Rolling Stones warm up gig

[westen44]

............ 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   .......... 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. 

[Big_Stu]

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. 

[Big_Stu]

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  ). 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.

[Dave W]

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.

[uwe]

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.

[uwe]

"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.

[Big_Stu]

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.

[uwe]

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.

[Big_Stu]

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.

[Aussie Mark]

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.

[uwe]

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.

[Dave W]

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.

[uwe]

"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!

[nofi]

i like the beatles, i like keith, don't care for slade and have owned a crappy vega. all caught up now.

[gearHed289]

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...