| November 2nd, 2005 05:09 AM |
|
|
| FotiniD |
quote:
Jumacfly wrote:
ah ah argggghhhh!!
Bill was THE GROOVE , Darryl's playing is embarrasing and basic.
Just listen the difference on Shattered for example...
True, though it's always been a mystery to me, how a guy so static had such groove into his playing. |
| November 2nd, 2005 05:13 AM |
|
|
| Jumacfly |
quote:
FotiniD wrote:
True, though it's always been a mystery to me, how a guy so static had such groove into his playing.
that's one of the funniest mystery of RNR history my dear!!
and how can a static man with such little fingers can groove like that?? 
oh, and about LSTNT : how funny is the scene where Mick "talks" to Ronnie backstage..Woody looks like a little kid in front of his father!
|
| November 2nd, 2005 05:17 AM |
|
|
| FotiniD |
quote:
Jumacfly wrote:
oh, and about LSTNT : how funny is the scene where Mick "talks" to Ronnie backstage..Woody looks like a little kid in front of his father!
Yeah, I agree And then his looks on the camera, sort of like he was "busted" Very funny. |
| November 2nd, 2005 05:27 AM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
telecaster wrote:
Hampton Roads is one of the best recordings by any band
It has been in my CD player for 2 months and I have no intention of taking it out
Ernie Watts was a BIG negative on that tour...and Jagger's vocals are not good in that show...Hartford's much better |
| November 2nd, 2005 05:30 AM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
Zack wrote:
!!!
No way, dude. Besides, he doesn't stand stock still looking bored and dull, pull a million chicks, or wear a bad toupee.
yeah, well, when Wyman plays with as demanding a taskmaster as Miles Davis, let us know....the Stones' best bass parts were usually then played by their guitarists |
| November 2nd, 2005 05:32 AM |
|
|
| Mathijs |
It's the biggest mystery of the Stones. How can a 4 feet tall, English pale white midget play bass like Willy Dixon and James Lamerson combined? How can a man with such small hands achieve such a big fat tone out of his bass?
Wyman in '81 was king, and to say Daryl is better truly shows you have no idea about what it is and what it needs to make music. Check out the encredibly funcky, groovy jazzy playing of Bill during Hampton's Under My Thumb, Let' Spend the Night, Whip, Imagination, Let it Bleed and Beast of Burden. He holds the music together, he is the super glue, but in the meantime he just walks right through it with this walking bass lines. Of course, while he's doing so, he's talking to some techs behind the amps, lighting a cigarette, checking out some girls or just looking bored.
Compare his playing to uninspired thumping out of quarter notes that Daryl does. The first black man whom doesn't swing. Check out the difference in tone. There's a great quote by John Mayall in Guitar Magazine, somewhere in the early 90's, about the leaving of Clapton, Green and Mick Taylor. He said something like "it's just the guitarist you have to replace, it's not like you have to replace the bassist you know, that would be like changing the back bone of the band, the the heart and soul of a band, that would be inpossible".
Why didn't Jagger listen for a second time to Mayall?
Mathijs |
| November 2nd, 2005 05:33 AM |
|
|
| Jumacfly |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
yeah, well, when Wyman plays with as demanding a taskmaster as Miles Davis, let us know....the Stones' best bass parts were usually then played by their guitarists
what a poor comparison!!!
Bill used to play bass like a guitarist, not the boring boom boom of Darryl...sorry but clean your ears!
anyway Darryl also played for Sting and Madonna...what a reference! |
| November 2nd, 2005 06:30 AM |
|
|
| marko |
I still think,ABB is their best tour since 1982.far best.
I agree everything Mathjis said,all you others as well.
BUT,lets think a minute.
Its not 1981,or 1994 for that matter.
WHO ACTUALLY would LISTEN like the stones sounded in
1981??WHO?
Besides us?Few grazy fuckers on the internet life.I think
that way,they would not sell tickets at all,people JUST
don´t LISTEN music anymore.People hear things,but they don´t listen.
Good example is Helsinki-2003,most all tought that it was an ex show,people who are not freaks like us,in my opinion
that was a shitty show,worst i ever seen.
I rather take stones THIS way instead of poor boys bar band
who plays in the corner for pint of beer.
|
| November 2nd, 2005 06:57 AM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
Wyman's a quitter, just not a fat one like MT |
| November 2nd, 2005 08:49 AM |
|
|
| Jumacfly |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
Wyman's a quitter, just not a fat one like MT
we agree on this one.But he's a great bass player and people tend to forget that just becuz he left the band... |
| November 2nd, 2005 08:59 AM |
|
|
| Moonisup |
Listen to WTHCD from four flix, and then to hampton, and just listen to the bass. Billy boy is far better. But Darryl is just doing what he is told to do. You can't blame him but the people who tell him what he should do.
Rik |
| November 2nd, 2005 09:13 AM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
Jumacfly wrote:
we agree on this one.But he's a great bass player and people tend to forget that just becuz he left the band...
I admit, I hold it against him and it may color my opinion |
| November 2nd, 2005 09:16 AM |
|
|
| Jumacfly |
quote:
Moonisup wrote:
Listen to WTHCD from four flix, and then to hampton, and just listen to the bass. Billy boy is far better. But Darryl is just doing what he is told to do. You can't blame him but the people who tell him what he should do.
Rik
exactly Rik!!
you should be greeted next week!  |
| November 2nd, 2005 09:56 AM |
|
|
| Jumacfly |
quote:
moulty wrote:
Hi,
II hate that big nosed bastard. He'll never be a real Rolling Stone for me.
excuse me to say that but....your post is one of the lamest ever... |
| November 2nd, 2005 10:09 AM |
|
|
| FotiniD |
quote:
Jumacfly wrote:
excuse me to say that but....your post is one of the lamest ever...
Agree! 
Just to clarify, I wasn't talking about the Rolling Stones at their peak, moulty. I was just comparing their live performances in 81 with 05 and the differences (especially in the lack of spontaneous actions).
Now, one man's dream is another man's nightmare, you know?
I don't even wanna go through the facts again about Ronnie, his importance to the band and his musical skills. You either get it or you don't. And if it hadn't been for the "big nosed bastard"  I'm sure today's Stones would be a whole different deal, and it wouldn't be something good... |
| November 2nd, 2005 10:18 AM |
|
|
| Jumacfly |
quote:
moulty wrote:
Yeah, whatever. It's just that there might be young people reading this thread who might get the wrong idea and think that the Mick & Keith show since '81 is the Rolling Stones. It's not.
Rolling Stones 1963 - 1972.
'75 acceptable as a novelty with Ron Wood as a fill in.
'78 Ok , not bad album, let's see them react to punk.
81 on....an increasingly lame enoromo dome spectacle.
And I'm enjoying a couple of the new shows but who cares?
You want to talk about LAME? Hey, you think they might let Darryl Jones in one of the "Official" Corporate group photos one of these days? Or is that a problem with a dividend share situation? Let's see, the Rolling Stones were always a 5 piece, they always had a bass player. Where is he?
Thank you.
[Edited by moulty]
I love your tone,kid.
If you think Ronnie sucks, that the 78 tour sucks big time too, that 81 shows are lame, ok that s your problem.
but please just have a ear at the Faces discography, handsome girls, hampton 81 and the new barbarians shows (if you know who are the new barbarians of course)...
and IMHO the stones are 1962/2005...
I don't see the link with the "5 guys" part of your post,but well, english is not my native language so you may be right or wrong |
| November 2nd, 2005 10:22 AM |
|
|
| Jumacfly |
quote:
moulty wrote:
Whatever.
DO you guys even KNOW anything about the Rolling Stones??
Stones haven't given a fuck for 30 years.
[Edited by moulty]
the crack pipe please! |
| November 2nd, 2005 10:45 AM |
|
|
| Mathijs |
I think you make one big mistake Moulty. Your idea is that Taylor has anything to do with how good the Stones were. You think that he is personally responsible for the golden period. Well, he's not. I agree, he's an encredible guitarist, and his work on the 1972 tour will never be surpassed. But, the one and only reason for the Stones' golden period is the song writing by Mick and Keith, the rythm section of Wyman and Watts and the front stage persona of Mick. All the rest is icing on the cake. Yes, the icing was probably better executed in '72 than in '78, but still, as 4/5ths of the team that is called the Stones was still present in '78, there is still an awfull lot to enjoy about that '78 tour. May I remind you that there is basically just ONE album that really show cases Taylor? Sticky Fingers that is. Do you know that asides from a couple of decent solo's, you can hardly hear Taylor on Exile? Exile isn't the Stones' best work due to Taylor, but due to Jagger, Richards and Watts. Saying that anything after '73 just isn't worth anything is your right, but you miss out on some of the greatest music ever made.
Mathijs |
| November 2nd, 2005 11:02 AM |
|
|
| Jumacfly |
quote:
moulty wrote:
Ron Wood was fine with the Faces, and I'll bet I've heard both more Ron Wood AND Stones with Wood than you. I've heard and seen Ron Wood all the way back to his stuff with the BIRDS.
ROLLING STONES 1963 - 1972 ('73 Euro tour if you want to be precise..as soon as they start dropping "Goats Head Soup" tracks into the set, and Mick Leaves, it's over as far as the essential Rolling Stones go)
Rolling Stones one last time for the memories....1975 - 1978
Rolling Stones (TM) Multinational Corporation 1981-2005.
You guys sound like the type that go to Stones shows and drop $500 on a genuine imitation leather Stones "Tour jacket"
I bet if Paul and Ringo toured you'd think you'd seen the Beatles. As long as you got to buy the T-Shirt.
[Edited by moulty]
[Edited by moulty]
you don t know us , you come here and insult us.
that s a good way to introduce yourself, newbie!
|
| November 2nd, 2005 12:16 PM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
you HAVE got be kidding!! I've the audience of that Honolulu show...the band is jet-lagged, awful, out of tune, out of time, and very wasted sounding--not in a good way wasted |
| November 2nd, 2005 12:58 PM |
|
|
| Saint Sway |
As a teenager, Lethargy & I watched LSTNT aproximately 1,472 times.
Or 1,519 times.
Still watch it religously to this day. It absolutely fuckin rules. Keith at his most bad ass and coolest!!! |
| November 2nd, 2005 03:08 PM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
'66 Honolulu is what I own---it is an abysmal show...by ANY standards |
| November 2nd, 2005 03:42 PM |
|
|
| deuce |
How could I go about getting a copy of Hampton '81? I've heard so much about how cool the '81 Stones were on stage. I've heard shows from the tour (thank you RO tracker!), but have never SEEN any
[Edited by deuce] |
| November 2nd, 2005 06:22 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
Hampton 81 it's so nostalgic, at least for me. |
| November 2nd, 2005 07:20 PM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
moulty wrote:
>'66 Honolulu is what I own---it is an abysmal show...by >ANY standards
You're entitled to your uninformed opinion.
and you're entitled to eat shit
>>I was referring to what people think who are actual Rolling Stopnes fans, and any real fan will tell you that the Honolulu 66 soundboard is the crown jewle in Stones boots.
Name one besides yourself, fuckwad....
>>>>>and how you could tell they were "jet lagged" etc.on a recording made with a tin can and piece of string is a mystery.
A mystery solved when one uses their "ears". I suggest it sometime, newbie.
>>>>I think you're making that part up because you don't like having it pointed pointed out to you when you fail the taste test in not knowing that post 73 Stones is not the same thing as real Rolling Stones.
The old 'strawman' tactic of the desperate. Your lies here are not in reference to me, so I'll just leave you in your obvious confusion.
>>>>>Anyway, haven't got time to explain "taste" to you.
You could not explain it if you had a century, sonny.
>>>>>It's just when the bozo "fans" pipe up trying to argue that the "1981" tour is comparable to when the Stones were at their peak.
A position never expounded upon by this poster (quite the opposite in fact) but don't let a little thing like accuracy get in your way fuckface.
Stupid turd...probably another GOP type....
[Edited by moulty]
[Edited by moulty]
[Edited by moulty]
|
| November 2nd, 2005 07:52 PM |
|
|
| BILL PERKS |
quote:
moulty wrote:
Hey. lotsajizzonyour face, whatever.
Anyone dumb enough to dismiss a '66 era Stones show is too clueless about the Stones to argue with.
.
[Edited by moulty]
IS THAT THE SHOW BRIAN PLAYED POPEYE THE SAILOR MAN DURING SATISFACTION? |
| November 2nd, 2005 07:53 PM |
|
|
| deuce |
I like the Honolulu '66 show but I wouldn't call it the best. Just my opinion.
Still looking for a copy of the Hampton DVD! |
| November 2nd, 2005 08:21 PM |
|
|
| gotdablouse |
To get back on topic, the reason I "got into" music and more particularly the Stones are the first 30 seconds of "Still Life" so hehe, yes those were the days, and Wyman, man, what energy, what rythm, the rythm section was rock solid in those days, true he always played the same stuff, but who cares, it was solid and built an excellent foundation for Keith and Ronnie's guitars. Darryl is a nice guy but that his "clever" playing is boring and certainly doesn't build the needed foundation for the otherwise sloppy guitars. I mean the timing always seems to be a bit off these days, didn't happen when Bill was around ! Let me dig out my original VCR tape of that LSTN ! |
| November 2nd, 2005 08:22 PM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
>Anyway, haven't got time to explain "taste" to you. You either have it or you don't.<
This is ridiculous.
Everyone has taste. And everyone's tastes vary. No one has bad taste. It's their taste, and it's good for them. Just because someone's personal taste happens to run opposite to your personal taste does not mean that that person has bad taste. It simply means that their tastes run different from yours.
Example. I can't stand Peter Framption. I think he's shit. But I'm not about to say that someone who likes Peter Frampton has bad taste. I would think that that person's taste in music differs from mine, and that music probably isn't a subject that we would need to talk about.
Only a person with a very closed mind, and an over inflated ego, would claim to have better taste than someone else.
And for the record, it's the Rolling Stones as long as it has Mick, Keith and Chaz. IMO, all the rest were expendable. |
| November 2nd, 2005 08:50 PM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
moulty wrote:
Hey. lotsajizzonyour face, whatever.
Anyone dumb enough to dismiss a '66 era Stones show is too clueless about the Stones to argue with.
.
[Edited by moulty]
that's 'lotsa' on your face sonny boy, and I hate to burst your bubble but there are PLENTY of mediocre '66 shows ... they were a far better band the next few tours out than in '66 ... but I guess maybe you like Mick's vocals on that Honolulu show LOL!!!!
|
