The Last Bass Outpost
Main Forums => The Outpost Cafe => Topic started by: Big_Stu on October 26, 2012, 03:33:29 PM
-
I seriously love the Stones; far far more a Stones over the Beatles guy & they've made some timeless classics....
......but surely Keith especially is not looking a well guy here?..........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNoerg38gjo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNoerg38gjo)
He's always played fast & loose with the riffs during live shows, but every time he goes for it here it just looks like he couldn't play it if he really had to any more?
Watcha say?
-
He really moves like an old man in that clip. Sharp contrast with Mick and Ronnie.
-
So much for going out on a high note. :-\ Somebody call Dr. Kevorkian!
-
I can't blame 'em for touring again, the demand is there.
Keith really hasn't been the same since falling out of the coconut tree.
-
Does a nice job of being Johnny Depp's dad, though... ;D
-
Except that he no longer dyes his hair dark, I don't see much of a dif, he's been toppling like that on stage since the nineties and probably even earlier. Same about his sparse and sometimes random playing, it's part of the Stones charm not to overcrowd everything with guitars - spare me the onslaught of the E-Street Band of three guitars strumming all the time. The Stones have so much instrumentation on stage, you have to restrict yourself. I also notice that compared to the seventies and eighties, their Jumping Jack Flash has been de-hard-rocked again and sounds more sixties than in a long time. That is not a bad thing.
On the last tour there were respectable rumors that there were two guitarists behind the stage to cover for both Ronnie and Keith who were ailing from their respective demons. That might be so, but in truth I believe that both of them have been doing it for so long they can tour another 20 years before they become unable to play their parts. It's not the Mahavishnu Orchestra you know.
-
I wasn't talking about his playing, that hasn't changed. It's his stance and movements. Made me think of an old Richard Belzer comedy bit where he does an 80-plus-year-old Bob Dylan singing Like a Rolling Stone.
-
I would say it has changed, there's less of it - he's more static, no fluid flourishes of his playing arm like he used to and he barely looks up, maybe having to focus on what he's doing more? I know it was only a couple of minutes but so far that's all there is to go off.
I was stood about 10ft from him on the No Security tour & he stalked that stage area like the big cat who's coat he was wearing, I remember thinking to myself "you just took your hero Chuck Berry's "King" crown and you know it".
I saw Chuck Berry when he was 68 & he could still play, it was a great gig; now I hear his son does the solos & much of the playing for him & Chuck's just the name on the bill. I hope the Stones don't Fade Away.
-
People age in all kinds of ways. The former Deep Purple guitarist, name escapes me for a moment, is 68 yet still nimble on the fretboard and agile on the feet. Plus took active part in the conception of two small children in the last two years.
With Keith I believe it is a natural progression that he plays less and less - sort of how far can you go and still have a song. I remember a DVD from the Vodoo Lounge Tour - or was it Bridges to Babylon? - where he played a solo during Satisfaction that would have gotten you kicked out as a lead guitarist in most auditions I know.
-
Age catches up to all of us. If you listen to that last Johnny Cash album, it's very bare, and you can hear that his voice was getting a little tired, but he still found the way to come out with a strong performance and record.
-
hell, he's looked worse.
-
On the last tour there were respectable rumors that there were two guitarists behind the stage to cover for both Ronnie and Keith who were ailing from their respective demons.
True - Blondie Chaplin covered a lot of Keef's rhythm parts on the last tour while pretending to be there as a backing vocalist
-
If you ever see a recent closeup photo that shows Keef's hands, you'll understand why his playing isn't as fluid as it once was LOL
(http://alexdonald.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/keefs-hands.jpg)
-
Did someone mention Dr. K ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL7585M7uBs
So much for going out on a high note. :-\ Somebody call Dr. Kevorkian!
-
Sure, some people age better than others. But not everyone is in that shape by his age, not by a long shot. I saw Tony Bennett on TV last week. He's 86 and still seems to be going strong. Ray Price is 86 and still touring. I see he still has eight dates between now and the end of the year. If Keith lives to 86, I doubt he'll be in shape to tour.
-
Yeah, I understand the kind of life he's had- and that everyone ages in different ways, but my point is that with the massive legacy that the Stones have it would be a shame if they kept at it until they were an embarrassment to what they once were - or to themselves.
From what Keith says in i'views they do still play because they love it & can't put it down, so maybe it's like Les Paul & how he went on until he stopped, though his was much more low key & he didn't reach the heights in the public's eye that the Stones did.
-
Keith and Charlie are why musicians watch the Stones, the public has an eye for only one man: Mick Jagger and he is still doing fine.
For better or worse, the Stones are today probably a more consistent and stable live unit than they ware for much of the seventies. As long as Keith can still be walked on stage, they will sell out stadiums.
The Stones are an institution and I respect them for that but musically I can't see their contribution up there with The Beatles. Brown Sugar is a classic rock song and I love it, but Sgt. Pepper it ain't. Sticky Fingers is for me still their standout album and it has aged well but as regards lasting musical influence and creating new genres (like Sgt. Pepper helped invent prog) the Stones haven't left Alexis Korner's cradle too far. Which is fine, they never said that they would reinvent music. They had a charismatic singer with a very individual style, a rhythm guitarist with a good ear for a hook and just enough outlaw image to never be boring, yet enough discipline (courtesy of Jagger) and genuine love for their art (courtesy of Richards) to make it through half a century.
-
I've never been one to look too deeply into influence or contribution factors, so much of it is arbitrary and subjective. I like the Stones because for a long time they were/are(?) a class live act. (I've often wondered how far Mick runs during a gig, virtually never stopping from one wing to the other). The fact is for me that the vast majority of Beatles output leaves me cold, they bore me, they barely lasted a decade as a live act - which again IMHO is what a band's life & purpose should be about. The Stones never bore me, even though initially they're from a generation before me.
-
I look at the Rolling Stones as a band that had some relevance for a while. But at some point they were overshadowed by the Beatles, Cream, Hendrix and others.
-
??? I can't get my head around why anyone, though I appreciate it is your opinion which is obviously valid, would see one band overshadowing another as opposed to existing side by side, with AFAIK mutual respect among each other for what they did, especially considering one of the bands, great as they were, only existed as a group for what? 3 years?
But back to the topic, I suppose at least most of them, McCartney & Baker aside haven't embarrassed themselves in their old age, which I'm hoping the Stones aren't about to.
-
The Beatles record(s) speak for themselves and need no defending. A matter of taste on all fronts. Certainly they served up something and covered a lot of ground. They were together what 10 + years paid a lot of dues. The Stones vs the Beatles was a media thing. They did exist side by side and influenced each other. The Stones records also speak for themselves. I would say (for me) their records of importance/vitality ended with Some Girls. However they were always a great live act, I can attest to that having seen them in all incarnations several times. Yes their is a point where they might embarass themselves, hopefully they don't and time is nigh. I would not say at all McCartney has embarassed himself overall live and on record. I am surprised he can carry on a live show with such vitality for 2+ hours at his age. It must be something in the music and dynamic with an audience.
-
??? I can't get my head around why anyone, though I appreciate it is your opinion which is obviously valid, would see one band overshadowing another as opposed to existing side by side, with AFAIK mutual respect among each other for what they did, especially considering one of the bands, great as they were, only existed as a group for what? 3 years?
But back to the topic, I suppose at least most of them, McCartney & Baker aside haven't embarrassed themselves in their old age, which I'm hoping the Stones aren't about to.
It's all about how good the music is. And this is subjective, varying from person to person. Up until "Between the Buttons," I liked the Stones quite a lot. It's my favorite album by them. Good as it is, though, it can't really compare to other albums released the same year by the Beatles (Sgt Pepper,) Cream (Disraeli Gears,) and Hendrix (Are You Experienced and Axis: Bold as Love.) By this time, as much as I had liked them, the Stones seemed to be outclassed. I don't necessarily judge bands by how long the members live, how good their live performances continue to be, etc. In my opinion, this isn't a marathon race. The fact of the matter, (at least to me,) is that just the year 1967 was a pivotal year for music. The Stones did make a contribution with Between the Buttons, but even with that they were already overshadowed by the bands I've mentioned. Cream wouldn't last long as a band, Hendrix died in 1970 and the Beatles broke up the same year. But the music all those artists had already done by 1970 was far superior to anything the Stones would ever do, once again, strictly, in my opinion. I can respect the fact that people are still loyal Stones fans. But I'm not one now. I think it's safe to say I stopped being a Stones fan after the Between the Buttons album. They had some good music after that, but not good enough to get my attention very much.
-
never being a big stones fan I always looked at them as a second class act. Entertaining but not much else.
I must admit that recently i have begun to really enjoy the really early Chuck Berry type covers they did, which i really gave no playing time back then thanks to the Beatles and Dave Clark Five.
-
I suppose that's the problem with The Stones' longevity. They've been around so long they've done everything; & therefore have a higher potential, unlike those who fell by the way-side for stinkers & mistakes.
Personally I prefer the "Sticky Fingers" era & thereabouts. Prior to that they had a few too many covers around which they didn't make their own; though just to be contrary I love what they did with "Not Fade Away" in more recent years. Though my fave hit single, "Brown Sugar" FWIW appeared after Cream (Clapton played on an alt version soon after the recording) had gone, The Beatles were imploding & Hendrix was doing a lot more studio noodling just prior to his death.
Since my own personal preference for all bands IS how they cut it live I think this aspect is comparing apples & oranges.
-
I suppose that's the problem with The Stones' longevity. They've been around so long they've done everything; & therefore have a higher potential, unlike those who fell by the way-side for stinkers & mistakes.
Personally I prefer the "Sticky Fingers" era & thereabouts. Prior to that they had a few too many covers around which they didn't make their own; though just to be contrary I love what they did with "Not Fade Away" in more recent years. Though my fave hit single, "Brown Sugar" FWIW appeared after Cream (Clapton played on an alt version soon after the recording) had gone, The Beatles were imploding & Hendrix was doing a lot more studio noodling just prior to his death.
Since my own personal preference for all bands IS how they cut it live I think this aspect is comparing apples & oranges.
You strike me as being extremely knowledgeable and most likely also an extremely good musician (based on posts I've read by you.) However, I do think you are completely correct in pointing out that your personal preference for grading bands is their live performances. Being in a location that has made it difficult to see large numbers of great concerts, I have a tendency to grade bands by their albums. Several months ago, I got into what amounted to an unintentional debate with someone because he was using live performances only to judge a band and I was using their studio albums. He admitted that he had simply assumed that everyone used live performances to evaluate, but was beginning to realize that wasn't always the case. So, I'll agree that it's definitely like comparing apples and oranges. The way I do it may not even be the best way, but it's just the way I do it. For instance, even one album that an artist does that I may be disappointed with can really sway my opinion. In Hendrix's case, although I'm a big fan, he seemed to be moving in a direction toward the end that I probably wouldn't have liked. I've posted a topic about Muse here recently. Although a fan for years, I'm not even sure if I consider myself a fan anymore because I literally hate their new album. I cannot think of an album by a band that I've been a big fan of which has disappointed me more than the new Muse album. However, as consumers and people who literally pay the salaries of artists, we should have the right to clearly speak how we feel about things. In Muse's case, I hope they pay some attention to all the complaints from people who are their fans or used to be their fans. I know artists make a lot of their money from live performances (including Muse) and not so much from the albums themselves now. But the albums should still have some relevance.
-
Just another case of whatever floats your boat - it's all valid. I know what you mean about getting to gigs, I got used to traveling to gigs at an early age, though it's never far in lil' ol' UK - slept overnight in the winter in phone boxes or bus stops just to get to Slade gigs in my teens........ and travelled to Germany & Holland to see The Sweet and Slade since then.
Apart from rap I'll also listen to anything going, give anything the benefit of the doubt, but I also wonder if me latching onto a new band puts the kiss of death on their careers, in more recent years I thought big things of Ocean Colour Scene, Placebo and Manic Street Preachers.
I may also tend to over-analyse rather than just listening, from watching Keith in Hail Hail Rock n Roll I read up on and bought Chuck Berry in droves, even met him after one gig - very quiet and unassuming - and also taller than I expected, his autobiography glosses over his convictions but also explains his attitude to white promoters. Also looked into Bo Diddley, amazing guy gaining far less credit that he should have - and bought a Gretch Bo Electromatic on an impulse.
I've always been a fan of Stax, R&B, more so since the Blues Brothers & seen Steve Cropper over here 7 times in the past 4 years; it's always a big bonus if you meet up with folk & they're nice people - he's a true southern gent!
So yeah - it is always the live angle with me, though my neighbours would give you a fair argument about my musical abilities :mrgreen:
-
I guess I'm so used to NOT being able to see great live acts very much (because of location,) that there are times when I'm kind of startled, for instance, at what easy access some of my European friends have to stellar concerts. To them it's just a way of life and always has been.
-
From recordings I have heard and from their reputation in the studio, also the BBC stuff, The Beatles were an ace live outfit, they had been honed in Hamburg playing six to eight hours a day seven days a week - an experience the Stones never had. The Beatles were so quick and precise in the studio because they were used to hard work and knew their chops.
If listen to The Beatles Live at the Hollywood Bowl and to that first Stones live album (the one before Get Your Ya-yas Out, that has Mick on one channel and the music on the other channel), The Beatles are no doubt the tighter, more experienced and more controlled live band. They only decided against live work out of frustration that the amplification of the time in the mid sixties could not project what they were or wished to become. But in the mid sixties, as a live outfit, they could play circles around the stones who were at that point simply the younger and much less experienced band.
Paul McCartney alone could at that time out-piano, out-drum, out-guitar, out-bass and out-sing any Stones member live!
-
Uwe, I'm with you there save one thing. Paul is/was passable on simple drum parts, but Charlie Watts is, was, and will always be an absolutely amazing drummer, who even in his one time heroin haze was always the tightest of backbones for what could otherwise be an, ahem, loose band. The thing that stood out to me (in the video first posted) was how energetic and on it Charlie looks these days. He looked more animated there than I've seen him look in 30 years!
-
But in the mid sixties, as a live outfit, they could play circles around the stones who were at that point simply the younger and much less experienced band.
I can't accept that as credible, sorry - not when the band wasn't a live act for half of that decade;it's more like a conviction of a determined fan.
Obviously this is all just the opinion of each poster but for me the main drawback of 99% of Beatles tracks is that they're boring, no fire, no passion. Before they stopped gigging they were in matching suits & mop-tops haircuts - hardly "cutting edge" even then. Their "artistic credibility" came after at which point it was the 5th Beatle who made them - IMHO.
-
Five decades later and it's still the Beatles vs. Stones debate. Amazing.
-
while the stones never broke new musical ground, the beatles blew the place to pieces. to me the stones were always just a boring bar band who happened to hit it big.
-
Five decades later and it's still the Beatles vs. Stones debate. Amazing.
Not really - I don't have any great enthusiasm for them - apart from great musicianship and fantastic songs - though like all bands it's selective, any band with a large catalogue will have it's share of filler. One thing that the Stones did for me is after watching Hail hail RnR is I read up on music history - with relevance to them initially, put Chuck Berry & Bo Diddley into their rightful places as the true originators for everything RnR since - but not before! Their sources in turn have to be recognised for what they begat even though they have varying recognition today.
It's all just an ever-expanding thing.
-
I love both the Beatles and the Stones. The Stones haven't done hardly anything worthy since the early 1980s, but that doesn't diminish their importance and their stellar output throughout the 60s and 70s.
-
You can't really compare the two. The early Beatles had more to do with the Everly Brothers than anything else - right down to how John's and Paul's harmonies worked against each other. The Stones were archivists of the blues and unlike Led Zep they gave credit to their inspiration. While the Beatles' music became a bit blacker over time too, they were never as committed to black music as the Stones.
It is also true that the Stones took a good while longer than the Beatles to produce coherent albums, not that even all their albums today are coherent. The Stones invented the filler track! But even on their most non-descript albums, a few tracks generally make the grade.
To be fair, if the Beatles were still around today we wouldn't know whether their output would have held the same standards - they were not above putting out a duff album, Let it Be, whether naked or in full Spector mode is barely okayish.
But I have to disagree that the Beatles couldn't rock. There is no song in the canon of the Stones as hard and heavy as Helter Skelter - even the Wings' Live and Let Die is harder than anything the Stones ever put out - and I have yet to hear a Chuck Berry cover by the Stones as energized as the Beatles' cracker version of Rock'n'Roll Music. That doesn't make the Stones a lesser band though, their covers of black artists always tried to retain a black feel, loose, sexy and groovy (the Beatles could have never done I'm a King Bee like the Stones did it on their debut), the Stones were never about being hard or heavy for the sake of it. Their whole band feel rolls more than it rocks. And they are probably the only white band that was ever complimented on their groove by black artists.
-
The Stones invented the filler track!
I would have thought that was Elvis - or at least Parker - or possibly Glen Miller, or Bill Haley, or Little Richard..........
-
Up to Beggars Banquet or so the Stones to me were more a singles than an an album band - great singles, mind you.
And may I say that Exile on Main Street is overrated? A jammy nothingness of an album, pale in comparison to Sticky Fingers and certainly worse than the much derided Goatshead Soup which at least had some decadent charm.
-
You're not trying to say it's their "Magical Mystery Tour" are you!! :o There were so many others to choose from!
-
My fave albums are Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Black and Blue (which I hated at the time, but it has aged well), Some Girls, Tattoo You and Vodoo Lounge. Steel Wheels wasn't bad either, but then it came after two comparatively weak albums so anything would have been a relief.
Goatshead Soup was varied, you can say that for it. Rambling in places, but varied. And it contains with Star Star the best Chuck Berry song Chuck didn't write! It epitomizes Stones rock'n'roll to me and admittedly nobody does that type of music better.
I believe the only Rolling Stones album that I've never heard front to back is It's Only Rock'n'Roll, somehow that fell through all cracks with me!
Frankly, I don't think the Stones ever recorded anything approaching Magical Mystery Tour. But if the songs from Sgt. Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour (the album, not the EP) had been a double album, then no other band could have ever matched that either. And this is coming from a card carrying DP fan.
-
I received a copy of Some Girls as a gift last year. i tried and tried...loved the first cut, but so much of it sounded so amateur that it kind of put me off. i never really made it all the way through.
-
You missed (no pun intended) those two then:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyK1bZZ7E-s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=761yzGz4HzQ
Add Miss You and it would be a great album if it otherwise consisted of white noise.
-
Frankly, I don't think the Stones ever recorded anything approaching Magical Mystery Tour.
That would depend on which direction you thought it was being approached from. It's just been "celebrated" on UK TV as one of their biggest most indulgent mistakes - including as least partly by Sir P.
-
Maybe I'll pop the top off a cold one and try again tonight...I think it was the vocal harmonies that put me off...
-
That would depend on which direction you thought it was being approached from. It's just been "celebrated" on UK TV as one of their biggest most indulgent mistakes - including as least partly by Sir P.
Sure it was indulgent. So was Sgt. Pepper (which probably started * decade of pop and rock indulgencs all the way up to punk, no Sgt. Pepper, no Tales of Topographic Oceans). But it worked. Your Mother was Born was one of my very first favorite Beatles songs. My older brother had the EP and I would listen to it again and again. I never bothered about the film, I just liked the music.
-
The Fool on the Hill
Your Mother Should Know
I Am the Walrus
Hello, Goodbye
Strawberry Fields Forever
Penny Lane
Baby, You're a Rich Man
All You Need is Love
All great songs. In fact, the Magical Mystery Tour album is probably underrated, if anything.
-
Sure it was indulgent. So was Sgt. Pepper (which probably started * decade of pop and rock indulgencs all the way up to punk, no Sgt. Pepper, no Tales of Topographic Oceans).
Jeez, it's worse than I thought - they've got a hell of a lot to answer for!
-
that is one hell of a leap, uwe. there were enough early proggies around that sgt. pepper would not be an influence. yes would have happened anyway, like 'em or not.
-
Chris Squire was a Beatles buff, right down to playing a Ric.
-
that by itself means nothing. geezer butler once said he loved stevie wonder...
-
That is why they dedicated Snowblind to him which is nothing to sniff about! :mrgreen:
Geezer also likes Macca though I find his style more a molten lava Jack Bruce.
You're sure you don't hear any Beatles in Yes? That surprises me, the way Anderson and Squire harmonise, the un-proggish emphasis Yes put on vocals and especially harmony vocals sounds decidedly Beatles-inspired to me. Well, certainly not Rolling Stones, though Squire calls an early sixties autograph of Wyman his own. :mrgreen:
Anderson and Squire - even when they are not speaking to each other as has lately been the case - have both often cited The Beatles as an influence. And of course Simon & Garfunkel (who in my ear share with The Beatles that Everly Brothers influece).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPEIURJIkHM
-
The list is growing...............
........... just goes to show that if you want to see (or hear) something in the way she moves - even when it's not here there or everywhere - if you look long and winding road enough you'll find it.
-
But Brother Stu, the bespectacled one and Yes even shared a drummer!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU0tahJ4f7k
And you hear him (Alan White) here as well (Yoko thankfully only on knitting though a mike is threateningly near and she's only blind-folded rather than gagged) or let's just say: You hear what Phil-li-lililililili Specto-to-to-to-to-tor's death chamber of echo-o-o-o treatment has left of his drumming. :mrgreen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3qvosHHcWc
Who says the Fab Four and prog don't mix (with a little America added):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ-diEQH3JM
-
Oh no - solo Lennon was even more :bored: than the Beatlezzzz were!
-
You are difficult, you know?! :mrgreen:
-
You are difficult, you know?! :mrgreen:
But correct.
-
Anyone wanting to do an anti-Beatles rant can always go to TalkBass where they have one of those every few months. In fact, this thread does feel like a rerun. It's always the same arguments--the Beatles were boring, they were overrated, they didn't have enough technical skill, their influence is exaggerated, they were "overhyped," their songs were pop and not rock, Paul played with a pick and wasn't a real bassist, Paul didn't have enough technical skill on bass, Ringo wasn't really a very good drummer, John Lennon was a failed hippie, etc. I've seen all of that and much more. Usually, this comes from people who are actually good musicians but who personally don't like the Beatles. But sometimes it comes from people who take all of this out of context and don't take into account how revolutionary the Beatles were for their time period.
-
...But sometimes it comes from people who take all of this out of context and don't take into account how revolutionary the Beatles were for their time period.
And sometimes it comes from people who were around at the time and aware of all the bands of the period as well as their and the Beatles influences.
I'm in general agreement with Stu. I'm not anti Beatle but I do feel they get too much credit from those with a less complete knowledge of the period. They had a lot of influences from predecessors to contemporaries. IMO
-
You are difficult, you know?! :mrgreen:
[/quote]
A quote from a film by one of my fave bands, ............... "No, no no no no ................... it's got no balls!"
I've been lucky to see a few of the greatest live bands ever (IMHO - FWIW - YMMV - I've taken everything you say, all the influences stuff, all the live stuff, all the achievement stuff - as just being your own opinion, not documented fact - which is all good.)......... see if you can spot a pattern........ Slade, Motorhead, Status Quo, Thin Lizzy, Nazareth, The Sweet (not orig)............ Rolling Stones ;) . If a band can't cut it live then to me they aren't all that. And IMHO when The Beatles quit gigging so early on they lost a lot of credibility and IMHO that's when George Martin & dope took over.
Oh yeah ........ and I not long ago found this on Youtube - the only other band I saw more times than Slade was this crowd - even Motorhead I saw less, & I've been a fan of them since their second, maybe third year........ but Wolfstone? Now THEY were a gig!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwXtBHNuLgw&feature=BFa&list=ULWrRZI9SpLuI
-
............ and if you liked that, this is one of their drinking songs - which I love dearly - and which I did from memory - solo - a few months ago in a nearby bar that has an acoustic night every Friday, where you can be demanded to have a go. I couldn't sing to save my life but when I said it was a drinking song it went down quite well ............ I do a very passable Scots accent :mrgreen: .......... and even know what the words mean
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmRt7himVOU&list=ULdX8HljBIafE&index=9
Only two points worth commenting on I thought in this reply..................
Anyone wanting to do an anti-Beatles rant can always go to TalkBass where they have one of those every few months.
I wouldn't know, I never see threads like that there for all of the "What colour scratchplate should I buy?" and "Who wants to join my Paisley Tele bass with a blue scratchplate and Baddass bridge II club #2?" threads that are in the way for me to read them; but it sounds like the kinda place you'd feel right at home so tell them I said "Hi" would ya?
Paul played with a pick and wasn't a real bassist
Well .... that's me scr*wed then!
I think Uwe has been doing this gig long enough to know when there's a bit of banter going on - I mean, it's not like he's got no musical taste at all is it?
-
I'm not even a Beatles fan, but I do not deny their huge contribution to and influence on popular music. And yes, George Martin was an excellent producer (which is why the early Beatles recordings sound better than the early Stones, Yardbirds or Kinks stuff, The Beatles obviously had a different budget) and arranger, but even he could not turn crap into gold, there are enough bands out there who were at one time produced by him and did not become the 2nd Beatles (eg UFO, America, Stackridge). And when the Stones consciously tried to emulate The Beatles on Their Satanic Majesties Request (which I do no think is such a horrible Stones album at all) they failed miserably.
People not liking The Beatles doesn't bug me so much as it has me scratching my head in incomprehension. ??? :)
And not liking The Beatles, but liking Slade is a bit like saying you like butter, but not milk! Lennon/McCartney is all over Jim Lea's songwriting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohGs2c0ITh0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA2rLmGvXOg&feature=related
The argument that the Beatles bowed out of live dates because they couldn't play is news to me. They could at that time with the then technical means not recreate the sound of Sgt. Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour (nobody could have), but had no trouble replicating the aurally scaled down Let it Be sound on the roof a few years later. Nor have I heard anyone accuse Ringo (whatever you think of his albums), George, Paul or John (whatever you think of his wife :mrgreen: ) of ever having given bad or sloppy concerts. Macca is legendary as a hard task master as U2 laughingly complained when they rehearsed Sgt Pepper's Hearts Club Band (the song) with him. And it takes three notes from George Harrison to recognize it's him plus his guitar playing is lauded by people who could technically play circles around him (Clapton, Gary Mooore).
I was seven or eight when I first heard Sgt. Pepper - it sounded like nothing had before then. The aural impression (even over my big brother's then Dual mono record player) was overwhelming, I can only compare it to seeing your first fiilm in color after years of black and white.
-
............ and if you liked that, this is one of their drinking songs - which I love dearly - and which I did from memory - solo - a few months ago in a nearby bar that has an acoustic night every Friday, where you can be demanded to have a go. I couldn't sing to save my life but when I said it was a drinking song it went down quite well ............ I do a very passable Scots accent :mrgreen: .......... and even know what the words mean
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmRt7himVOU&list=ULdX8HljBIafE&index=9
Only two points worth commenting on I thought in this reply..................I wouldn't know, I never see threads like that there for all of the "What colour scratchplate should I buy?" and "Who wants to join my Paisley Tele bass with a blue scratchplate and Baddass bridge II club #2?" threads that are in the way for me to read them; but it sounds like the kinda place you'd feel right at home so tell them I said "Hi" would ya?
Well .... that's me scr*wed then!
I think Uwe has been doing this gig long enough to know when there's a bit of banter going on - I mean, it's not like he's got no musical taste at all is it?
You have really insulted me now by saying TalkBass sounds like a place I'd really feel at home at. In fact, you really have no freaking idea what I'm talking about. I'm not even a Beatles fan, by the way. It sounds like you just can't take it if you feel like someone doesn't go along with you pat viewpoint, though. All I was pointing out is that your so-called critique of the Beatles is cliched and has already been done to death on TalkBass, a place I have no interest in, for what it's worth.
-
The argument that the Beatles bowed out of live dates because they couldn't play is news to me.
That's not what I meant, though I can see that's how you read it. What I meant was that they quit; for whatever reason a band quits playing live they cease to be a band IMHO (and Jimmy Lea agreed with that too). Slade did the same, but by that time they'd been gigging for 17 years. Jim got into synths and filled the gap by insisting on being their producer which really spelt the death knell of the band.
IIRC correctly it was John who went against gigging because he didn't like that they couldn't be heard above the screaming' which with the feeble backline (& I use the term loosely) they used was hardly practical. But that was maybe a rumour or modern legend?
Because I like a particular band or artist doesn't - to me - add any credence to their favourites in turn. Lemmy is also a McCartney fan (he hides it well). From what I've seen all pro players regardless of their genre treat each other with mutual respect when they meet; the ones that don't are generally the prima-donna douches, and usually when I meet up with H or Don or any others who play for a living they usually ask who I'm listening to ......... apart from them. ;D
-
You have really insulted me now by saying TalkBass sounds like a place I'd really feel at home at.
You mentioned TB - I didn't, nor would I have! Though TBH I didn't realise the place was that bad as to be seen as an insult - sorry about that!
You also listed a whole lot of things that supposedly "anti-Beatles" people say against them, of which I've only said one; "boring" - and I'm not anti-Beatles anyway - I would never under any circumstances deride anyone for any o their personal tastes (apart from rap :mrgreen: ). Nor was it me that made a Beatles/Stones comparison, because it's not what the OP was about.
I think there's a few people taking this "discussion" far too seriously - you're one of them.
-
First, I couldn't care less who discusses what on Talkbass or how often it's discussed. We're here, not there.
And sometimes it comes from people who were around at the time and aware of all the bands of the period as well as their and the Beatles influences.
I'm in general agreement with Stu. I'm not anti Beatle but I do feel they get too much credit from those with a less complete knowledge of the period. They had a lot of influences from predecessors to contemporaries. IMO
I agree with Carlo here -- not surprising since we're both about the same age. The Beatles were enormously important to popular music at the time but they didn't exist in a vacuum. They led the revival of rock and roll, they didn't invent it.
-
First, I couldn't care less who discusses what on Talkbass or how often it's discussed. We're here, not there.
I agree with Carlo here -- not surprising since we're both about the same age. The Beatles were enormously important to popular music at the time but they didn't exist in a vacuum. They led the revival of rock and roll, they didn't invent it.
Who said they invented rock'n'roll? Songwriting-wise they are much more Tin Pan Alley, Vaudeville, London West End Musical, what have you, than 12 bar and country folk music. That crown is more for the Stones. If anything, The Beatles de-rock'n'rolled things by turning youth music into an art form and by opening it for other influences.
Between the Everly Brothers pastiche that was I want to hold your hand and Eleanor Rigby (which had nothing to do with either the Everly Brothers or rock'n'roll) were just a few years, it's an amazing development by any standard.
-
"IIRC correctly it was John who went against gigging because he didn't like that they couldn't be heard above the screaming' which with the feeble backline (& I use the term loosely) they used was hardly practical. But that was maybe a rumour or modern legend?"
But even if the girls had kept quiet, Sgt Pepper couldn't have been replicated at the time live.
Since you rate Jim Lea so much as a bass player (deservedly), I wonder why Macca's bass playing leaves you cold (I assume). It is all over whenever Lea does his melodic walking bass runs in the more harmony drenched songs of Slade such as Miles out to Sea, When the Lights are Out, Far Far Away or How Does it Feel!!! That is pure Macca and Jim does it exceedingly well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9yiESnKLWg
-
But even if the girls had kept quiet, Sgt Pepper couldn't have been replicated at the time live.
Not exactly - but almost the point I was making; that a good live band would have done adaptations of tracks they couldn't replicate exactly. As often as not bringing something new & different to the track.... it was what Jim was going to do with their synth laden '85 album Rogues Gallery if Nod hadn't cancelled the tour there was talk of a 5th Slade member behind a curtain on keys............. speaking of which........... I didn't say Jim hid his McCartney influence well, I said Lemmy did - it was humour.
Again though, I think you're seeing "influence" where there isn't any because you want to. Are we to assume that anyone who does a bass-line that similar to a McCartney one is therefore under his influence, how does that work if the bassist in question pre-dates McCartney? There was life before them - and after.
And at the risk of having two repetitions in one post, having one musician playing an interesting bit in a song doesn't make the band as a whole any more interesting.
-
One thing the Beatles were not: great improvisers. I believe they always wanted to sound live as close to the record as possible.
Jim Lea was a violin player and a Beatles buff long before he picked up the bass (who am I telling this!). Walking bass was nothing new since jazz days but Paul popularized it endlessly on those already early Beatles hits. And by Sgt Pepper he really gave his bass lines a thought. Which other bass player in the early sixties played as walking bass oriented in a beat band environment as Macca and stuck in as many thirds?
Given the omnipresence of Beatles songs on the radio in the sixties I find it hard to believe that any bass player with ears interested in that type of bass playing could not have been influenced by Macca. Hell, even I am and I began playing in 1977 and began rediscovering his bass playing only sometime in the nineties.
I just realized that I've been playing bass for 35 years. Ouch. Must be getting old.
-
Like Paul McCartney Jim was also the frustrated guitar player in the band & had been guitarist & then bassist in a pre-Slade band. Playing the way they both do/did seems a logical extension of that.
How does any of this establish whether the Stones have made a mistake in touring again, when at least some of them don't appear to be up to it? At least Michael Jackson had comparative youth on his side when he booked all those London gigs.
-
Wow - some people find the Beatles boring? I find the first few albums full of energy and fun, and the various live to radio BBC performances and the Star Club bootlegs that are available just reinforce that to me. I would have loved to be in the audience at the Cavern or in Hamburg back in the day - they sounded so fresh and vibrant. I'll happily listen to anything from the Beatles catalogue, but definitely have a bias to the early stuff, which I absolutely adore - the cover tunes on those albums are tremendous too.
-
I think the Stones will do fine as a live act for a long time to come. Let's face it, what keeps them a touring entity are not diehard Stones fans who wonder if they play well or not and if they are going to play an outtake from Exile but the great majority of their audience who come to see and be entertained by a legend. To these people Keith is somewhat important too for the outlaw image but not whether he plays a lot or a little on guitar. 95% of the Stones live audience didn't mind the sound change brought about by Wyman's departure either. A Stones audience isn't too different from a Madonna audience, meaning that very few people have the recent output, but people want to hear Like a Prayer and Sympathy for the Devil. Their there for the event, not for anybody's guitar playing. The Stones' status has long transcended whether they go through the motions or play well. And there is nothing wrong with that, but it puts the importance of Keith's guitar commitment into perspective.
-
Who said they invented rock'n'roll? Songwriting-wise they are much more Tin Pan Alley, Vaudeville, London West End Musical, what have you, than 12 bar and country folk music. That crown is more for the Stones. If anything, The Beatles de-rock'n'rolled things by turning youth music into an art form and by opening it for other influences.
Between the Everly Brothers pastiche that was I want to hold your hand and Eleanor Rigby (which had nothing to do with either the Everly Brothers or rock'n'roll) were just a few years, it's an amazing development by any standard.
Nobody said that, I was responding to the idea that they were revolutionary. IMHO they weren't in any way. But by leading the first British Invasion, they revitalized rock and roll, which had become very stale, overly produced and more poppy than rock. I'm not talking about their later stuff at all.
After hearing Sgt. Pepper, Dylan supposedly told them something like "I get it, you're not cute anymore." True enough, but when they were cute, they were more in the spirit of 50s rock.
-
"And at the risk of having two repetitions in one post, having one musician playing an interesting bit in a song doesn't make the band as a whole any more interesting."
How depressing, Stu, I've always banked on that and tried to stand out as a bassist with what I play!
And if Macca and Lea play the way they do because they were guitarists, then I wished all bassists were former guitarists!
-
i like the beatles, i like keith, don't care for slade and have owned a crappy vega. all caught up now.
-
People not liking The Beatles doesn't bug me so much as it has me scratching my head in incomprehension. ??? :)
+1
I just realized that I've been playing bass for 35 years. Ouch. Must be getting old.
Ugh... me too.
I think I'll go listen to Wings Over America now...
-
And if Macca and Lea play the way they do because they were guitarists, then I wished all bassists were former guitarists!
And Lemmy too now that I think of it, there again he still sees himself as a rhythm guitarist who just happens to play on a bass.
as the Godawful M'loaf song says "two outta three ain't bad".
-
Lemmy was quite a melodic bass player in Hawkwind daze, just listen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A99nU5UkhFI&feature=related
I don't know what came over him afterwards. On the Space Ritual live album his chordy bass playing is omnipresent, but melodic and largely undistorted as well, he still plays bass there, sort of in a Peter Hook (Joy Division, New Order) vein. Pleasant, actually.
-
There was someone else in the 50s or 60s who was known as a bass chord player, but I can't remember their name, there may well have been more than one.
I used to have a lot of M'head i'views and articles. He went to that style to thicken up the sound and to add an aggressive edge to it, it worked! I think it's in his movie that he said the only time he tried M'head as a four-piece he was never happy with it.
I'm not as keen on seeing them now, they're more "corporate" than Rock n Roll - the day I saw Lemmy "liaising with his PA" (and I don't mean talking to his speaker columns) was the day I knew the old ways had gone.
-
I said a few things on here which were misinterpreted. However, other posters came along and made statements which addressed those misinterpretations eloquently. So, there was really no need for me to respond further. Also, as I've stated, I'm not even a Beatles fan, but I do appreciate the enormous contribution they made to music. I do sometimes get irritated at critics of the Beatles who come along from time to time and seem to think their taste in music is superior and they want to reprimand an entire generation for even liking the Beatles in the first place. But I can now clearly see that Big Stu does not fall into that category. He is just speaking his mind, displaying his preferences, and doing so from the standpoint of someone who is just as well-informed and capable as anyone I've ever met.
-
ah warrrior on the edge of time i remember buying that when it was released ,darn good record i thought.i thought lemmy was great and its probably his fault i use so many chords to this day.
-
I said a few things on here which were misinterpreted. However, other posters came along and made statements which addressed those misinterpretations eloquently. So, there was really no need for me to respond further. Also, as I've stated, I'm not even a Beatles fan, but I do appreciate the enormous contribution they made to music. I do sometimes get irritated at critics of the Beatles who come along from time to time and seem to think their taste in music is superior and they want to reprimand an entire generation for even liking the Beatles in the first place. But I can now clearly see that Big Stu does not fall into that category. He is just speaking his mind, displaying his preferences, and doing so from the standpoint of someone who is just as well-informed and capable as anyone I've ever met.
Thanks mate! I respect anyone's opinion - and as I've said on a few other forums it works wonders for every poster to remember that all posts regarding tastes & viewpoints, everyone's - even their own, do actually have an unseen, invisible "IMHO" behind everything that's said.
i thought lemmy was great and its probably his fault i use so many chords to this day.
Not that I think they guy is incredible, unique and a whole list of adjectives, would it be too soon since the last time to remind the world that I got to play with his new signature amps at Marshall before even he did? Damn, damn, thought so! Ah well.....
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/Maddogcole/P4020004-1.jpg)
-
mmmmmmmmmmmm loud.i think i put my back out just looking at that rig though.
-
Some impressive looking Marshalls. Absolutely beautiful!
-
I was actually told to play them as loud as I wanted; I said "If they're new speakers don't you want them run in a bit first?" and the answer was "Don't worry, if one goes we've got plenty to replace it with". :P
-
wowee.was that at the marshall factory in milton keynes?i took my 9005 power amp there and had it fixed by paul marshall.
-
wowee.was that at the marshall factory in milton keynes?i took my 9005 power amp there and had it fixed by paul marshall.
Yeah, I was invited down for a full factory tour - long story - met them all, autographed copy of Jim's book to go home with (they don't do free samples! :sad: :mrgreen: ) and at the very end I was taken to a theatre they have on site, which has a copy of every classic amp they ever made lining the walls (if I'd been there the day before I would have been in there with Slash).
Danny said......
"You play bass don't you?"
"Yeah",
He pulled back the curtains and there were the amps all fired up and he said,
"These are being shipped out to Frankfurt tomorrow to meet up with the Motorhead tour, Lemmy's not heard them yet, would you like to try them out for him?" :P When I met Lemmy a year or so later we had a laugh about it while he poured me about a half-pint of Jack Daniels :o ......... since I don't smoke!
If I'd known they were going to do that I'd have taken my bass - or borrowed a Rick, but it was a vintage plank Fender I suppose.
-
There is a connection to all this, too. Lemmy, Marshall, Hendrix. Hendrix loved Marshalls. Lemmy used to be a roadie for him when he was a room mate with Gerry Stickells and Noel Redding. I hope Lemmy stays alive and well and continues playing Marshalls for a long time.
-
Impressive Stu! I thought that bass look a bit odd on you to bad you didn't have the JB For years my main amp was a '72 Marshall Major paired with a long line of cabs. I still have it and the JCM 800 2x15 and 4x12 cabs. Though it has been replaced onstage by my Hiwatts :) ;)
Thanks mate! I respect anyone's opinion - and as I've said on a few other forums it works wonders for every poster to remember that all posts regarding tastes & viewpoints, everyone's - even their own, do actually have an unseen, invisible "IMHO" behind everything that's said.
Not that I think they guy is incredible, unique and a whole list of adjectives, would it be too soon since the last time to remind the world that I got to play with his new signature amps at Marshall before even he did? Damn, damn, thought so! Ah well.....
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/Maddogcole/P4020004-1.jpg)
-
My Major onstage in '0 9with my growing Hiwatt family.(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v102/godofthunder59/Halloweenbash09005.jpg)
-
Don't forget that Hendrix covered Sgt. Pepper! 8) Count me in as a big Beatles nut. I was born in '61 so I grew up listening to my older sisters albums and 45's. When I was seven I transferred many of these records to reel to reel. I still have all of the 45's but they are well worn. Lots of British Invasion stuff. (Beatles, Stones, Kinks, Tremeloes, The Honeycombs, and many more) Did not get into Slade until hearing Quiet Riot covers. I did like the 80's record they had out with Run Runaway.
-
Can't help it big Beatle fan here. I saw them on the Ed Sullivan show when I was 5. When I was about 9 or 10 I heard Rain and I knew the bass was for me! Paul is the reason I picked up bass. Listening/watching to The Beatles Live At Washington Coliseum 1964 right now, fantastic! I like some of the Stones songs but I never was a huge fan but to each there own. My Love of Slade is greeted with quizzical looks, who am I to judge? http://youtu.be/5lfK2VPNx5s
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwwd1hM4pVU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgHA9Fuor60
-
.......... and just to show even my childhood heroes own tastes didn't spread to me............
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1ApYUxlw6I&feature=related
-
I seriously doubt if very many bands ever covered that song.
-
Not enough bands have covered I'm Down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7dHoEmUtIs
Although there is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQWzEQOyQhM
-
Wot, Dave develops soft spots for a proggie muso with a King Crimsonite pedigree?
-
Wot, Dave develops soft spots for a proggie muso with a King Crimsonite pedigree?
Nope. But it does show that he can rock and roll.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPjDMZiuhbQ
I'd have thought Paul would've gotten that tooth fixed before filming. Badass bass line here.
-
Paul's bass line which convinced me at age 16 that, except for girls, there was nothing more interesting than bass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1S-Lhu4gFQ&feature=related
-
Still the best Beatles cover ever .....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_g4THMfo5c
-
I just listened to the Rolling Stones' Shine a Light - the older the bands gets the more space the key members leave and the more ornamentation is allowed from the tour players. And the overall sound has become looser - not in the sense of sloppy but in the sense of airy. The Rolling Stones today sound sonically more akin to Little Feat in their heyday than to how they sounded on Get your Ya-Yas Out! or on their seventies tours. That's not a criticism, it's just the way their sound has matured.
Jagger's rhythmic precision as a vocalist is still spot-on, it sets him apart from most white singers.
-
I just listened to the Rolling Stones' Shine a Light - the older the bands gets the more space the key members leave and the more ornamentation is allowed from the tour players. And the overall sound has become looser - not in the sense of sloppy but in the sense of airy. The Rolling Stones today sound sonically more akin to Little Feat in their heyday then to how they sounded on Get your Ya-Yas Out! or on their seventies tours. That's not a criticism, it's just the way their sound has matured.
Jagger's rhythmic precision as a vocalist is still spot-on, it sets him apart from most white singers.
Although i really haven't followed the Stones I've always enjoyed them, but they have traditionally been so loose-sounding that I thought of them as one step past a jug band.
OTOH, my all-time faves Sympathy for the Devil and Gimme Shelter are pretty tight.
-
I actually like the bass and drums on the recent Stones albums. I think they are really solid and swing. That live album from Holland sounds really good. it's the older, classic albums that IMHO aren't as good. With the exception of Sticky Fingers, of course. Some of the older albums sound to me like they were created in a drug induced fog, or like they thought people would buy anything because it was the "Stones".
-
Got tight if you want it...1965
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhRjvYO-WsI
-
Got tight if you want it...1965
...
Now that's what I like!
IMHO the post-Wyman Stones can't even come close.
-
Thanks for the edit, Dave. That clip is from "Charlie is My Darling" which is being rereleased in its entirety.
-
good clip...tight band...
Still like Darryl Jones better...but then maybe that's why I'm an aging mediocre bassist playing in a geezer band in Cincinnati...and probably will die one. I think Darryl (and Chuck on piano) add musical knowledge and depth that they never had in the "old days". This is just my opinion. Darryl plays real good time. I wish I played that well. So be it.
-
Darryl Jones is an excellent player, I just don't think his style fits what the Stones are about. Or used to be about.
-
Jones can play circles around Wyman technically. And he has good, pushing forward groove where Wyman lagged behind. And that is precisely the issue, the Stones we never driven by the rhythm section, but by Charlie and Keith, Wyman was somewhere out there playing his forlorn lines. Which had all the charm. Now they have a bassist pulsing the band along and, so that Jones doesn't overshadow, they mix him Bill Wyman'esque deep which doesn't fit his forward playing style at all IMHO. The bass on the newer Stones album is mixed to be inconspicious, but the way it is played demands attention (with Wyman, you had to "look for" his bass runs and focus on them to notice what hes was doing). The Stones sound more conventional. smoother, fuller and, consequently, less idiosyncratic for it.
But then Wyman chose to leave. And could be back in a heartbeat I suppose. It's not like he couldn't afford fear of flying treatment and the way the Stones travel as rock royalty is probably not the "endless stream of magazines and cigarettes" Paul Simon once wrote about.
-
I listened to "Stripped" a live album from somewhere in the Netherlands, on the way into work. Uwe's insightful analysis is spot on. What I never understood was why they never let Darryl and Chuck become musically integral parts of the band, and never let the band "morph" into something newer and better (different), rather than just playing the same old hits with a killer session bassist and pianist.
-
...What I never understood was why they never let Darryl and Chuck become musically integral parts of the band, and never let the band "morph" into something newer and better (different), rather than just playing the same old hits with a killer session bassist and pianist.
Maybe because their average age is around 68 1/2 and they're doing exactly what they want. Which is pretty much what they've done their entire careers.
-
chuck owns a tree farm in georgia and tours with the stones when needed. a sweet set up, imo
-
Maybe because their average age is around 68 1/2 and they're doing exactly what they want. Which is pretty much what they've done their entire careers.
^ ^ ^ This.
No reason why they couldn't, it's just not what they do.
.... The bass on the newer Stones album is mixed to be inconspicious, but the way it is played demands attention (with Wyman, you had to "look for" his bass runs and focus on them to notice what hes was doing). The Stones sound more conventional. smoother, fuller and, consequently, less idiosyncratic for it.
...
I never had look for Wyman's bass runs. Maybe I hear it differently than you do. Agreed that with Jones the sound is more conventional; too conventional to me. YMMV.
-
I listened to "Stripped" a live album from somewhere in the Netherlands, on the way into work.
I'd read that most of it was from a Tokyo gig; and some London - is that wrong? Not that it matters, "Stripped" is by far my fave live album of theirs, I can't remember the number of times I looped "Not Fade Away" when I first heard it.
Fully agree with all Dave W's thoughts on Darryl & Chuck - well - it's clearer than just typing "+1".
-
And that is precisely the issue, the Stones we never driven by the rhythm section, but by Charlie and Keith, Wyman was somewhere out there playing his forlorn lines.
At last, someone I can agree with! I've never been big on Wyman, but I do like the Mick Taylor years best of all. And everyone's apparent perennial favorite, "Sympathy For The Devil" grates my ears in a most unpleasant way. I'll listen to just about anything before that.
-
.... And everyone's apparent perennial favorite, "Sympathy For The Devil" grates my ears in a most unpleasant way. I'll listen to just about anything before that.
Keith played bass on that track. It's certainly not my favorite, it would be near the bottom of my list of early Stones songs.
-
the Stones we never driven by the rhythm section, but by Charlie and Keith, Wyman was somewhere out there playing his forlorn lines.
Really?
</param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nYYTLJ8YHi4?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
-
More forlorn Wyman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyyLOOvwIts
-
Really. He's forlorn and not driving on both tracks. And behind the beat on Under my Thumb. But that's not a criticism (I could have said "playing introvertly to himself" rather than "forlorn" if the term irks you), it's part of why the Stones sounded the way they do.All credit to Wyman for contributing to that.
If you want to hear a driving bass then listen to Glover's intro on Smoke on the Water. Or this here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asGnvndoeKI&feature=related
That is just not how Wyman would or even could play, he doesn't pulse, he plays along (nicely, I like the guy's playing). He has other strengths (choice of where to play and where not to play). The most driving bass line he has done is possibly on Live with Me though that might have been someone else, it's a little edgy and hypheractive so it might have been Keith.
-
That is just not how Wyman would or even could play
I would dearly love to know your source for that sweeping statement.
-
Really. He's forlorn and not driving on both tracks. And behind the beat on Under my Thumb. But that's not a criticism (I could have said "playing introvertly to himself" rather than "forlorn" if the term irks you), it's part of why the Stones sounded the way they do.All credit to Wyman for contributing to that.
If you want to hear a driving bass then listen to Glover's intro on Smoke on the Water. Or this here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asGnvndoeKI&feature=related
That is just not how Wyman would or even could play, he doesn't pulse, he plays along (nicely, I like the guy's playing). He has other strengths (choice of where to play and where not to play). The most driving bass line he has done is possibly on Live with Me though that might have been someone else, it's a little edgy and hypheractive so it might have been Keith.
I look at all of this-playing in an introverted way, playing forlornly, playing behind the beat as all natural and positive. I've always identified with Wyman's playing, although I've never tried to consciously copy it at all. I do, however, also like it. In all honesty, some of the hyperactive stuff that some people play truly gets on my nerves.
-
I look at all of this-playing in an introverted way, playing forlornly, playing behind the beat as all natural and positive. I've always identified with Wyman's playing, although I've never tried to consciously copy it at all. I do, however, also like it. In all honesty, some of the hyperactive stuff that some people play truly gets on my nerves.
I'm also one of the few bass players that generally dislikes Jaco. For all that he may have added for technique and speed, I think he left just as large of a negative impact on future bass players. Bass is not a shred instrument in my book.
-
I'm also one of the few bass players that generally dislikes Jaco. For all that he may have added for technique and speed, I think he left just as large of a negative impact on future bass players. Bass is not a shred instrument in my book.
I'd also prefer more subtle playing than what might be found in Jaco.
-
I would agree, in part re: Jaco.
He was a great player, and when he was healthy, both physically and mentally, his playing was really good, even tasteful.
Heavy Weather is pretty amazing, as is his work on Bright Size Life with Pat Metheny.
A lot was released that was not necessarily tasteful. He was apparently a mess for a number of years.
This thread is taking some bizarre twists....
-
Over the years I've heard many names bandied about, so if one gets mentioned a lot I'll check it out. In that respect I;ve bought albums by both Jaco and Stanley Clarke (as two examples) I've found that while I think "Wow, it takes a lot to be able to do that" - I've been left largely unmoved by it as musical entertainment.
Mais Vive la difference!
-
Fusion ain't my thing, nor Jazz or Blues (well I like to listen to the Blues hate playing it). I like songs. That Jaco is creative a bassist I think we all can recognize. The only work by him I ever cared for was his playing on Ian Hunters all American Alien Boy. I especially like his use of cords and inversions. Some of that shit made me weep. http://bassoutpost.com/index.php
-
Wyman isolated bass track. He's got more groove than most people imagine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp-YvsVqtbE
-
Wyman isolated bass track. He's got more groove than most people imagine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp-YvsVqtbE
Sure he does. Some people just can't imagine it.
-
"I would dearly love to know your source for that sweeping statement."
My ears - I do have two. And about 20 Rolling Stones CDs from various eras. I also played for years in a band with a Rolling Stones buff who is now doing a very good job as the singer in a tribute band.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apJac2ALRVY
Are my credentials sufficient then? :mrgreen:
Bill Wyman couldn't play like the Gillan bassist (John McCoy, btw a man with a jazz rock background) because he's neither a brazen player nor a brazen person. It has nothing to do with technical ability or the absence of groove - he has groove. Just like I can't emulate certain people even though I have the technical ability to play it. JAE couldn't play like Wyman to save his life. I am an ahead of the beat player so I have a pretty good ear for people who aren't, all it takes to imagine how I would play that particular line. It has nothing to do with harder or softer rock either, it's an attitude and how you feel the music and your own playing. Whichever session player played on this - largely non-hard rock I dare say :mrgreen: - track was playing ahead of the beat and driving the band.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1QBKkjYm3o
You guys seem to think I'm digging at Wyman for being a bad player. I am not and he is not. He's just very idiosyncratic and the behind the beat playing is part of his style. But he never assumed groove leadership with the Stones (though he certainly influenced their sound and I'm missing something since he left). Hell, even Charlie Watts has said that he listens to Keith Richards mostly and not to what Bill Wyman does or did! And that is hardly a surprise given that albums such as Exile were largely recorded in Wyman's absence and he plays only intermittently on it.
And if that Gimme Shelter isolated bass track is not behind the beat and forlorn (plus a little hesitant and shaky in the beginning, possibly in part at least a first take), I don't know what is. :rolleyes: That doesn't make it without charm though, but "pulsing" is something altogether different.
-
^
It doesn't sound like you're taking a dig at Bill Wyman to me. It sounds more like an accurate description of the way he plays and even a defense and understanding of it.
-
I think this is a great example of Wyman's behind the beat groove. Nothing wrong about laying it down towards the back of the beat as long as your consistent about it, kinda like Paul Chambers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xieQOYsxYU0
-
Are my credentials sufficient then? :mrgreen:
I'm afraid not, it's still an unsubstantiated generalisation - which just to prove wasn't a fluke you remodel to this
Bill Wyman couldn't play like the Gillan bassist (John McCoy
Unless you'd heard him TRY to play anything like that you can't know, it's just what you guess from what you've heard on his commercial recordings and/or any gigs. You can't KNOW it any more than you could say "Bill Wyman wipes with his left hand".
It's one thing to have an inferred "IMHO" but to say someone can or can't do something without knowing it is misleading to say the least. Get me a YT vid. of Wyman saying so & I'll believe you.
-
Ok. Cows can fly. I've never heard one say it couldn't. They just don't do it commercially and are shy about their skills in talk shows.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_HVhH1JFzxRU/S9cYSzBKwGI/AAAAAAAAAZo/RgUvs8bZHI0/s1600/cow-flying.jpg)
Any bassist can play like any other bassist if he has the technical expertise. Feel, attack, left-hand vibrato and bending, timing, musical upbringing are irrelvant. If Bill Wyman grabbed McCoy's bass in that vid and, well-known for his agressive picking technique, mercilessly started hammering those eights close to the bridge (a most natural position for him to choose), he'd sound hunky-dory alright like the bald guy. No issue at all. Wait for Bill's new bass tutorial "Playing like Chris Squire in 10 Easy Steps".
War ist peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strenghth.
We should really talk about Slade again. Wyman could easily emulate Jim Lea too. He even plays short scale so what's the big dif?
-
I think this is a great example of Wyman's behind the beat groove. Nothing wrong about laying it down towards the back of the beat as long as your consistent about it, kinda like Paul Chambers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xieQOYsxYU0
Brilliant song, brilliant bass playing and I remeber how it was initially not attributed to him (which is bollocks, he plays it and nicely too).
-
Ok. Cows can fly. I've never heard one say it couldn't.
Apparently only if YOU say so??
Such an outburst should be beneath you. Until the day comes that you publish a Bible which states that you personally know the capabilities of any named bassist I will doubt your authority on who can play what and how.
We should really talk about Slade again. Wyman could easily emulate Jim Lea too.
Now, no! Don't you mean Wyman playing bass in the style of Paul McCartney who Jimmy Lea copied? (See your previous posts/declarations)
-
Miss you is brilliant...should be taught in school...groove 101.
-
Stu, sigh, I'm an agnostic, no bible, I don't even believe in what's in the real one.
OK, IMHO
the musical evidence of Bill Wyman wishing to or being able to play like John McCoy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwhLZW8xvTA
is so scarce to be statistically irrelevant. But: We simply don't know whether Bill Wyman, in the comfort of his many mansion's many closets, is an aggressive high-speed bassist with a strong tendency to be ahead of the beat. So don't take my word for it.
And Stu: If you fly over and emulate my style of playing (not very technical at all) using the same bass and amp setting within, say, a couple of hours so that someone who knows me mistakes your playing for mine, I'll pay for the flight ticket and a fine Frankfurt hotel where we can have a drink afterwards! :mrgreen:
-
Sounds good; but while we're waiting - to the best of my knowledge only two people on this whole forum have a recording of the aforementioned Midlands Beat Combo doing "Smoke On The Water" at a sound-check.
Dave Hill is so awesome at it it's what made Ritchie Blackmore leave DP.......... whether that's fact or IMHO is not debatable. :mrgreen:
-
I wanna hear it!
But I bet Dave played the riff with his pick and did not pluck it with his fingers so in his version the lower fifth came before the root and not both notes simultaneously which makes all the difference ... That said, 10,000 Dave Hills playing SOTW could not have bugged the Man in Black more (ooops, sneaky, huh?) than one Ian Gillan just being there. Dave Hill is innocent and cannot be blamed for Steve Morse playing guitar with DP today.
And while this thread is now veering dangerously close to mentioning Ritchie Blackmore, we should give a listen to how a Deep Purplite and a Stones member sound together, albeit before both joined their respective bands and became rich and famous, make way for Ronnie and Jon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFFWny2K1NU
-
I have the Writchy Blakmere connection: A mate of his by the name of Bob Daisley actually owns Bill Wyman's "Humbug" Framus Bass. Not only that Bob played with Jon lord and ian Gillian in the Hoochie Coothchie Men and used the Hombug on 'Heart of Stone'.
Now the Stones cut their teeth on Delta Blues, Chicago R n' B etc. AND the funky stuff from New Orleans where the name of the game is behind the Beat way back. Bill's style was developed very naturally as they all learned to put it together and call themselves the Rolling Stones. When Bill left part of the heart and soul of the bband was finished. And as bass players we all know about that and what it means. The bass is the one instrument, hard to 'put your finger on' so to speak because it is so much about feel. In certain situations it works and in others it falls apart. In the Stones it worked for Billy boy but after that the chemistry exploded and you got the Rhythm Kings.
-
10,000 Dave Hills playing SOTW could not have bugged the Man in Black more
On the contrary; Johnny Cash was a huge fan! He only covered a U2 song or two because they once supported Slade. Well known fact!
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtHwJ0nNOSE
A favorite of mine with lyrics sounding more current than you might expect.
-
really? johnny cash a fan of slade. 'well known' fact or not i find that hard to believe. ever since cash made that album with rick rubin, all of a sudden he likes all kinds of rock and roll people. ???
-
Proof conclusive of the Cash-Slade connection - cover photo to prove it... ;D
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RECORD-COLLECTOR-58-JOHNNY-CASH-SLADE-THOMPSON-TWINS-JOHNS-CHILDREN-/290798586851 (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RECORD-COLLECTOR-58-JOHNNY-CASH-SLADE-THOMPSON-TWINS-JOHNS-CHILDREN-/290798586851)
-
Awesome Kenny, just awesome!
-
Proof conclusive of the Cash-Slade connection - cover photo to prove it... ;D
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RECORD-COLLECTOR-58-JOHNNY-CASH-SLADE-THOMPSON-TWINS-JOHNS-CHILDREN-/290798586851 (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RECORD-COLLECTOR-58-JOHNNY-CASH-SLADE-THOMPSON-TWINS-JOHNS-CHILDREN-/290798586851)
See the seller is on the Isle of Lewis in the Scottish Hebrides; I bet he only had that magazine delivered last week!
-
according to this logic where can i find the awesome cash/thompson twins collaberation.
-
When I read this all I can think is hold me now ...
I kinda liked the Thompson Twins, they had a hook or two.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qkn4BjP4x38&feature=related
This one was one of my favorites.
-
... where can i find the awesome cash/thompson twins collaberation.
Forsooth, but surely the same publication, Lord Nofi; tis that not their visage upon said cover...? ;D
See the seller is on the Isle of Lewis in the Scottish Hebrides...
Must be family; either that, and/or the sheep... ;)
-
that's the cover alright. does not mean they have a meet and greet after hours. do you think people on magazine covers really know each other. ;D
-
Nofi, I dare believe this is all in jest!!!
This forum might be indeed good for the weirdest DP and RB connections, but no one has heard of a Thompson Twin/Cash or Cash/Slade collabaration yet, our English friends are taking the piss ...
And Record Collector is a mag for trainspotting vinyl and CD junkies, but hardly one for garish speculation.
-
Must be family; either that, and/or the sheep... ;)
Och! The traffic can be awfy bad oan ra Hebrides, ken?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/Maddogcole/Road_Hazards_7060_lo-1.jpg)
Oanboadie, sorry - I mean - anybody ............... seen "Crossfire Hurricane" yet?
-
off course its all in jest, uwe. ;D
i need to use the smile emoticons more often i guess.
-
I was worried. I tend to be.
(http://vinylmationkingdom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Sam02.jpg)
-
... do you think people on magazine covers really know each other. ;D
I'm aghast; are you saying that things in magazines and papers might not necessarily be Kosher...? I'm stunned...! :o :o :o
Och! The traffic can be awfy bad oan ra Hebrides, ken?
Aye well, laddie, r-r-r-rush-hour can be awfy bad; awfy bad indeed, but we'll get r-r-r-round tay-it sometime soon; nay doot aboot it... ;)
-
The Stones yesterday, performing one of their lesser known songs with that other bassist that used to be with them.
(http://img.youtube.com/vi/OT1J2OqcXoc/0.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzM7xWpMKLc
Analysis: Guitars become less and less, chorus vocals more and more! Plus virtuoso piano solo. :mrgreen: But given how often they must have performed that song it still sounds reasonably fresh.
-
How good was Mick Taylor though ......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7b4GwJ__X8
-
... Plus virtuoso piano solo. :mrgreen:
Ex Allman Brothers - Chuck Leavell (Sea Level) - been with them a long time now...
-
I know - their "new" Billy Preston/Ian Stewart.
-
How good was Mick Taylor though ......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7b4GwJ__X8
What can you say? Taylor was the better lead player forty years ago and he still is today. Ron Wood is technically probably not any worse than Taylor, but he doesn't have the gift - or the desire - of playing a 2 minute + solo and keeping it interesting (even for himself), let's not even talk about tone. Solos for him are part of the arrangement, not a journey. And to his credit: He never played in a setting where he had to be the guitar hero. The Faces never took lead guitar journeys (they let their opener on early seventies US tours do that: Deep Purple) and neither did the Stones, the five or six Taylor years being the exception in a 50 year career. And IIRC, the Jeff Beck Group had that other guy playing lead so Ronnie was largely unbothered there with guitar improvisation as well ... :mrgreen:
Richards, who never connected with Taylor, wanted an integrated lead/rhythm player sparring partner and he got just that with Wood, they interweave nicely (though I can't see them playing at a Wishbone Ash or Allman Brothers convention! 8) ) and Wood's rhythm guitar playing in particular is now so close to Richards' (the latter's idiosyncratic timing excepted) that I for one have a hard time telling them apart when I'm not seeing them.
It was a nice move to take those two (Wyman and Taylor) on stage for the concerts though, most likely a Mick idea. And Jagger probably thought as he stood there with Taylor in the O2: "The greatest present I ever made to Keef was letting this guy go and the other guy into the band". Which is probably correct and an integral reason why the Stones are still around today as a live band.
90% of the O2 audience probably had no idea who Mick Taylor was or is or saw him as some kind of surprise resurrection: "Didn't he drown in his swimming pool?" :mrgreen:
-
Richards, who never connected with Taylor, wanted an integrated lead/rhythm player sparring partner and he got just that with Wood, they interweave nicely (though I can't see them playing at a Wishbone Ash or Allman Brothers convention! 8) ) and Wood's rhythm guitar playing in particular is now so close to Richards' (the latte'rs idisyncratic timing excepted) that I for one have a hard time telling them apart when I'm not seeing them.
:mrgreen:
Funny that you mention their sounding alike. I have noticed the same thing for the past few years.
-
I think Ron came into the band like a scorcer's apprentice and lapped everything up. Taylor was more withdrawn and introvert in his playing from what Richards did. Ron Wood enjoys being a Stone, Mick Taylor obviously didn't. His comment "I don't regret leaving the Stones, I regret joining them!" says it all.
-
90% of the O2 audience probably had no idea who Mick Taylor was
I think you're selling Stones fans short there Uwe. I'd say 90% of the people who could afford those O2 tickets were hard core Stones fans, and every hard core Stones fan knows how good the Mick Taylor-era songs and performances were - listen to the Brussells Affair live concert (once a bootleg, now authorised and downloadable from the Stones website for a couple of Euro) to hear Taylor at his most sublime. Based on the chatter on several Stones fan forums and Facebook groups that I've taken a look at, Taylor's appearance was the highlight of the O2 concert for most of them.
-
Never seen them... never had the inclination to... my father-in-law saw them in pubs Richmond/Twickenham (South-West of London) in the early sixties when he used to be in a skiffle band and he rated them - he's in his mid seventies now...
-
If Richards wanted such an integrated player, why were the Stones so hot to have Rory Gallagher? The stuff I've read indicates that it was the Stones who botched that chance.
-
If Richards wanted such an integrated player, why were the Stones so hot to have Rory Gallagher? The stuff I've read indicates that it was the Stones who botched that chance.
In hindsight, Ronnie Wood has indeed been a great fit for the Stones, but they did write their best material while Taylor was around.
-
- he's in his mid seventies now...
So are they . . . .almost
-
There are various versions of "Rory & the Stones" about.
1. One was that the Stones management contacted Rory while he was recording Calling Card (his finest album in my opinion) with Roger Glover (formerly of an unknown Brit stadium rock band) and said that the band "would like to come over and jam with him". Rory was obviously chuffed at the honor while Glover moaned about having to rearrange all the miking in the studio which had been painstakingly set up for recording. But in the end they rearranged the studio for the jam, except that the Stones never came! This story is confirmed by Glover in the new liner notes of the remastered Calling Card and Glover generally doesn't talk nonsense nor did he take drugs. Rory is unavailable for comment.
2. Version 2 is that the Stones called Rory to join them in Amsterdam where they were parading candidates, but that Rory refused: "I've got an album to do, guys! Some other time."
In the end it doesn't matter, Rory wouldn't have joined them though he was certainly the type of bluesy-virtuoso player Jagger (not Keef though) favored (among Jeff Beck, Harvey Mandel and Mick Ronson):
- Rory was an introvert and insecure about himself, it would have been Mick Taylor all over again. Ronnie Wood doesn't have an overbearing ego, but he's not insecure about himself.
- Rory would have been an image issue for the Stones, he didn't have a cool haircut and would never give up his plaid shirts however much his record company berated him to "look a bit more rock star". He didn't dress up for stage, period.
- Introvert and plaid shirts or not, Rory was a dictator/single-minded. He broke up Taste because the other two wouldn't submit even more to him (as if Taste hadn't already featured him enough). And At the height of that particular Rory Gallagher band line-up's success he kicked out Lou Martin and Rod d'Ath and scrapped a wole album recorded with them (recently released as "Notes from San Francisco" and at the behest of his record company even containing horn arrangements and a commercial US FM radio-friendly production). He wouldn't allow co-writing, sang all his material and there is not a single album sleeve out there that doesn't show him alone.
- Rory wasn't money-driven. He made lots of anti-commercial or plain dumb decisions in his career, inter alia refusing that songs be released as singles, kicking out the keyboarder who refined his music so much (and getting the same guy back in when Rory's commercial fortunes had already dropped), binning a "too American production" and reverting to trio work which did him no favors because his music benefitted from an organist and piano player (and Lou Martin was an excellent piano player).
Rory giving up singing (or being restricted to singing a song an album), writing lyrics, his frontman role and songwriting (or even being restricted to contributing one or two compositions per Stones album, something neither Wyman and Taylor nor Wood were ever allowed to do on a regular basis), as well as getting a haircut and glamming up a little to play Gimme Shelter is unfathomable to me though musically it might have been a dream. (Deep Purple considered him as a replacement for
Blackmore
- how by coincidence his name has popped up again! :mrgreen: - and decided against him for pretty much the same reasons in the end.) Rory wasn't as relaxed about himself as, say, Joe Walsh who did/gave up all that to join The Eagles in exchange of an allotment of perhaps two own songs per Eagles album, Rocky Mountain Way being integrated in their live set and, of course, lots and lots of money. (Walsh and The Eagles had the same management when he joined them, so it was basically an engineered merger, but one that has lasted like engineered marriages sometimes tend to.)
But man, he would have kicked some butt with the Stones!
-
interesting that you often refer to dp as a stadium or arena band, uwe. is that the old axiom 'the bigger the better' at work. ;D
-
I should have put it in italics, Nofi! It has a long story. Resident board Deep Purple grouch Dave W. has in the past consistently referred to DP as "stadium rock" and he didn't mean it kindly, more as English flare-trousered buffoons churning out Smoke on the Water to a musically largely oblivious, but huge audience. I don't subscribe to that description/reduction of Purple at all as you will probably imagine, but "stadium rock" has become the term for what Dave dislikes here and it covers Kiss, DP, LZ, Grand Funk Railroad, Foghat, what have you. Whenever I use "stadium rock" as a term it's a jab against Dave which he - like a lot of my jabs, see "Gwyneth Paltrow" or "Che poster at refrigerator door" - conveniently ignores. Dave, please confirm this to Nofi to put his mind at ease re his megalomania suspicions about me!
"The bigger the better" - a concept laid to rest in Germany after the unfortunate fate of the Bismarck and the Königstiger's failure to change the fortunes of war! - is not my credo at all, in fact - and just as silly or wanton - the opposite. I don't mind a band to be reasonably popular (Deep Purple were just about at my personal limit), but I have real issues with absolute megastars, U2 (did I yet mention that they have a boring bass player? :mrgreen: ), Phil Collins/Genesis in the eighties, Led Zeppelin, Peter Frampton (when he was still the curly-haired God, I like him fine today as a baldie), Dire Straits, Foo Fighters, Bruce Springsteen, Rolling Stones etc., anything that sells out the O2 is suspicious to me. For no other reason than that I am more comfortable with being seen in a minority than to being unseen in a majority.
If "the bigger the better" would be of any relevance to me my flag-waving for commercial no-hopers such as Be Bop De Luxe, Jobriath, Starz, Strapps, Sparks and Doctors of Madness would hardly make much sense, would it? Or Wishbone Ash which no one in America has ever heard of as we have resolutely determined here some time ago. I'm much more frustrated about this forum's utter shrugging ignorance of what I consider the (albeit obviously non-commercial) brilliance of Sparks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Rqk4ILPQKA
than whether someone likes Deep Purple or not. So if you want to do me a favor, just write:
"Sparks make highly original and witty, even quirky music and do not get the recognition at the LBO they deserve. To their credit, they have also never played in a stadium, but Uwe enjoed them quite recently in a Frankfurt club with abouiut a hundred other Sparks nerds and recommends them whole-heartedly, otoh he didn't like Bruce Springsteen in a stadium last summer at all. This message has no Blackmore-content."
-
Grouchy? Me? :o
True, I've called it arena rock or stadium rock. It's really more about certain styles of music I don't like than the size of the audience.
-
That is his way of saying: I would despise Deep Purple even if they had an audience of zero!!!
Dave has a hand for pulling the rug from underneath you. :mrgreen:
-
That is his way of saying: I would despise Deep Purple even if they had an audience of zero!!!
Dave has a hand for pulling the rug from underneath you. :mrgreen:
I don't despise them at all. It's just not what I choose to listen to.
If you want an example of what I loathe, one would be the caterwauling that passes for singing on NBC's The Voice. Can't get away from the promos and clips if you watch anything else on NBC.
-
NBC has some good shows on it. "Revolution" is not too bad, for instance. But I despise "The Voice." I don't like anything about it. Sometimes I catch the last few minutes of it because it comes on right before "Revolution." Actually, "Revolution" is kind of flawed, too, but I'm a sucker for sci fi.
-
I don't despise them at all. It's just not what I choose to listen to.
If you want an example of what I loathe, one would be the caterwauling that passes for singing on NBC's The Voice. Can't get away from the promos and clips if you watch anything else on NBC.
Dave, I fear there is some overlap between The Voice type singing and DP, it's probably fair to say that Glenn Hughes invented it long before Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNq3rNgrSYA
See, now you even have a reason to despise DP! 8) I believe anyone singing/squealing "Georgia on my mind" like Glenn did here (my, it must have been good coke on that day!), would win The Voice hands down, don't you?
-
"Sparks make highly original and witty, even quirky music and do not get the recognition at the LBO they deserve.
Saw Sparks once; on the same tour that prompted this TV appearance around the same time.......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HSlNHNZuQ
Three highlights of the gig, in this order..........
1) Being asked to make space by a couple of roadies so someone could stand beside me, watch the support band (Finitribe), and dance with me to them & it turned out to be Christy Moore - yes the drummer in that video. :P
2) Making the mistake of catching Ron's gaze and being stared out by him, but actually getting a smile off him when I caved in, oh and the brilliant idea of rearranging the letters on his Roland keyboard.
3) Russ's unbelievable vocal range after all these years.
-
maybe sparks aren't popular over here is because one looks like hitler. ;D
-
He changed his moustache long ago because of exactly that.
(http://www.sparks-alex.narod.ru/Ron.jpg)
(http://jetzt.sueddeutsche.de/upl/images/user/ma/mas_gt/text/regular/649503.jpg)
(http://i2.listal.com/image/514520/600full-ron-mael.jpg)
(http://www.virginmedia.com/images/ron-mael-431x300.jpg)
"It takes a certain kind of man to have the courage to sport a toothbrush moustache in public, something which Ron Mael has been doing for years. Infamously, when Sparks were on Top of the Pops back in 1974 with John Lennon, the former Beatle was heard to remark "Christ, they've got Hitler on the telly!”
More on the subject if you are into dialectic philosophy (that is Hegel, not Hitler):
http://thestuffedowl.co.uk/don%E2%80%99t-forget-his-toothbrush-memories-of-ron-mael%E2%80%99s-face/
-
Saw Sparks once; on the same tour that prompted this TV appearance around the same time.......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HSlNHNZuQ
Three highlights of the gig, in this order..........
1) Being asked to make space by a couple of roadies so someone could stand beside me, watch the support band (Finitribe), and dance with me to them & it turned out to be Christy Moore - yes the drummer in that video. :P
2) Making the mistake of catching Ron's gaze and being stared out by him, but actually getting a smile off him when I caved in, oh and the brilliant idea of rearranging the letters on his Roland keyboard.
3) Russ's unbelievable vocal range after all these years.
Danke, Stu, that felt good, but then it comes from a Limey whose island adopted the two Californians early on!
-
i think sparks were too clever for their own good at the time. if they had happened ten or fifteen years later they might have seen greater sucess.
-
"Christ, they've got Hitler on the telly!”
That didn't kick up nearly as much fuss as this TOTP appearance did at around the same time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Euf7etlE6wM
-
Dave, I fear there is some overlap between The Voice type singing and DP, it's probably fair to say that Glenn Hughes invented it long before Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston!
....
See, now you even have a reason to despise DP! 8) I believe anyone singing/squealing "Georgia on my mind" like Glenn did here (my, it must have been good coke on that day!), would win The Voice hands down, don't you?
That's awful but not normal for DP.
I hate the nauseating melisma of "Whiney" Houston and Mariah Carey. That's bad enough, made worse for me by the yokels in the audience who whoop and holler when someone stretches a one-syllable word into a dozen syllables. What I'm talking about on The Voice is all that and more. You see these promos where the contestants are in a "sing-off" where the object is to yowl and wail as long and loud as possible. And while the show is allegedly about voices, it's complete with elaborate stage productions. Which is fitting, I suppose, since the voices are so wretched.
-
Music should never be an athletic event
-
Not normal for DP? Not normal for anyone! :mrgreen:
I admit I like the athletic aspect of it though. But it's quite enough after a while, doesn't need to be longer than it was.
-
News story this morning points out that the average age of the Stones is almost two years older than the average age of the US Supreme Court members.
-
"What a draaaaaag it is getting o-hold ..."
To be fair: Younger or not, the Supreme Court is good for more surprises even today then The Stones have been ever. :mrgreen: