reply, I was thinking....I'll bet this guy thinks Freddie Mercury is something. And sure enough, you brought him up.

Here's what I think about Freddie Mercury. He was predicatable and boring. Leave opera to opera singers. I could care less about technical skill. Since when has skill had anything to do with Rock & Roll? IMO, the Stones are at their best when they are playing sloppy, on the ragged edge of having it all collapse at any second.

Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii want to ride my BIcycle, I want to riiiddde my bike! All we hear is radio ga-ga, radio goo-goo, radio ga-ga.....blech. Freddie was a poser. He always made me feel like I was watching an actor or something. I never felt he was sincere.....

I much prefer vocalists who can convey emotion. I like hootin' and hollerin'. Here are some of my fave vocalists, and I don't think you can call any of them "singers", except for maybe Bowie.

Mick Jagger
Tom Waits
Bob Dylan
Trent Reznor
Bruce Springsteen
Joe Strummer
John Lydon
Andy Partridge
Howlin' Wolf
Muddy Waters
Joey Ramone
David Bowie
Neil Young
Lou Reed

I don't give a shit about pretty. Rock and Roll ain't pretty.

0-2. You are wrong about Bob, and you are wrong about the Ramones. You can see my reply about that in the other thread.

Staffan, Neil is a lot like Bob as a vocalist. Not a pretty voice, but full of emotion and conviction. Neil can make you cry like a baby, dude. Or he can fill you with righteous anger. But mostly he makes you FEEL the song. And, IMO, you can't ask for more than that.
06-24-02 04:50 PM
Gazza IMO,youre also wrong about Bruce - hes the greatest live act in the world IMO and from what Ive heard of his new album so far its a cracker.

and I second everything SS said about Dylan and the whole point of his "live" performances. Seen him 22 times and heard hundreds more shows....the way hes reinterpreted and brought new life and even new meaning into his songs over the years is incredible and unlike anything Ive heard from anyone else. Thats what live performance is all about, not just rehashing. If anything,Dylan's the ultimate "performing artist" for that very reason.

Cant say I'm an authority on the Black Crows music,but I think Chris Robinson's original points had some merit. That said,when I saw them open for the Stones 3 times at Wembley in 95,I thought they were the poorest opening act Ive ever seen (apart from Bon Jovi of course,who win that dubious award automatically by virtue of being the worst and most overachieving band in the history or popular music)
06-24-02 05:01 PM
Sir Stonesalot I agree Gaz. Bruce is super hot live. But I wouldn't say he sings. He vocalizes. He uses his voice as an instrument. It's not a "pretty" voice. One can tell he didn't get a voice scholarship to Juliard!

But so what. He can bludgeon you with his vocal chords.

I guess I'm just playing symantics between singer and vocalist. But I think there is a significant difference. And I prefer vocalists over singers any day of the week.
06-24-02 05:09 PM
Honky Tonk Man Elvis is a singer and hes great !! been listening to alot of Elvis lately
06-24-02 05:28 PM
Mr T Sir,

guess we gotta agree to disagree - especially cuz I could go on for hours about how I dislike John Lydon. OK, rock n roll ain't supposed to be pretty - didn't say it did. Does that mean it has to be ugly. I don't care what it looks like - hence why I never cared for hair-metal, glam or punk because most of the musicians are too concerned with what they are wearing. But attitude doesn't make any difference to me. Anybody can have an attitude - I'm more impressed by skill on an instrument - you know how many hours it would take to be half as skilled as Zakk Wylde? Then again - he's not pretty either. Image is nothing. But I'll let it go, afterall, who am I to argue with the Cardinal
06-24-02 05:38 PM
Joey I refuse to argue with anyone.

Hell , yesterday I got pulled over for speeding and the officer told me to get out of the car , lift my sack and spread my cheeks .

What's up with that ??????

I didn't say a word ...............sometimes don't you think it's sometimes wise not to grow up?

Huh ???????
06-24-02 05:48 PM
gypsy Chris Robinson can kiss my buns of steel!
06-24-02 05:50 PM
Joey Can I bounce quarters off of them ???????

06-24-02 05:58 PM
stonedinaustralia mr.t - for what its worth i concurr mightily with SS & gazza's comments on this thread...

- your comment "but any musician I ever talked to will call it poor vocals"... is either a wild generalisation or an indicator that you should broaden your acquaintances... as you say we can agree to disagree - what's imteresting is that i often agree with your other views but not on this one... (little yellow face making a peace sign)
[Edited by stonedinaustralia]
06-24-02 06:03 PM
Mr T I respect that opinion - but the strengths you see in Dylan's vocals are different from the strengths I look for - so let just leave it at that. Like I said, I've always liked Dylan - so it's not like I'm trying to bash him entirely
06-24-02 06:07 PM
Staffan I must agree again with Sir Stonesalot, you have some fucking great points there. I beleive the answer is; Music is NOT about who's got the best tecnique (fine tecnique is boring to listen to after a short while and a sometimes it's a pain in the ass), no, it's about expressing their true emotions.

And Freddie Mercury really is boring. Yuck!
06-24-02 07:56 PM
Remedy04 Hello all,

I am a big Black Crowes fan and while some of you may have points with your comments about the band, let me just take a moment to say a few things.

First of all, I have seen the Black Crowes solo 4 times (once with Jimmy Page) and during those solo shows I saw, they played Hard to Handle just once. And, if you look at the setlists from the 2001 tour, you'll see that they played Hard to Handle at maybe half of the shows. Same goes with some of their other hits, like "She Talks to Angels" and "Jealous Again". If you think the Crowes only play their hits in concert, you are definately off the mark. They mix up their setlist as much as any band that tours regularly.

No offense but you can't exactly say that about the Stones. You know you're gonna get the same 5-7 big hits at every show. True, those songs are all bonafide hits that they almost have to play live. But it wouldn't hurt to change how they play the songs now and then or mix up the order those songs are played in each night on the tour. I do give the Stones credit, however, for bringing back some old classics on past tours and doing stuff like playing on a B-stage and having fans select a song they want to hear. I'm not bashing the Stones by any means, just offering my two cents.

Second, while it's obvious that Chris Robinson has been known to criticize people at times, it's obvious that the Crowes have a lot of respect for the Rolling Stones. I mean, they've covered "Torn and Frayed" and "Happy" in the past and did a smokin' cover of "Can't You Hear Me Knockin'" on their last tour. To anyone who hasn't heard their version of that song, I'd recommend they try and locate a version of it. They do the song justice.

Lastly, I think the Rolling Stones are about the only band in the world that can charge up to $350 for concert tickets and get away with it. Hell, they're the Stones! But, even so, that's a heck of a lot of money to spend on a ticket. I gladly paid $90 to see the Stones at CMGI Field in September because I believe I'll get my moneys worth. But probably wouldn't have wanted to pay much more. I'm only 20 years old and I'm not exactly rolling in dough. I bought 2 tix to the show and had a hard time initially finding a friend who wanted to pay the $90 to take the other ticket. They all stated that they'd love to go but it was just too much money.

I expect someone will probably try to bash me for my post. I mean, how dare I write a post on a Rolling Stones message board and not bend down and kiss the band's ass? However, I'm 20 years old and love classic rock and rock in general. I'm not talking about bands like Creed and Tool. I'm talking REAL FUCKIN' ROCK AND ROLL! Don't see too many kids in their teens these days rockin' out to the Stones and it's sad.
06-24-02 08:13 PM
Mr T good post Remedy. anybody who thinks the Crowes stick to the same setlist every night doesn't know much about the band. More often, they tend to do use a different opener every night, and very frequently use an unreleased song for their encore - like Feathers or Tied Up And Swallowed. Also, the 1 Crowes song I probably hear most on the radio is She Talks To Angels - and I have not seen them do that live. In fact - the only 2 songs that they almost always play are Remedy & Wiser Time - 2 songs that definitly deserve to be played every night. If anything - the Stones should learn from the Crowes' setlists - they are anything but a one trick pony.

by the way, I can't wait for their new live disc
06-24-02 08:16 PM
Honky Tonker I've always liked the Crowes, but it's obvious they're fake Stones/Faces/Humble Pie(s). They seem to be less and less popular with each passing day. "Jealous Again" still sounds great, but it's an Open-G lick that Keef could play in his sleep.

As for the singer vs. vocalist thing - If the singer puts the song across as he wants to, that's what counts. Jagger isn't the greatest technical voice in rock but he is just right for what he does. Likewise Keith, Dylan, Neil, Bruce, etc. are aquired tastes, but if you dig 'em (and I do), they're great. Rock and roll has very few really fantastic vocalists. Personally, I think Robin Zander of Cheap Trick is one of the best. Still strong after all these years and he smokes heavily!
Page: 1 2

On June 16, 2001 the hit counter of the WET page was inserted here, it had 174,489 hits. Now the hit counter is for both the page and the board. The hit counter of the ITW board had 1,127,645 hits when it was closed and the Coolboard didn't have hit counter but was on line only two months and a half.
Rolling Stones tour 2002 - Rolling Stones World Tour - Rolling Stones on the road