| December 1st, 2004 03:03 PM |
|
|
| rockstarbrian |
you don't think KEITH RICHARDS is a qualified music critic???? |
| December 1st, 2004 03:05 PM |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
Rockstarbrian -- If you think that Green Day's "2000 Light Years Away" (2nd album, technically) is a cover of a Rolling Stones song, you have either a) not heard the Green Day song or b) not heard the Stones song.
If you haven't heard the Stones song, what kind of a fan are you?
|
| December 1st, 2004 03:32 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
rockstarbrian wrote:
you don't think KEITH RICHARDS is a qualified music critic????
The only definition of what is "good" or "bad" music is the individual listener's own opinion.
The implication that just because someone likes the Rolling Stones they should share exactly the same tastes as certain individual members is nonsensical. And why should it just be Keith's individual taste that you rely on so much? Is HE any more "qualified" (whatever that means) than Mick, Charlie or Ronnie? Is he some kind of god of good taste or something?
Each of them like music that I and many others may think is excellent. They may also like music that I or many others think is shit. Keith cant even bring himself to say anything positive about Mick's solo work, dont forget. Using that yardstick, what does that say about Keith, if he works with someone whose tastes in music he doesnt rate.
Their opinions on what is good music is no more valid than yours or mine. As the old saying goes, there's no accounting for taste. |
| December 1st, 2004 06:07 PM |
|
|
| rockstarbrian |
First off, my response about green day was said just because I don't hold it against kids who are trying to do exactly what the stones did 40 years ago against them just because they're younger and from a different generation. I'm the type of stones fan where I like the best of the stones music... which 2000 light years is certainly not. Being a true fan doesn't mean you like whatever the band does, be it crap or wonderful. I love the stones' best stuff, from beggar's banquet to it's only rock n' roll, and yeah I do like their early stuff and I couldn't come to say that anything they did is really crap except theres a few of their early songs that they wrote just as filler for their albums. But saying that green day sucks is just plain musical ignorance when the fact is that they're not really that much different than the stones. I mean, of course their musical styles are different, and the singing is different, but just because billie joe armstrong doesn't have mick jagger's voice doesn't mean that he sucks.
And I also think it's musical ignorance to think your opinions are above the opinions of your favorite bands/heros. Obviously, Keith Richards knows a lot more about music and about what good music is, because he can write good music, and those two are heavily related. As for matter of taste, yes, everyone has their own musical taste, but I think you should tell that to the other people on this thread who've made outlandish statements like elton john sucks or he's one of the worst acts EVER. If it's a matter of taste, then truly, Elton John doesn't suck and isn't top 10 worst ever, it's just the opinion of the person on the thread. But it's just plain ignorant to say, elton john sucks when the people whose music you respect respect his music. That's just being ignorant. And if you want to be ignorant, hey, that's fine by me, just know that you are ignorant. And until you can write songs that are loved and enjoyed and argued about by as many people as keith richards does, then I think you can tell him that his opinion is wrong and yours is right and that music is all about taste. |
| December 1st, 2004 06:56 PM |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
No, actually, I don't think Keith Richards is a qualified music critic. Keith's said a lot of stupid shit about music. He has also said some brilliant things. He's a more than qualified musician, and can make judgements based on his tastes. His tastes have certainly influenced mine. I discovered a great deal about rhythm and blues and reggae from Keith Richards. But his tastes are not infallible. He can be terribly close-minded about very good music just because it does not meet his limited aesthetic palate.
His comments about hip hop and rap in the 80s, while sadly shared by many on this board, showed an ossification of once limber ears that are sadly part and parcel to most people growing older -- a mid 70s Keith Richards would have totally been able to find the R & B roots in early hip hop.
His refusal to participate in the Bridges to Babylon experiments (later oddly made hypocritical by his own apparent purchase/use of a sampler) was as much a factor in curtailing the potential of the only Stones album of the last 15 years that could have been totally great as was Mick's hiring of the Dust Brothers in the first place.
He dismissed Prince during his great period with this stupid line: "He's a Prince who thinks he's a king". This after being played the undeniably great "Little Red Corvette" in a listening test. He's actually had some good things to say about the Strokes. Keith is too fundamentally vain, easily flattered (likes the Strokes because they reminded him in some deluded way of him) and set in his ways to be an effective critic.
And being influenced by a band does not mean that you don't suck. I am not ignorant about music and I know one thing for sure: Elton John SUCKS. Has sucked completely since, oh, '78. And he's always kind of sucked. Just because Exile on Mainstreet influenced the production of Goodbye Yellow Brick Road does not make YBR a good album because nothing can make YBR a good record. It SUCKS. It does not swing, rock, swagger or delight. But if you want an exercise in totally sucking, listen to 2 Low 4 0, or Breaking Hearts. Or anything EJ did AFTER those records. Elton post-'78 is what sucking is all about. I've put up with Elton John for decades on the radio and he SUCKS. Those stupid keyboard sounds in Benny and the Jets? THEY SUCK! Especially since the Bernie Taupin exodous his songs have been the most obnoxious, maudlin, middle of the road tripe imaginable. Ask Keith Richards about Elton John sometime when he's over at your house listening to Willie Nelson. He'll tell you. Elton SUCKS.
Mick Jagger has said that he doesn't really like Exile on Main Street. Bob Dylan once said that Shot of Love was the best record he'd ever done. That should tell you all you need to know about the ability of musicians to critically access their own music and by extension the music of others.
Everyone listens with their own filters. Basing your decisions about whether music is good or bad because of the taste of your "heroes" is about as lame a criterion for decision making as buying anything that gets four stars in Rolling Stone.
[Edited by Nasty Habits] |
| December 1st, 2004 07:56 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
>And I also think it's musical ignorance to think your opinions are above the opinions of your favorite bands/heros. Obviously, Keith Richards knows a lot more about music and about what good music is, because he can write good music, and those two are heavily related.
Balls. Keith Richards may be a great musician or songwriter but when it comes to listening to music, he is a consumer with two ears just like you and I are. The two arent in any way related. By that definition, its like saying anyone who has ever played guitar, written a song or made a record has automatically got better taste than you have because you havent done the same.
And again, what makes HIS taste so much better and more credible than any other musician, including Mick Jagger's? Do you have exactly the same music collection as he does, then? I read your Top ten list in another thread. Some decent stuff there, but I doubt Mr Richards would share your passions in some cases. That doesnt diminish any credibility you have, just because some bloody rock star might not agree with you.
I'd agree with Nasty about Keith's narrow mindedness when it comes to other styles of music. He was once quote as saying he basically doesnt like "what passes for white rock n roll". very open minded.
My opinions on the music I choose to like are above ANYONE's simply because theres NO qualification that defines good or bad music other than your own personal taste. Keith is only "qualified" to speak for himself. He sure as hell doesnt speak for me, because what "moves" him musically may not do the same for me or you as he's a different human being with different emotions and life experiences.
[Edited by Gazza] |
| December 1st, 2004 09:03 PM |
|
|
| Lazy Bones |
quote:
rockstarbrian wrote:
you don't think KEITH RICHARDS is a qualified music critic????
Critic - no. Although he does have some good taste in music. Still doesn't mean that his personal tastes are the above-all and end-all that all should adhere to.
Greatest rhythm guitarist in rock 'n roll history - yes. |
| December 1st, 2004 09:11 PM |
|
|
| Blind Dog McGhee |
Toby Queef and the rest of 'em. |
| December 1st, 2004 09:32 PM |
|
|
| Lazy Bones |
quote:
rockstarbrian wrote:
And I also think it's musical ignorance to think your opinions are above the opinions of your favorite bands/heros.
Firstly, Keith is not a "hero" in my eyes. No musician is. He puts his pants on the same way I do. He's no better of a person than you or I. I heavily admire, however, his musical contributions to the point where it's become life-changing - ask my wife or kids to prove my point.
Secondly, because I believe strongly in the above comments, the term "ignorance" does not apply. "My opinions" are just that - mine. Simple. |
| December 1st, 2004 10:22 PM |
|
|
| not bound to please |
quote:
Nasty Habits wrote:
His refusal to participate in the Bridges to Babylon experiments (later oddly made hypocritical by his own apparent purchase/use of a sampler) was as much a factor in curtailing the potential of the only Stones album of the last 15 years that could have been totally great as was Mick's hiring of the Dust Brothers in the first place.
Amen to that. Agree 100%. It got me back in tune, but alas, now I am stuck cleaning Joey's colon...
But I still like early Elton. Sue me...! |
| December 1st, 2004 10:27 PM |
|
|
| not bound to please |
quote:
Lazy Bones wrote:
Firstly, Keith is not a "hero" in my eyes. No musician is. He puts his pants on the same way I do. He's no better of a person than you or I.
When you write Gimme Shelter - call me...
sorry - but he has earned his bitchiness.
Hit me with something equal.
enough said.
|
| December 1st, 2004 10:34 PM |
|
|
| Lazy Bones |
quote:
not bound to please wrote:
When you write Gimme Shelter - call me...
sorry - but he has earned his bitchiness.
Hit me with something equal.
enough said.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation"
--Oscar Wilde |
| December 1st, 2004 10:36 PM |
|
|
| not bound to please |
Gazza wrote:
"he is a consumer with two ears just like you and I are. The two arent in any way related. By that definition, its like saying anyone who has ever played guitar, written a song or made a record has automatically got better taste than you have because you havent done the same. "
Well...he has the advantage. He crossed a line that a fan did not, revealing himself as an artist - so...
" Keith is only "qualified" to speak for himself. He sure as hell doesnt speak for me, because what "moves" him musically may not do the same for me or you as he's a different human being with different emotions and life experiences. "
This is just as true. No absolutes. But you like his work, no?
|
| December 1st, 2004 10:40 PM |
|
|
| not bound to please |
quote:
Lazy Bones wrote:
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation"
--Oscar Wilde
I am not young enough to know everything.
Oscar Wilde |
| December 1st, 2004 11:20 PM |
|
|
| Barney Fife |
Don't worry, rockstarbrian, just 'cause one fukkin idiot thinks Willie sucks doesn't mean we all agree with her.
But I can see how people would think Green Day sucks and Elton John blows although John did write a few good songs.
Here's three we should all agree suck:
Alan Jackson
Barf Brooks
Shania Twain
But this here Stones audience doesn't seem to know or care a lot about real country music anyway so many of y'all wouldn't know where to find good country music if someone gave you $100 to mention one good country band.
|
| December 1st, 2004 11:27 PM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
OMG! Yes, JB, shit, i forgot U2. They are in their own "worst of" category.
Mind you, with them rocketing to #1 first week in the Oz charts, and going double platinum, its hard to bag them.
Ahem, where is the much anticipated "Live Licks"? You know, the very rare "live" record the Stones never seem to bring out. I mean, i wish they would bring out more live cd's. I'm sick of listening to their new stuff!
I stand by my list. I hate the Ramones, BTW. But, i still like music. Thing is, only MY music. And, my tastes are very narrow minded. Always have been. Always will. Basically, Stones, Who, Doors - thats it. I used to adore Led Zep, but i've gone off them lately. Used to really love Mellencamp, but not since he fired his band. I still like Iron Maiden. And most of Neil Young.
The thing for me is, i never got into punk. Or, sucked in by punk, as i like to call it. The Sex Pistols were really just another in a long line of manufactured bands. The "POPSTARS" of punk, if you like. Why, their dedication to mucic, and to rid the world of bands like Floyd, Stones, Led Zep, lasted all of 1 fucking album (or, was it 2?)! A bad one at that.
I put Ramones in same category. They were just a joke. A inner-city, urban, U.S. centric, joke band. It's fine with me if people like them, but i dont have to. I will say that maybe their one big influence is giving kids the idea "If they can do it, so can i". I give them credit for that, for sure. But "Rock and roll high school" doesnt have much social impact on me as might do for others. It's incisive, socially-relevant lyrics dont make me weep with their intensity. Sorry.
I always beleived the whole punk thing was a sham. A fashion based sham. Exceptions like Clash and Australia's own The Saints, not withstanding. But, every 2 bit band got together, wore ripped clothes, trying to out do the snarling faces in video clips, or pretending they were bored, really pissed me off. John Lydon said it himself on the last gig of the Pistols disasterous U.S. tour;
"Ever get the feeling you've been conned?"
Well, i wasnt conned. And, i might add, neither were the vast majority of kids my age here in Oz. I was 15 in 78, absolutely ripe for a punky influence. Rebellious. Disrespectful. No ambition. No idea what i wanted to do with my life (NOTE: Now i'm 41 and feel just the same frigging way! hahahaha).
And, no one else i ever knew in my rough and tumble Tech school felt any different. The fave bands of the time were Cheap Trick, The Who (Who are you LP was huge here in Oz), Sabbath, Deep Purple, Led Zep and then there was disco.
Punk was loved only by narcisstic, inner city or inner suburban, middle-class, Uni students. Students who wore the Doc Martens, and the safety pins and torn gear, and had their hair spiked up - who then went home to mummy and daddy for dinner. And, i might add, who were only at Uni due to mummy and daddy's money. I hung around the streets of St.Kilda in those days. Cruising around on my bike with a mate, and i tells ya's, i never saw 1 punk. Saw heaps of prostitutes, drunken sailors and junkies, but not one REAL punk. Oh, on weekends, they were there. At the George Hotel and all that. Then, come Monday, the "week-end" warriors went back to their jobs at shopping centres selling shoes to fat old ladies.
Reminds me of "The Face" from Quadrophenia.
At least in one of the other great trends in music/society, the hippie era, they tried to change things. Tried to live the life style they dug. Whether by avoiding the draft, protesting the war, living on communes or hitch-hiking to Nepal - at least they tried to exist in their world. Most people of that era still cling to the ideals of the late 60's. Of course, alot are also now the conservatives we hate, but i doubt Donald Rumsfeld was anything but a Fabian fan.
The punks, being just fashion followers, soon ditched it for new wave and that awful glam/goth era. The Damned being a major case in point. The Clash to, were considered sell-outs.
I have more respect for the "Grunge" era than i do for punk, though it was heavily based on Seattle teens being influenced by their elder siblings record collections (Soundgarden in particular - Sabbath was their main influence).
I dont mind seeing old hippies, but there is nothing sadder than seeing an old punk.
Well, thats my little rant. I need a lie down.
Did i fall for those anarchic punks? Nup. I went for the original bad boys. The Stones.
|
| December 1st, 2004 11:29 PM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
Damn! I was going to put in something controversial and shocking, and i forgot. So here it is:
"The Sex Pistols were the Buck Fizz of the punk fashion era".
Humpf, it aint THAT shocking. Sorry to disappoint. |
| December 1st, 2004 11:32 PM |
|
|
| Bloozehound |
I like a few of Alan Jackson's tunes
dont rock the jukebox
I wanna hear some Jones
cuz my heart ain't ready
for the Rolling stones
I dont feel like rocking
since my baby's gone
so dont rock the jukebox
Play me a country song
|
| December 1st, 2004 11:41 PM |
|
|
| Bloozehound |
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
I dont mind seeing old hippies, but there is nothing sadder than seeing an old punk.
lmao!
that's good shit right there, bravo
corgi, don't feel lonely, you're not the only one around here who's soured on punk(Oi!)rock |
| December 1st, 2004 11:59 PM |
|
|
| polksalad69 |
quote:
Bloozehound wrote:
lmao!
that's good shit right there, bravo
corgi, don't feel lonely, you're not the only one around here who's soured on punk(Oi!)rock
like the Exploited?
[Edited by polksalad69] |
| December 2nd, 2004 08:30 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
Gazza wrote:
"he is a consumer with two ears just like you and I are. The two arent in any way related. By that definition, its like saying anyone who has ever played guitar, written a song or made a record has automatically got better taste than you have because you havent done the same. "
not bound to please wrote:
Well...he has the advantage. He crossed a line that a fan did not, revealing himself as an artist - so...
No disagreements about him as an artist. But when it comes to listening to music, he's a consumer like any of us. Should we value Britney Spears' taste in music higher than her own just because she's "crossed a line" too?
" Keith is only "qualified" to speak for himself. He sure as hell doesnt speak for me, because what "moves" him musically may not do the same for me or you as he's a different human being with different emotions and life experiences. "
This is just as true. No absolutes. But you like his work, no?
Goes without saying - thats why I'm here after all - and for the record, I like much of his taste in music too. Doesnt mean I should value him as the high guru of great taste and let it define what music I happen to enjoy, though!
|
| December 2nd, 2004 10:50 AM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
not bound to please wrote:
Hit me with something equal.
enough said.
.................Uncake Me with your Best Shot !
S- S- S- Sassy ! |
| December 2nd, 2004 12:14 PM |
|
|
| not bound to please |
quote:
Joey wrote:
.................Uncake Me with your Best Shot !
S- S- S- Sassy !
Jill emailed me asking for uncaking advice...
|
| December 2nd, 2004 12:25 PM |
|
|
| not bound to please |
"No disagreements about him as an artist. But when it comes to listening to music, he's a consumer like any of us. Should we value Britney Spears' taste in music higher than her own just because she's "crossed a line" too?" Gazza
No, because she's not an artist, she's an entertainer. I agree that an artist's opinion can be/often is biased - how could it not be? Actually more so than a consumer - but - he's hearing things differently - as someone who also creates, when listening to work. As an artist - I know I view work in my field differently (more critically for one) than I do when I listen to music - listening as a consumer. Take it as a further/different perspective, for what that's worth.
|
| December 2nd, 2004 12:35 PM |
|
|
| Gimme Shelter |
WORST ACTS: ALL RAP ACTS!!! |
| December 2nd, 2004 01:03 PM |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
quote:
Gimme Shelter wrote:
WORST ACTS: ALL RAP ACTS!!!
See what I mean?
Hey NBTP: Oooh, baby baby, I loves it when you post on topic!
I will grant you Honky Chateau and Madman Across the Water without any need for litigation . . .
|
| December 2nd, 2004 01:13 PM |
|
|
| Jair |
Elvis - the greatest pretender of all times
|
| December 2nd, 2004 01:49 PM |
|
|
| piratekeef |
The worst acts ever (aka my personal top 5 - bottom list):
(hard job to list them all)
01 Xavier Naidoo (this is a German "Hip Hop" artist - the most dull listening experience you can imagine. Otherwise: getting global music culture completely wrong)
02 Joe Cocker (only Elton John has issued more lame and routined records - at least Elton is able to write songs)
03 Tony Sheridan (this guy lives of off his Beatles past for more than 40 ys. up 'til now. Then again - this is unbelievable too. He only spent nearly a year together with the guys)
04 Pete Best (s.above - only he was with them a little bit longer...)
05 Sex Pistols (untalented, hyped, records you can't listen to unless you've already drowned 5 beers)
Oh - and: Willie Nelson rocks & smokes and Britney's cool.
|
| December 2nd, 2004 01:49 PM |
|
|
| Jair |
quote:
Lazy Bones wrote:
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation"
--Oscar Wilde
Cool quotation. I always thought his name should be Oscar Wild 
|
| December 2nd, 2004 02:26 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
Gimme Shelter wrote:
WORST ACTS: ALL RAP ACTS!!!
Yes , at the risk of exposing my limitations(easy now), RAP's sound is a medicinal buzz-kill and the ultimate antidote for the rockin pneumonia and the boogie-woogie flu.
RUN PMS !� |
|
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]