October 14th, 2004 10:37 PM |
|
|
corgi37 |
They are all just boring people, who made boring, pretencious crap. I like my rock and rollers to talk "roughly". Even if Jaggers "accent" changes depending to whom he is talking to. Gilmour and Waters talk like posh folk. And, you know, so does Brian May. It's just not right!
They always relied on stage presentation instead of personality (of which, they collectively had none). A Stones show can be huge, but Jagger/Richards, and Ronnie, still shine through the lights, dolls, inflateable dicks and fire works.
And for fucks sake, PF is just a downer. Man, i swear, some one should just have slipped Waters some eccies (or the 70's equal) to cheer him up. Fancy carrying on about your father for 30 years!
Wouldnt he be a joy to tour with!
|
October 14th, 2004 10:51 PM |
|
|
Angiegirl |
So they have different intentions, yeah. Pink Floyd live is about the music and the supporting lasers. Stones live is about the (sexual) energy and the egos onstage, which I love, don't get me wrong. It's just different. Besides, I love depressing music (Nick Cave, Tom Waits, Gavin Friday, etc), they cheer me up when I'm down . But yeah, most PF stuff is kinda dark and doomy, let alone pretentious. Me likes! And I don't give a shit about the way someone talks, hehehe.
O well, I guess it's useless comparing totally different kinds of music anyway.
'My name is Angie and I like Pink Floyd.' There, I said it, quite a relief |
October 14th, 2004 11:24 PM |
|
|
Soldatti |
I'm listening The Division Bells right now, great songs on it. |
October 15th, 2004 05:03 AM |
|
|
Gazza |
quote: Angiegirl wrote:
Yeah. Luckily the Stones' album covers have always all been mainstream.
theres a diference between arty and pretentious. LOL
I confess, Angie - I used to like Pink Floyd too. I'll still acknowledge their musical ability as well. I guess I'm prejudiced by that twat I referred to earlier who genuinely thought they were something akin to the real meaning of life. |
October 15th, 2004 07:36 AM |
|
|
nankerphelge |
Pink Floyd does not leap to mind when I think of party music.
But Wish You Were Here and Animals are a good listen when just chillin'. I always liked PF in the morning, after a couple of wake-and-bakes -- you know!
By the time the Wall came out, Waters had gotten high off his own fumes.
Don't get me wrong -- I rarely listen to it much any more -- but there's always'shroom for some Floyd! |
October 15th, 2004 09:24 AM |
|
|
gotdablouse |
Say what you will about Pink Floyd being snotty bastards (Waters certainly is), but I reckon Gilmour's Meltdown 2001 show as captured on DVD is probably the most interesting musical event I've seen a "megastar" offer over the past...hum 20 years, not counting the Stones' Club Shows of course. Old songs revisited and re-arranged, new "risqué" styles, the kind of approach most of us would love the Stones to undertake instead of being bossed around musically by the plinplonker with a beard! |
October 15th, 2004 07:20 PM |
|
|
Soldatti |
Agree with you, that 2001 show is great. |
October 15th, 2004 07:21 PM |
|
|
Gazza |
quote: gotdablouse wrote:
Old songs revisited and re-arranged, new "risqué" styles, the kind of approach most of us would love the Stones to undertake instead of being bossed around musically by the plinplonker with a beard!
any perceived dominance by Chuck Leavell in the Stones' sound will be endorsed by the Stones themselves and is their responsibility alone. The notion that a side musician is going to dictate to Mick and Keith how high he is in the mix is nonsensical. The buck stops with the Stones. End of story. |
October 17th, 2004 04:30 PM |
|
|
Yyteri Beach |
Well I like both The Stones and Floyd. It's hard to compare these two because both make so different kind of music.
And Floyd is a band where music plays the biggest part and they don't give a s**t are they cool or not. That's good. It's stupid to see some artists being something else than you really are and it looks horrible. Not everybody can be Keith Richards and have 100% credibility.
Both bands have made excellent albums. To me Atom Heart Mother is as masterpiece as Beggars Banquet.
And why should people be stuck on one band. It's the same with food: if you eat spaghetti everyday you'll be fed up with it by the end of the week... |
October 17th, 2004 09:45 PM |
|
|
gotdablouse |
quote: Gazza wrote:
any perceived dominance by Chuck Leavell in the Stones' sound will be endorsed by the Stones themselves and is their responsibility alone. The notion that a side musician is going to dictate to Mick and Keith how high he is in the mix is nonsensical. The buck stops with the Stones. End of story.
I agree, now why are they letting him do that though...filling the gaps in the music I suppose and making it "stadium palatable", either way it's sad. |
October 17th, 2004 09:49 PM |
|
|
Soldatti |
quote: Gazza wrote:
any perceived dominance by Chuck Leavell in the Stones' sound will be endorsed by the Stones themselves and is their responsibility alone.
100% true |
October 17th, 2004 10:10 PM |
|
|
corgi37 |
Anyway, i dont care. I dont like arty-farty music, and i dont like posh talking rock stars.
Everyone should talk like Keith or Ozzie. |
October 17th, 2004 10:18 PM |
|
|
Gazza |
Keith and Ozzie dont actually "talk", though!
As "Mick" said in that great sketch on Saturday Night Live - "that wasnt English, keith...!" |
October 18th, 2004 12:24 AM |
|
|
corgi37 |
Exactly! It was "Keith-speak".
"Good to be 'ere. Good to be anywhere, yaknowwhatimean, hahahaha - cough - blech - 'ere's a new song". |