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: Sir Mick, and the Death of Rock 'n' Roll Return to archive Page: 1 2
06-25-02 11:35 AM
Mr T and by the way - when you can reach the notes Freddie Mercury could, then tell me he sucks. Have you ever seen any of Queen's vocal sheet music - those are some incredibly high fucking notes, so since you obviously don't know what your talking about I don't care if the whole fucking board agrees with you
06-25-02 04:48 PM
Sir Stonesalot errrrrm...yeah Freddie definately sucked. It's a play on words dude. Freddie was gay, he sucked dick. Hence he sucked.

Pavoratti has great technical skill, and it's boring as hell to me. Same with Freddie, and Queen in general. Obviously played with great skill and precision, but boring as hell to me.

If I was looking for great techicians, I'd be listening to friggin' Steve Vai, or some such sorry shit. Sure it's played well, but it does not rock. Rush and Yes are made up of great technical players, but it puts me right to sleep. I look for far more than technical ability in music. I look for raw power, emotion, adrenaline, and attitude. I look for something to move me. To slap me in my face and make me cry for my mommy. I want something that makes my head bob, and my feet to tap.

If you are looking for something else...fine. It's your life, and I can't live it for you. And there's lots of people just like you that are impressed as hell with all the flowery frills that some bands like to embelish with. But I think you need to understand that there's also a hell of a lot of people like me, who come grounded in Blues and Chuck Berry. We don't care about what notes are played or what a cycle of fifths are. We only care about how the music makes us feel...if it moves us.

And quit making wide generalizations about what real musicians think. I know a bunch of real musicians, and they'd all say you are full of shit.

We could probably continue on with this for days on end, you think you are right, and I think I'm right. But frankly, I'm tired of this discussion. Thanks for the joust.

Stoney Ramone
06-25-02 05:19 PM
gypsy >>Freddie was gay, he sucked dick. Hence he sucked.<<

Yeah, but did he swallow? Cardy, you would know the answer!
06-25-02 05:37 PM
Sir Stonesalot Well, I'm guessing he probably did. He died of complications caused by the AIDS virus, so there had to have been an exchange of bodily fluids somehow......besides, look at the size of his mouth....a sperm recepticle if there ever was one!
06-25-02 11:16 PM
06-26-02 12:24 AM
TheSavageYoungXyzzy Arrrgh...

Now, one of the pitfalls of any musical genre, be it rock, punk, blues, pop, and especially rap, is that there is always the tendancy to fall into predictible patterns, one artist after another, and leave it sounding 'the same'. We saw it in the Second British Invasion with all the Beatles look-alikes floundering about with big hair, we see it now with the millions upon millions of rappers thinking they're so cool by getting airplay for themselves while the rap artists who started the genre, know what they're talking about, and don't have everything choriographed, overproduced and sold, are largely ignored.

Punk has come this same way, these days: I heard a punk band this year at school, and while they played some great songs, as their set dragged on it was just the same damn thing, same unintelligble lyrics and loud power chords over and over again - especially their original stuff. It was *boring*. The Ramones and even the Sex Pistols, when they showed up on the scene in the late seventies, were breaths of fresh air in a rapidly congealing rock genre, and, what's more, they *challenged* the big names to fight them. The "No Stones or Who in '77" call was answered by "Some Girls" from the Stones, an album that takes a lot from the punk wave. They took the Stones to the next level, just as the Stones followed that other British band early in their careers. Punk has fallen by the wayside recently, as has rock and pop and music in general (the last *revolutionary* album, in my mind, was "Nevermind", and even now that's been stolen so many times by so many less talented bands that now listening to it you can't help but recall all the crap that's flown out of it), and I for one, am hoping that the Stones may just realize that in this congealing era as rock critics become ornery and bitter, just like in 1975, they can find that push within themselves this time to take it to another level of creativity and bring back their unique and varied style. It won't happen this year (stupid best of crap...), but with all the unfinished numbers accumulating over this decade, perhaps another "Tattoo You"-esque album or something.

Right. What was the original point? Oh, yeah. Stones rule, the Ramones rule, music in general seizes on a great idea and copies it silly so that great bands like the Ramones can't help but bring back memories of the terrible copycat artists following them.

And Mercury - man, I don't care how good his voice was (and it was great), the band was theatre queens masquerading as rock'n'roll artists masquerading as theatre queens. Their rock'n'roll, when they try, is great, but as (I think) Sir S. said, when you're so technichally talented as they were, it sounds sterile.

And Fred's dead, and, hopefully, so's the band. Don't get any ideas with Zak "Ignore My Father, Please" Starkey finally revitalizing the long dying Who, Queen, you will never find another Mercury to help you make more money. Give it up.
06-26-02 10:16 AM
Honky Tonk Man The Sex Pistols were better then the Ramones i think. John Lydon (aka, johny Rotton) was unique. They were kind of moulded into an image by Malcom McClaren, bit like the Stones were in the begining. They sacked Glen Matlock because apparently he liked the Beatles and he wrote all their hits!!! From what ive heard by the Ramones they do sound pretty good. "Rock n roll High School", "I wanna be sedated", they seem good, but come on, how can you compare that to "Anarchy In The UK", "Pretty Vacant", "God Save The Queen" and evan Sid Vicious rendition of "My Way"? Seen the video to that song. Complete piss take, great stuff!!

06-26-02 01:32 PM
Martha A comment on the article by Nick Gillespie....this dude epitomizes the never-ending arguing that seems to permeate rock and roll fans and critics alike. I cannot take seriously anyone who deinigrates every rock artist they can think of to elaborate on for their article... impressing exactly who I don't know. I can't imagine they've ever attended a live concert before or now. I have and LOVE all the artists I see...and I don't feel the need to pit one against the other. What is the use in that? I feel free to enjoy EVERYONE and to enjoy them today for what they are playing and offering to the fans. I am in the state of mind that we will be loosing our rock legends in a decade or more...which will be here sooner than I want to think...and I want to appreciate each of them today and for their past accomplishments. I feel rock and roll music is a driving life force that I NEED. And I am here to enjoy every remaining minute of it. Long live all the great rockers including but not limited to the Stones, Bowie, Clapton, The Who, Page and Plant, Dylan, the list goes on and on. They've all contributed in their own artistic way and should be allowed and given that respect.

Long live rock and roll....and for his punishment, Nick G. should have to go see everyone he trashed... live seated in the front row, and then sit at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame for at least one week bathroom permission either....and no cell phone access. Perhaps with his eyes forced open.

It's only Rock and Roll but I like it...LOVE IT! Yes I do!
06-26-02 06:23 PM
Sir Stonesalot Dear God, Martha...don't send Nick Gillespie to the R&RHOF! All that will do is re-enforce his claim that Rock & Roll is dying. That place is a poster child for "what could have been".

And Xyzzy....

It's "No Elvis, Beatles, or the Rolling 1977."

In 1977
I hope I go to heaven
I'm too long on the dole
And I can't work at all

You better paint your face...
No Elvis
Or the Rolling Stones
In 1977
06-26-02 07:52 PM
Joey Didn't Mick Jones of the Clash state , " No Who or Stones in ' 77 " ????????

Hell , I am surprised he isn't shouting it out right now . Lots of MidWest dates are still being added by the Stones and the Who as I type this ........

Clubby Chiba Joey

06-26-02 10:43 PM
Joey wrote:
Didn't Mick Jones of the Clash state , " No Who or Stones in ' 77 " ????????

I think so, Herbie. Then again, the first biography of the Stones I read was that masterpiece of tabloidism, "Old Gods Almost Dead", so I'm always double-checking my facts these days.
06-26-02 10:58 PM
Sir Stonesalot Trust me, The Who are not mentioned in "1977".

My second favorite band in the world is The Clash.

I KNOW that song.

No Elvis, Beatles, or the Rolling 1977

Go get "Super Black Market Clash" or the great "Clash On Broadway". See for yourself.
06-27-02 03:08 AM
Cant Catch Me Poor Nick G's article is itself a pathetic cliche. It's too bad arrogant assholes like him are allowed to publish that kind of crap, and the saddest part is that he probably congratulated himself afterwards, saying, "Man, I really skewered the Stones good, didn't I?" But as a piece of writing, of course we know that it sucks because we know the subject, the Stones.

The article's a piece of shit because Nick G. hauls out and strings together every tired, hackneyed reference to the Stones that there is or ever was. And he thinks he's awful clever to be able to do it too! Oh well, the guy's a putz.

And, I dig the Ramones and the Sex Pistols too, but what about the Dead Kennedys? Like the Ramones, the DKs had a great sense of humor, whereas the Pistols certainly did not. Anyway, they're all good at times if you've got an open mind to their type of music and you're in the right mood. But the Dead Kennedys, man, what a riot! Too Drunk to Fuck! California Uber Alles! Holiday in Cambodia!
06-27-02 01:10 PM
Sir Stonesalot Oh yeah, the DKs were fantastic. They put a totally west coast vibe into what was essentially an east coast phenom (Yeah, I see the parallel with rap)...and they added a bit of a political stance to American Punk. The English Punks were always more political than their American counterparts...until the DKs started dropping their bombs.

Nazi Punks, Fuck Off(I still have this 45 somewhere, it came with an armband.)
California Uber Alles(Jello changed the lyric with the rise of Ronald Reagan. The original brunt of this song was Jerry Brown.)

There were lots of others, but those 2 stick out in my mind as being particularly good. The DKs were never as poppy or catchy as The Ramones, or The Clash, but they were definately one of the best of the genre.

I recommend "Fresh Fruit For Rotting Vegetables".
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