|
|
| Happy Motherfucker!! |
Who is Radiohead? I mean, seriously. |
|
|
| Boomhauer |
quote:
Rescued wrote:
Pants Make The Man is correct that tha Stones will never be equalled. But I agree with other posters that good rock is still being created. Some of my favorite examples are: Black Rebel Motorcycle Club, Distillers, White Stripes, Radiohead, Strokes, and the Hives.
Perhaps this music may be FRESH, but in the upcoming months they will become ROTTEN and STALE. No one will remember "Hate to say I told you so" in January (but I do like the song).
And I don't care what people say. It's hard as hell to become a rock band that can be fully appreciated. With all of the marketing going for teen-pop and rap, there will never be a rock band that will make a drastic change.
I can't believe it; Rap would have been a trend that ended in 1994 if it weren't for white suburban kids trying to act like somebody they aren't. You see these guys with their speakers on loud but the only thing you can hear are their trunks rattling. It's pathetic.
[Edited by Boomhauer] |
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
I hate to be the voice of doom & gloom here, but I just got through reading 'Black Vinyl White Powder', and the end of the book pretty well sums up what I have long suspected. The type of 'ROCK' music we are talking about is dying. The greedy,narrow minded record companies have contrived to kill the the music world that gave us great bands like The Stones. Today the record companies are not prepared to nuture any real talent, it's one song/album, and if it flops, or indeed fails to sell in excess of 450,000 units the artist is dropped. It's all about the song/video, and the LOOK. Everything must conform to a formula, and very little that doesn't survives. When the major labels conspired to buy up the independents,(which were the future of rock music, as opposed to bland pop, or monotonous dance music), rock went on life-support. There will be no successors to The Stones, nobody has really been worthy anyway, The Black Crowes, and bands like them had it for the taking, but bottled it at the crucial stage, all of them. The future of popular music, unfortunately, is Boy Bands, Girlbands, and boy/girl bands, and I use the term bands very loosely. In other words popular music will become nothing more than soda pop, available in most leading supermarkets.......So what's your poison??????? |
|
|
| Rescued |
Jesus guys, It's not that bad. Who cares if the Hives aren't being played on the radio in January? Commercial radio is TERRIBLE! It's stink is almost as offensive as network TV and mainstream film. Nobody remembers a band like the Effigies from the eighties, but I listened to "Remains Nonviewable" last night and it got me off as hard as it would have twenty years ago when commercial radio would have been playing Foriegner instead.
Great music will always be created somewhere - whether it's recognized or not. Go to shows, buy the indies, make your own, share what you've heard - it goes on.
The Stones are rocking with a purpose right now. Everybody is going to these shows. Tell me its not going to influence younger bands! Garage rock is in right now and the Stones are proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are the undisputed masters of the form. There can't be another Stones. Times change. But we still got the real thing right now! |
|
|
| Pants Make the Man |
So many rock&roll band's of today must not have understood what Keith meant when he said, "I'm more interested in the ->roll<- than the rock." or: "It don't mean a thing, if it aint got that swing."- Duke Ellington, 1936 or: "Back to the carrot farm to you! A gasgasgasn't!"- RagingGOAT!!!, 2002 |
|
|
| Moonisup |
I will repeat it for those who don't get it:
50 years of rock/ popular music
40 years the Rolling Stones
Need I say more |
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
quote:
Moonisup wrote:
I will repeat it for those who don't get it:
50 years of rock/ popular music
40 years the Rolling Stones
Need I say more
....The point is Moonie, that apart from the obvious financial perks, and the boost to ones ego to hang around so long in the business, as Keith has said, "We lead the way for those who come after to follow". The Stones were a template for dozens of other bands to either emulate, or out-do. Sadly none of them were up to it. Now ROCK,(not pop, and not dance music), has become a slowly rotting corpse that has turned around to start feeding on it's own decaying flesh. I for one would have prefered to see The Stones legacy become something more than the mere nostalgia record buyers, and critics will eventually relegate it to. |
|
|
| Pants Make the Man |
No, Moonisup, you needn't say more. As a matter of fact, when you put it like that, I would say that the success of the Rolling Stones is mind-boggling - a bit frightening, even. How did they do it? How can they do stadium tours this late in the game? Perhaps it can be summed up in one word: Charlie. |
|
|
| Mother baby |
LOL, successors? Oh well, lets just say they're a hard act to follow. |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
now before you all jump down my throat let me (try and) explain that the band i'm suggesting has been chosen - not because i think their music is the equal of the stones (it isn't) - nor that they will i fill a place in the history of rock n roll music let alone modern popular culture like the stones (simply impossible)- but in trying to make an objective (there's that word again)assesment based on the fact that once the stones finally stop rolling - and one day it will happen - both the public and the media will need someone to replace them as the living/working embodiment of rock and roll...
criteria
i) lengthy recording and playing career with a string of world wide hits
ii)sufficient ego and/or demand to keep going once they've essentially "done it all" (which they have)
iii) lead singer/frontman type with a big mouth (i.e. likes the sound of his own opinions)who gives the band a "social" as well as a musical presence
iv) significant world wide popularity and band (or should that be "brand")recognition
sadly, this all leads me to one conclusion and again i say i put this forward not because i like the band that much but simply,on my criteria, they fit the bill and there will be a demand
ladies & gentlemen i give you U2
depressing isn't it?
[Edited by stonedinaustralia] |
|
|
| Rescued |
Oasis rocks harder than U2. Bad boys and good boys. |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
rescued, it's not a question of who rocks harder (and how do you work that out & what about the "roll" factor) - it's more to do with sales, recognition and world wide impact - oasis have hardly made a dent in the US market and that is the one that counts
to try and tackle this question on the basis of the music and the music alone is pointless as it simply becomes an exercise in people nominating their favourite bands after the stones |
|
|
| Rescued |
Stonedinaustralia, You're right man. U2 is a very good example of a hugely successful rock n' roll band with over 20 years of history, world-wide following, and the apparent wherewithall to hang in there another 20 years. Can't argue with your points.
I was just bored and thought the Oasis comment might draw some interesting flames. The brothers Gallagher certainly set their sights on a Beatles and Stones type impact. I've read a few posts where Gazza wrote some interesting stuff about Oasis' international fame. About the "rocks harder" comment, I actually just got a boot of the 2/10/2002 Oasis show in Berlin and it kills - it was on the Hi-Fi when I wrote that. They're pricks but they can make a beautiful racket when they're on.
Good point about just nominating our favorite bands if reasonable criteria is ignored. Dylan and Lou Reed are contemporaries of the Stones and although still active and relevant don't compare in terms of sales. I think you're right about U2 or maybe Bruce Springsteen, but I just don't think their music is very "Stonesy". Oasis on the other hand does evoke thoughts of swinging London, '60s psychedelia, and disreputable youth. |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
there's no doubt oasis saw themselves as heirs to the stones bad boy mantle - and i agree there are plenty of examples on their first two albums that rocked with the best - but it was quickly shown that n.gallagher's aspirations far outreached his abilities
i agree oasis' music is more "stonesy" the U2's but as i said i'm looking at this question in terms of impact, longevity & popularity - not whose music is most like the stones
bruce is an interesting suggestion but i think a different "kettle of fish" as it is easier for solo acts to keep going as they don't have to worry about the monster of "band politics" rearing its head
actually, another potential contender might be the red hot chiolli peppers - 'tho their impact is pretty well strictly musical and despite their undeniable popularity have not as yet reached the heights of acclaim (read achieved acceptance by "the main stream" - but they've still got time)as have U2
anyway, enjoyed the discussion
cheers
|
|
|
| Pants Make the Man |
I'll bet that all those bands that bad mouth the Stones (Oasis, for instance) are keeping a close eye on them during this tour. The Stones are THE blueprint for a rock and roll band AND they are THE blueprint for longevity. But nobody is taking the Stones place. We'll have a nuclear war before that happens- back to zero. The next "Rolling Stones" will come along 1,300 years from now. |
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
U2 are one of those bands I described as having some of the necassary ingredients to fill The Stones shoes, sadly they never really assumed the necessary mythology to see it to it's logical conclusion. MYTHOLOGY???? I hear you ask, what sort of bullshit is that? Well it's the necessary something special that a rock group who want to assume the crown need. The Stones were never just a rock group, an urban, then universal legend wrapped itself around them, and their fans, they were always larger than life. U2 for a start never had sex appeal, let's face it, good music up until 'Achtung Baby!'But no sex appeal. They possess none of the "dodgy aspects" that endeared people to The Stones. The Stones always played,lived, and breathed very close to the edge of the abyss, and alot of people lived out their vicarious fantasies through them. U2 have always been about as dangerous as a family picnic. Rock groups, and their members who are more concerned with third world debt, and coming across as champions of the enviroment,(however noble such causes maybe), neeed to be more concerned with good old healthy anarchy. No! U2 are, or at least were a good rock group, but they are not the successors to The Stones. And regardless of what these so-called anti-hero bands like Pearl Jam, and company say; rock, or pop, or whatever needs flashy heroes, and all the trashy, flashy,glitter, and glam of what rock music used to be about. The popular music industry needs The Jaggers, The Tylers, and The Axl Roses. |
|
|
| joeyb |
aerosmith. |
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
quote:
joeyb wrote:
aerosmith.
They woulda been my choice yeah! But I cant see them lasting much longer than The Stones. The Black Crowes shoulda been up there now, along with The Gunners, sadly they both imploded. |
|
|
| jb |
AeroSmith..your kidding right? Anyone who can remotely suggest that this teeny booper, MTV driven band, could replace the Stones is in need of some serious help. Do you think Mick would appear in those embarrassing teenage boys hormone driven videos...do you think Keith would play the guitar with Run DMC rapping next to him...do you think Mick would get such a obvious facelift like Steven T? |
|
|
| Riffhard |
I have avoided this thread like the plauge because I think it's like tit's on a bull,useless! It's like asking,who's the next Elvis? The simple answer is nobody. It is not only the simple answer,but it's also the only true answer. Noone will ever reach the legendary status that the Stones have acheived. There are many reasons for this.One thing is that record companies just won't invest as much time or capital in bands these days.The days when the band controlled their legacy is long gone. These days bands are mouled into the flavor of the month. Remember this,the Stones controlled every aspect of their recordings. The deal with Decca was canceled only after the Stones gave them Cocksucker Blues as their last required single. That will never happen again with a major label.
Ofcourse the CB incident is also such a Stones thing to do.No other band as ever had that kind of swagger.Could you imagine Creed trying to bag out on a recording contract by giving their label a song called Cocksucker Blues? It would never happen. It's all about the quick buck these days. Call it the Hootie and the Blowfish backlash. Here is a band that sold 13 million copies of their first album then followed it with a meager selling follow up.Only 5 million copies of their second disk sold.The label saw the writing on the wall and stoped pushing Hooties shit on us. That's a good thing in Hooties case,but it can kill a young group that are trying to get their feet under them. The fact is that if the Stones started out today they most likely never would have lasted so long.
The Stones helped define everthing about not only rock and roll music,but also the way it is sold,marketed,and presented to an audience. They introduced sponsership,for better or worse.They showed everyone else from U2 to Paul McCartney how to undertake massive world tours.
So again the only possible answer is-Noone will ever take the crown from the Stones.It's their's as long as they want it.Like Keith said,"When someone better comes along we'll step down." It ain't gonna happen in our lifetime!
Riffhard |
|
|
| stonesmik |
Riffhard, you may be right with all you say - but the last sentence. I HOPE there is still something better than the Stones coming! The Stones will stop one day, no question (some assholes will take their name and go on) But why should this be the end of great music? I don't see it now, but why not hope for it? It would be like saying all literature is written, als paintings have been painted, all songs have been sung. Hey, I wanna live some more years and it would be very sad to think I have already heard the best music ever! It may well be, but I don't hope it and I won't predict it. People who state "It won't happen" are most often proved wrong. I just hope I won't be too old when that better music comes along, I hope I'll still be able to recognize it. I mean there is a certain point in your life when you're "no more with it" - look at your parents, most of you: do they KNOW or even CARE what the greatest rock'n'roll band in the world is? I wouldn't care if it were the Rolling Stones themselves at 75 topping their career with the best album they have never recorded :-) |
|
|
| Pants Make the Man |
Aerosmith? Get real, man. |
|
|
| Moonisup |
Aerosmith is ok when they'll play without sound |
|
|
| jb |
AeroSmith is O.K. if your a 16 year old boy(sorry moon) who watches MTV and then pleases himself . |
|
|
| Moonisup |
No need for an apology, I've got your point, I hope others do also!!
The wooden shoe! |
|
|
| stonesmik |
Aw shit, jb, that's the onyl reason why I'd like to be a 16 year old boy again. Today I could please myself watching Britney Spears, doing "Satisfaction". Why? She sucks big time. |
|
|
| F505 |
Once again Cow Perry? |
|
|
| full moon |
Aerosmith is equal to garbage.. They fucking blow... |
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
quote:
jb wrote:
AeroSmith..your kidding right? Anyone who can remotely suggest that this teeny booper, MTV driven band, could replace the Stones is in need of some serious help. Do you think Mick would appear in those embarrassing teenage boys hormone driven videos...do you think Keith would play the guitar with Run DMC rapping next to him...do you think Mick would get such a obvious facelift like Steven T?
..A band doesn't have to ape every slur, wink, and move of The Stones to be their successors, and Aerosmith are entitled to their embarrasing times as well. The Stones too have had the odd blush along the way. Aerosmith pre-date MTV by a long chalk mate! |
|
|
| jb |
MTV reinvented them in 1986 and they certainly have become more successful ...but their pre MTV music rocked....today, they are little more than a rock-n-roll version of BSB's or En Sync.
[Edited by jb] |
|
CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]