OT: The Rolling Old Farts; Playing in front of a crowd 101
The VG&L Railroad
Rolling Stones DVD set, _Four Flicks_. After watching
two of the concerts in my limited spare time, I have
some observations.
1) We've had several threads on how to front a rock band,
how to get the audience's attention, how to have stage
presence, etc. Well, watch any Rolling STones concert
video footage, from the beginning til now. Everything
you need to know is right there.
2) Rock and Roll is supposedly just a youngster's game. So
how come the Stones still sell out stadiums, and the
crowds have as many teens as ever, all singing along with
the old songs? And how do those old farts move like that?
They've definitely slowed down over the years, but they're
still better than lots of bands out there. Given the lifetyle
most of them have led, it's even more amazing. And the teenage
gals (and guys) are just as excited as ever.
3) When did Chuck Levall join the Stones???? When did he learn
how to rock and roll?
4) I couldn't decide which was more entertaining to watch, Charlie
Watson, Keith Richards, or Ronnie Woods. Ronnie is still the
youngster, the new kid, the newbie, despite having now played
with them for years. And at the same time, he's still a kid
on stage. One of the world's oldest, silly, teenage boys.
Keith doesn't act like a kid, but he does still act like a
rock and roller. Both guys are clearly having a blast on stage.
5) And speaking of blasts on stage, they appear to converse in
normal tones. That's probably because even on huge stages,
they just have a few, old Fender amps. Did the Stones ever
give in to the Wall of Amps madness? I recall old footage
of them with just reasonable numbers of Fender amps...
6) Charlie Watson, what a hoot! Short, white hair, a tee shirt
and slacks. He just sits there, drumming effortlessly away,
looking for all the world like someone's grandfather. He makes
these faces, like he's afraid someone will try to sneak up on him.
Other times, he looks like he should be yelling, "You kids turn
that $*&@! music down!" But he still pounds out a great rock
and roll beat.
7) Jagger is still Jagger. I was never a huge fan of the guy,
but he still does a great job fronting the Stones.
fretwiredamnit
news:pan.2005.01.24....@rru.com:
Wow, they traded Charlie Watts for Charlie Watson?
;) FD
Joe Mama
"fretwiredamnit" <silve...@notmail.com> wrote in message
> Wow, they traded Charlie Watts for Charlie Watson?
>
>
>
>
> ;) FD
LOL. A true fan, huh?
That Mick Jaggermeister is one hell of a singer. Ain't he?
The Repair Guy
>"fretwiredamnit" <silve...@notmail.com> wrote
>
>> Wow, they traded Charlie Watts for Charlie Watson?
>> ;) FD
>
>LOL. A true fan, huh?
>That Mick Jaggermeister is one hell of a singer. Ain't he?
When it comes to singing, he's a good dancer.
For my money, Aerosmith would blow the Stones
out of the water.
The Repair Guy
http://repairguy1993.netfirms.com/
DGDevin
news:ddOdnd2Y54T...@centurytel.net...
he?
>
> When it comes to singing, he's a good dancer.
> For my money, Aerosmith would blow the Stones
> out of the water.
Comparing Aerosmith to the Stones is like comparing a Dodge Neon to a Shelby
Cobra. Aerosmith was a shameless imitation of the Stones in the old days
and they're not much better than that now, a fun band in their own way, but
not even close in any meaningful way. Your silly politics are apparently
matched by an absurd taste in music.
DGDevin
news:pan.2005.01.24....@rru.com...
> 1) We've had several threads on how to front a rock band,
> how to get the audience's attention, how to have stage
> presence, etc. Well, watch any Rolling STones concert
> video footage, from the beginning til now. Everything
> you need to know is right there.
They wrote the book, and while they've had their ups and downs, their
collected recorded and live legacy is unmatched.
> 3) When did Chuck Levall join the Stones???? When did he learn
> how to rock and roll?
He's been playing keyboards with them for quite a while, many hardcore
Stones fans think too much of him is seen and heard, at least onstage.
> 5) And speaking of blasts on stage, they appear to converse in
> normal tones. That's probably because even on huge stages,
> they just have a few, old Fender amps. Did the Stones ever
> give in to the Wall of Amps madness? I recall old footage
> of them with just reasonable numbers of Fender amps...
Ronnie uses a VibroKing, Keith has an old tweed twin, although there is a
backup beside each of those. Until quite recently they used an assortment
of other amps literally as stage dressing, various Vox, Marshall, Mesa etc.
amps used as a backdrop for the stage. Until the late seventies their old
Ampegs were still used live, they've tended to use smaller combo amps since
then and let the P.A. fill the arena, something more bands could benefit by.
> 7) Jagger is still Jagger. I was never a huge fan of the guy,
> but he still does a great job fronting the Stones.
Jagger IMHO is a bit of a ruthless bastard, but he is the supreme showman,
the guy pretty much invented Rock Star and there is nobody better at working
a crowd, he earns his paycheck and then some.
Somebody
Talk about one tediously boring band. How can anyone listen to that stuff??
I mean, REALLY.
DGDevin
news:E0bJd.11459$J6.5366@trnddc02...
What a brilliant piece of musical scholarship, you should think about
writing a book.
wb
"DGDevin" <dgd...@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote in message
news:wEaJd.20664$8u5....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "The Repair Guy" <repair...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ddOdnd2Y54T...@centurytel.net...
> he?
> >
> > out of the water.
>
> Comparing Aerosmith to the Stones is like comparing a Dodge Neon to a
Shelby
> Cobra. Aerosmith was a shameless imitation of the Stones in the old days
>
wb
> normal tones. That's probably because even on huge stages,
> they just have a few, old Fender amps. Did the Stones ever
> give in to the Wall of Amps madness? I recall old footage
> of them with just reasonable numbers of Fender amps...
At one time in the early seventites I recall a collection of ampegs in the
rear,
but it's pretty sparse up there: 2 twins for Keith ( I bet 40 w models), 2
Pro's
for Ronnie. *AND* No array of fancy pedal boards and stomp boxes
to distort the noise. New players today think a volume control is in a box
with a battery ...
wb
"DGDevin" <dgd...@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote in message
Somebody
On 24-Jan-2005, "DGDevin" <dgd...@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote:
> > Rolling Stones? <yawn>
> >
> > Talk about one tediously boring band. How can anyone listen to that
> > stuff??
> > I mean, REALLY.
>
> What a brilliant piece of musical scholarship, you should think about
> writing a book.
Yeah. We need another book on the Rolling Stones, don't we
claudel
In the late '60s / early '70s the huge refrigerator sized Ampegs
were developed for the Stones...
Claude
The Repair Guy
>"The Repair Guy" <repair...@yahoo.com> wrote...
>> When it comes to singing, he's a good dancer.
>> For my money, Aerosmith would blow the Stones
>> out of the water.
>
>Comparing Aerosmith to the Stones is like comparing
>a Dodge Neon to a Shelby Cobra. Aerosmith was a
>shameless imitation of the Stones in the old days
>and they're not much better than that now, a fun band
>in their own way, but not even close in any meaningful
>way. Your silly politics are apparently matched by an
>absurd taste in music.
Leaving the rest of the band out of it for a moment,
how about comparing Jagger's voice with Tyler's?
You think Jagger's the Cobra? Your ears must be
gone.
DGDevin
> Leaving the rest of the band out of it for a moment,
> how about comparing Jagger's voice with Tyler's?
> You think Jagger's the Cobra? Your ears must be
> gone.
Jagger -- the guy Tyler spent most of his early career imitating move for
move -- has done a remarkable job of preserving his voice. When you hear
most of his contemporaries like Roger Daltrey you can't help but be struck
by how good Jagger's voice is, how he still has most of his range and is
rarely on the edge of control. And while he can't leap around quite like he
used to, the guy still sprints across every stage he sets foot on for over
two hours a show, I hope I can do that at his age.
Now, you are entirely free not to like their music, some folks like
chocolate and some like vanilla, but to just casually dismiss the Stones and
suggest that a B-level band like Aerosmith could blow them out of the water,
well you need to look at who owns most of the touring records and who is
taken seriously by musical and cultural historians as opposed to being a
pleasant but nonetheless lightweight band that with the exception of teaming
up with a rap act hasn't exactly been a trend-setter.
Again, you don't have to like their music, everyone's tastes are different,
but to blow off the Stones in a comparison with a band that actually
modelled themselves on the Stones but has had only a fraction of their
commercial and critical success, well that's like claiming that Crate makes
a better amp than Marshall, it's not an opinion likely to be taken
seriously.
DGDevin
>
>> What a brilliant piece of musical scholarship, you should think about
>> writing a book.
>
> Yeah. We need another book on the Rolling Stones, don't we
Well there are already an awful lot of them, apparently writers and editors
and the public alike think it's a worthwhile subject to pursue. But most of
those books at least try to have something original and worthwhile to say,
nobody has tried just blowing verbal farts into print, and since you seem to
have that style down, maybe there's a market for it, somewhere, try Rolling
Stone, their standards seem to have bottomed out....
Somebody
On 25-Jan-2005, "DGDevin" <dgd...@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote:
> that's like claiming that Crate makes
> a better amp than Marshall
These days, it's a toss-up
Somebody
On 25-Jan-2005, "DGDevin" <dgd...@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote:
> > Yeah. We need another book on the Rolling Stones, don't we
>
> Well there are already an awful lot of them, apparently writers and
> editors
> and the public alike think it's a worthwhile subject to pursue. But most
> of
> those books at least try to have something original and worthwhile to say,
>
> nobody has tried just blowing verbal farts into print, and since you seem
> to
> have that style down, maybe there's a market for it, somewhere, try
> Rolling
> Stone, their standards seem to have bottomed out....
Thanks, but I'm afraid it would require some initial interest in the
subject.
Somebody
On 24-Jan-2005, "DGDevin" <dgd...@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote:
> Comparing Aerosmith to the Stones is like comparing a Dodge Neon to a
> Shelby
<snipped yatta yatta>
> Your silly politics are apparently
> matched by an absurd taste in music.
Oh, and because his taste in music doesn't agree with yours, it's absurd,
eh? We see.
Somebody
On 25-Jan-2005, "DGDevin" <dgd...@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote:
> Again, you don't have to like their music, everyone's tastes are
> different,
> but to blow off the Stones in a comparison with a band that actually
> modelled themselves on the Stones
Everybody's gotta start someplace. There are a bunch of your more
experienced guitarists who patterned their first lead solo after the one in
"Louie Louie". So?
> but has had only a fraction of their
> commercial and critical success,
Aerosmith hasn't been in it for nearly 50 years. But they're still a better
band.
There was a time, many years ago, when the Rolling Stones were an excellent
band. They were led by a very talented individual by the name of Brian
Jones, who provided the only spark of originality the Rolling Stones ever
had. When Jones died, Jagger must have been very pleased. Now he could now
be free to continue his silly prancing and barely adequate vocals without
worrying about competition from some real talent, namely Brian Jones,
stealing his limelight (Not to mention the chicks). Interesting to note how
the quality of the band's output greatly diminished with Brian's death, and
has never recovered since.
I suppose you could argue that they've sold a lot of records. Hey, so have
a lot of folks. Most of 'em don't have an ounce of musical talent. The
business being what it is, where's the surprise there??
Aside from that, to compare Jagger as a singer to someone like Steven Tyler,
who's voice has great range and a drive that Jagger NEVER had, is completely
absurd beyond words. But then again, some folks think people like Bob Dylan
and Neil Young are good singers. Go figure.
> well that's like claiming that Crate
> makes
> a better amp than Marshall, it's not an opinion likely to be taken
> seriously.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. These days, it's a tossup as to who's
crap smells the worst in Amp Land. Kinda like the entertainment industry
today.
DGDevin
>
> Everybody's gotta start someplace. There are a bunch of your more
> experienced guitarists who patterned their first lead solo after the one
> in
> "Louie Louie". So?
Experience means very little in this case, most of the guitarists most folks
look up to did their best work when they'd been playing for only a few
years, your example is kind of pointless.
> Aerosmith hasn't been in it for nearly 50 years. But they're still a
> better
> band.
Do your homework, Aerosmith has been around longer than you seem to think,
and the Stones for less.
> There was a time, many years ago, when the Rolling Stones were an
> excellent
> band. They were led by a very talented individual by the name of Brian
> Jones, who provided the only spark of originality the Rolling Stones ever
> had. When Jones died, Jagger must have been very pleased. Now he could
> now
> be free to continue his silly prancing and barely adequate vocals without
> worrying about competition from some real talent, namely Brian Jones,
> stealing his limelight (Not to mention the chicks). Interesting to note
> how
> the quality of the band's output greatly diminished with Brian's death,
> and
> has never recovered since.
Yikes, you appear to be unaware that Brian had already been fired from the
band before he died, and also that his heavy drug use and mental state had
made him almost useless to the band anyway, that's why he was fired. You
also seem to have avoided mentioning that Brian couldn't write a song to
save his life, exactly how it was *his* originality that made the band when
it was Jagger/Richards writing the songs is a bit hard to grasp. Aside from
that it seems to have escaped you that most of the Stones' most highly
regarded work -- like Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main St. for example --
came after Jones was gone. Brian Jones was a natural musician with a flair
for adding an ear-catching line to a song, and the girls loved him until he
started punching them around, but to say that the Stones went downhill after
he left, good grief, only someone who has never heard their live shows from
the 72-73 period would say something like that.
And so on, everybody has an opinion, but it's nice when they've done their
homework to back it up.
DGDevin
>
>> Your silly politics are apparently
>> matched by an absurd taste in music.
>
> Oh, and because his taste in music doesn't agree with yours, it's absurd,
> eh? We see.
No, you don't see. Everybody is entitled to like what they like and dislike
everything else. But when someone says something really silly, like a band
that has had a small fraction of the Stones' success (critical as well as
commercial) could blow them off the stage, well, some sort of documentation
or at least persuasive argument would be nice. You can *claim* that your
favorite college football team would blow the Broncos (or the Patriots or
the Raiders et al.) out of the stadium, you can even really, really believe
it if you like, but it's still a silly thing to say.
DGDevin
>
> Thanks, but I'm afraid it would require some initial interest in the
> subject.
True, casual trolling seems to be more your speed. "Click."
rello
if you have you will know why they have been so successfull
just because they are old men doesnt mean they cant still put on a
great show....look at frank sinatra, johny cash, wand jackson [who
neen a star longer than jagger] etc etc etc
also mick jagger is an excellent at bussiness another reason for their
success
there has never been a band that has been as successfull as the
rolling stones.......even today some 40 odd years after they began, a
stones concert makes world news.......i dont think you can compare
them to other bands.....the fact that you young dudes are discussing
them here is testament to their unprecedented success......the beatles
where as big as the stones and have left a great legacy of wonderfull
songs but their heydey was well over by 69...they rarely appeared live
after the world tour in the 60's and .by the time the last album was
releaesd the band was finished.....the last 2-3 years they spent
arguing in the recording studio.......
i think john lennon would have still been kicking arse if that crazy
yank bastard hadnt gunned him down
relloman
Somebody
On 25-Jan-2005, "DGDevin" <dgd...@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote:
> "Somebody" <some...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
> news:JCtJd.26873$Os6.23181@trnddc08...
> >
> > Everybody's gotta start someplace. There are a bunch of your more
> > experienced guitarists who patterned their first lead solo after the one
> >
> > in
> > "Louie Louie". So?
>
> Experience means very little in this case, most of the guitarists most
> folks
> look up to did their best work when they'd been playing for only a few
> years, your example is kind of pointless.
The point is everyone starts by copying somone. So, YOUR point about Tyler
copying Jagger would seem to be the pointless one.
> > Aerosmith hasn't been in it for nearly 50 years. But they're still a
> > better
> > band.
>
> Do your homework, Aerosmith has been around longer than you seem to think,
> and the Stones for less.
I'm pretty certain that Aerosmith, or parts thereof, weren't together in the
mid to late 1950's. I'm also pretty sure that The Rolling Stones, or parts
thereof, were. What year was it 50 years ago ?
>
> > There was a time, many years ago, when the Rolling Stones were an
> > excellent
> > band. They were led by a very talented individual by the name of Brian
> > Jones, who provided the only spark of originality the Rolling Stones
> > ever
> > had. When Jones died, Jagger must have been very pleased. Now he could
> >
> > now
> > be free to continue his silly prancing and barely adequate vocals
> > without
> > worrying about competition from some real talent, namely Brian Jones,
> > stealing his limelight (Not to mention the chicks). Interesting to note
> >
> > how
> > the quality of the band's output greatly diminished with Brian's death,
> > and
> > has never recovered since.
> Yikes, you appear to be unaware that Brian had already been fired from the
>
> band before he died,
Completely aware of that fact, as well as the fact that the Jagger's ego
could scarely contain his jealousy of Brian Jones, who had far more talent
and class in his little fingernail than Jagger ever had or ever will.
> and also that his heavy drug use and mental state had
>
> made him almost useless to the band anyway, that's why he was fired.
Now, this is really the rich part!! Of course, that's what the guys who
fired him are gonna say. You don't think their gonna tell you otherwise, do
you? That Jagger resented the fact that brian was simply cooler in every
way? Don't you find it rather amusing to think that a couple of heroine
addicts, one being perhaps the world's most notorius smack addict EVER,
fired a bandmate for his drug habit? Gimme a break! Of course, why should
Keith worry, as long as he could manage to stay out of jail and still tour
outside of England. All he had to do was go get his blood changed every
other week. Of course, that's not too bizarre, is it? No wonder he looks
like a walking corpse.
> You
> also seem to have avoided mentioning that Brian couldn't write a song to
> save his life, exactly how it was *his* originality that made the band
> when
> it was Jagger/Richards writing the songs is a bit hard to grasp.
Initially, Brian taught the Rolling Stones how to be a blues band. Keith
was a Chuck Berry nut, and pimple-faced, middle-class Jagger didn't have a
clue what Chicago Blues was all about. When the band grew beyond that,
Brian was the one who made the band interesting with his unusual
instrumental arrangements played on equally unusual instruments. To imply
that he played a small part in the originality of the Rolling Stones music
and sound would be like discounting George Martin because he didn't write
the Beatle's songs.
> Aside
> from
> that it seems to have escaped you that most of the Stones' most highly
> regarded work -- like Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main St. for example --
>
> came after Jones was gone.
"Highly regarded" by whom? Surely some, but not all and certainly not
myself. I, for one, can barely bring myself to listen to that stuff. But
you're entitled to your opinion.
> Brian Jones was a natural musician with a
> flair
> for adding an ear-catching line to a song, and the girls loved him until
> he
> started punching them around,
Totally irrelavent. We're not discussing Brian Jones' interpersonal
relationships with women.
> but to say that the Stones went downhill
> after
> he left, good grief,
Yes?
> only someone who has never heard their live shows
> from
> the 72-73 period would say something like that.
I guess you'd kinda have to like that music in the first place, no? Live or
studio, I'm sorry, but I just don't care much for the sound. And it seems
to me, that it's continually going downhill. Of course, I can understand,
it's a big business to them, and as long as people continue to make them
rich, they'd be crazy to stop if they can keep going. But I ain't
supportin' it!
> And so on, everybody has an opinion, but it's nice when they've done their
>
> homework to back it up.
That's just it. I've done the homework. It's not like these guys are some
mystery band to me. After all, they're the Rolling Stones. As a matter of
fact, I have a crapload of their albums in my library, just for reference
(because I do that). But I don't listen to them. I can't, I'm sorry. Now,
the early stuff with Brian is a different story. I still like a lot of that
stuff. I think that was their best period, and everything after that was
downhill. That's my opinion, you've got yours.
Peace.
Somebody
On 25-Jan-2005, "DGDevin" <dgd...@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote:
> > Thanks, but I'm afraid it would require some initial interest in the
> > subject.
>
> True, casual trolling seems to be more your speed. "Click."
Thanks for playing! "Click"
Somebody
On 25-Jan-2005, "DGDevin" <dgd...@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote:
> > Oh, and because his taste in music doesn't agree with yours, it's
> > absurd,
> > eh? We see.
>
> No, you don't see. Everybody is entitled to like what they like and
> dislike
> everything else. But when someone says something really silly, like a
> band
> that has had a small fraction of the Stones' success (critical as well as
> commercial) could blow them off the stage, well, some sort of
> documentation
> or at least persuasive argument would be nice.
What's to document? Tyler blows Jagger away. The man (Jagger) simply
cannot sing, and that's the long and short of it. I don't give a shit how
many records Brittny Spears sells, for example, nobody is gonna convince me
that the little bitch has any talent. Same for that little bitch, Mick
Jagger.
Your defence is something like someone claiming that Bob Dylan's a better
singer than, say, Steve Marriott, simply because he's sold a shitload more
records. Hogwash. Tell us you LIKE Mick Jagger more. That's a little more
credible.
Somebody
On 25-Jan-2005, rell...@beasty.com (rello) wrote:
> also mick jagger is an excellent at bussiness another reason for their
> success
Thank you, very much!
fretwiredamnit
news:oiCJd.28868$Os6.12216@trnddc08:
You're jokin'....right? Aerosmith was a cool band, but
the Stones are *thee* cool band. Don't bother with
the troll shit, it'll make you blind.
FD
Somebody
On 25-Jan-2005, fretwiredamnit <silve...@notmail.com> wrote:
> Aerosmith was a cool band, but
> the Stones are *thee* cool band
If you say so
DGDevin
news:Xns95E9CE2353A8...@216.77.188.18...
> the Stones are *thee* cool band. Don't bother with
> the troll shit, it'll make you blind.
>
> FD
Is the troll glass half full or half empty? The Stones have their great
periods and their not-so-great periods, and anyone is free to not care for
their music purely for reasons of personal taste, but this troll actually
seems to think the Stones were formed in the mid 1950s, which tells us all
we need to know about the validity of his supposed perceptions. And I
*like* Aerosmith, for what they are, which is a B-level band at best, had a
few hits, do an energetic live show, but to compare them to the Stones? Not
even close....
Somebody
On 25-Jan-2005, "DGDevin" <dgd...@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote:
> but this troll actually
> seems to think the Stones were formed in the mid 1950s,
1960, if you want the exact year a pimple-faced kid named Mick met a
monkey-eared Keith. My memory was a bit off. Excuse me, that was only 45
years ago, not fifty. I don't like the buggers enough to keep on top of
their fucking dates or be a Roling Stones historian. I went through that
years ago, and forgot years ago. You probably know their birthdays too, but
that's a bit over the top for me.
Aerosmith is still a better band, regardless of semantics.
Somebody
On 25-Jan-2005, "DGDevin" <dgd...@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote:
> And I
> *like* Aerosmith, for what they are, which is a B-level band at best,
They were inducted into to the "Rock and Roll Music Hall of Fame". Not too
shabby for a B-level band!
The Repair Guy
>have you ever seen the stones live?
If you're talking to me, no, I haven't.
>if you have you will know why they have been so
>successfull
>just because they are old men doesnt mean they
>cant still put on a great show....look at frank sinatra,
>johny cash, wand jackson [who neen a star longer
>than jagger] etc etc etc
>also mick jagger is an excellent at bussiness another
>reason for their success
I notice you don't say much about his singing :-)
The Repair Guy
>"The Repair Guy" <repair...@yahoo.com> wrote...
>
>> Leaving the rest of the band out of it for a moment,
>> how about comparing Jagger's voice with Tyler's?
>> You think Jagger's the Cobra? Your ears must be
>> gone.
>
>Jagger -- the guy Tyler spent most of his early
>career imitating move for move --
But not note for note, I hope.
>has done a remarkable job of preserving his
>voice.
Dylan has, too, but that's not saying much. Jagger
was never more than a mediocre singer even in
his heyday, IMO. I guess you think he was.
>When you hear most of his contemporaries like
>Roger Daltrey you can't help but be struck by
>how good Jagger's voice is, how he still has
>most of his range and is rarely on the edge of
>control.
We must be hearing different things. I've never
been struck by how good Jagger's voice is/was,
and he never had a huge range or a lot of power
to lose. Daltrey, Plant, and some others' voices
have weakened with age, agreed, but they were
way above average to begin with.
>And while he can't leap around quite like he used
>to, the guy still sprints across every stage he sets
>foot on for over two hours a show, I hope I can do
>that at his age.
Lots of people his age still jog :-)
>Now, you are entirely free not to like their music,
>some folks like chocolate and some like vanilla,
I like a lot of their music - it's not that. I think they
were B-level musicians who wrote some good
songs, with a C-level singer who could get a
crowd going - even in a dress.
Mick's a showman, I'll give him that, but in my
book he's not a singer. I realize many people
disagree, but I'd bet most of them aren't singing
musicians.
>but to just casually dismiss the Stones and suggest
>that a B-level band like Aerosmith could blow them
>out of the water, well you need to look at who owns
>most of the touring records and who is taken seriously
>by musical and cultural historians as opposed to
>being a pleasant but nonetheless lightweight band
>that with the exception of teaming up with a rap act
>hasn't exactly been a trend-setter.
I'm only giving my opinion. I'm sure the Stones have
grossed more over the years than anyone. That has
nothing to do with musicianship - look at Britney,
Green Day, Milli Vanilli, etc., etc.
>Again, you don't have to like their music, everyone's
>tastes are different, but to blow off the Stones in a
>comparison with a band that actually modelled
>themselves on the Stones but has had only a fraction
>of their commercial and critical success, well that's
>like claiming that Crate makes a better amp than
>Marshall, it's not an opinion likely to be taken
>seriously.
Leave history out of it for a minute.
Put them on stage side by side.
Have Tyler sing a Stones tune - your choice.
If you can think of one that takes a lot of vocal chops,
I'd like to know what it would be.
Then have Mick sing "Angel" (first one that popped
into my head) or "Dream On", etc., etc..
I can hear it as plain as day, because I've heard lots
of mediocre singers try to sing out of their league.
I've been guilty of it myself - it isn't pretty.
The VG&L Railroad
> Wow, they traded Charlie Watts for Charlie Watson?
Sorry. I meant Charlie Manson, of course.
When I'm tired, my fingers have a mind of their own.
There's no telling what they'll type when I'm tired.
The VG&L Railroad
...
>> Comparing Aerosmith to the Stones is like comparing a Dodge Neon to a
> Shelby
>>
If it's the Dart in my driveway, it gets much
better gas mileage, but the acceleration isn't
so hot. But it's still a cooler car.
The VG&L Railroad
...
> cannot sing, and that's the long and short of it. I don't give a shit how
> many records Brittny Spears sells, for example, nobody is gonna convince me
> that the little bitch has any talent. Same for that little bitch, Mick
> Jagger.
You should look ina mirror when you say that.
Jagger can sing. You jsut obviously don't
care for the style, or the voice, or something.
> Your defence is something like someone claiming that Bob Dylan's a better
> singer than, say, Steve Marriott, simply because he's sold a shitload more
> records. Hogwash. Tell us you LIKE Mick Jagger more. That's a little more
> credible.
OK, how's this? Bob Dylan is a better singer than
Johnny Cash is. That's a scientific fact.
The VG&L Railroad
> Jagger IMHO is a bit of a ruthless bastard, but he is the supreme showman,
> the guy pretty much invented Rock Star and there is nobody better at working
> a crowd, he earns his paycheck and then some.
Yeah, it's obvious on the videos when he does
a duet with a woman, that he's in charge of
the whole shebang.
Somebody
On 26-Jan-2005, The VG&L Railroad <m...@rru.com> wrote:
> OK, how's this? Bob Dylan is a better singer than
> Johnny Cash is. That's a scientific fact.
Agreed. And I'm sure we'll get no argument from Johnny.
DGDevin
news:-ZednV9nOrY...@centurytel.net...
> rell...@beasty.com (rello) wrote:
>
>>have you ever seen the stones live?
>
> If you're talking to me, no, I haven't.
Then it's kind of like someone telling us the elephant isn't a very
impressive animal without ever having seen one.
At their worst the Stones deliver a professional show and everybody gets
their money's worth, at their best I've seen them send 20,000 people into
orbit, and Jagger is a huge part of that, *nobody* is a better frontman.
> I notice you don't say much about his singing :-)
Keith Richards isn't the greatest guitar player on earth either, there are
plenty of guitarists who can play circles around him, so what? Charlie
Watts is quite a restrained drummer, lots of drummers play with way more
pizzazz, so what? And there are vocalists who in an academic sense are
better than Jagger, more range, more control, in theory they sound way
better, so what? The point you are missing is that together the Stones are
way more than the sum of their parts, Jagger/Richards have written dozens of
songs that bands like Aerosmith can only wish they had written, Keith the
decent but not spectacular guitarist created riffs and songs that damn near
every kid who picks up a guitar wants to learn, Charlie Watts the
non-showoff drummer is the rock upon which the most successful touring band
in history rests. Individually they might not be spectacular, but together
the Stones have been blessed with a chemistry that made them so good there
are only a handful of bands like the Beatles, the Who and Led Zeppelin on
the same level.
And again, I *like* Aerosmith, but take away personal preference and you
have no grounds to compare them with the Stones, they haven't had anything
like as many hit songs or sold as many albums or as many concert seats or
had even a fraction of the influence on the public or other musicians. How
many books have been written about Aerosmith as opposed to the Stones?
Amazon gives us 67 'books' hits for Aerosmith, and that includes calendars
and sheet music etc.. Now do the same search on the Stones, yikes, 458
hits, even with the false positives filtered out that still leaves hundreds
of books just about this one band. Logically, if Aerosmith was so much
better than the Stones, would music writers over several decades have missed
that and for some unknowable reason decided to focus on the Stones instead?
Shit, get a dozen rock musicians together and pour some beer into them and
then ask them to list the three bands they consider the most influencial in
rock. Depending on the ages of the musicians you'll see some variations,
younger guys will include Nirvana while older guys might list the Who for
example, but it's a dead-easy bet that you'll hear the Rolling Stones named
a hell of a lot more than Aerosmith for the simple reason that for at least
half their career the Stones have been seen as innovators and trend-setters
while Aerosmith has almost exclusively been a derivative band that while
pleasant enough in their own way had nothing new to say. The Stones
*invented* what Aerosmith copied.
Now I know I'm coming across as bashing Aerosmith, but that's hard to avoid
since you insist on the comparison. And if you wanna burn a candle in front
of a Steve Tyler shrine, cool, that's nice. But take a moment to consider
how many pages are devoted to the Stones in the history of rock as opposed
to how many lines Aerosmith gets, your personal preferences aside, there has
got to be a reason for the imbalance, to go on claiming the bronze medalist
was *really* better than the guy with the gold medal around his neck is more
than a little odd.
wb
">
> They were inducted into to the "Rock and Roll Music Hall of Fame". Not
too
> shabby for a B-level band!
Was it for the music or because they are survived being alive ? I think the
later. Ok band . But they would still be a class B opening act for the
Stones IMO .
lbrt...@aol.com
I never heard Zimmerman sing (only whine & sneer through a mic, or try
to imitate a ol' white sharecropper talking?). ;-)
lbrt...@aol.com
The Repair Guy
>I never heard Zimmerman sing (only whine &
>sneer through a mic, or try to imitate a ol' white
>sharecropper talking?). ;-)
I remember the first time I heard "Lay Lady
Lay" - I couldn't believe it was him. Actual
on-pitch singing!
The Repair Guy
>"The Repair Guy" <repair...@yahoo.com> wrote...
>> rell...@beasty.com (rello) wrote:
>>
>>>have you ever seen the stones live?
>>
>> If you're talking to me, no, I haven't.
>
>Then it's kind of like someone telling us the elephant
>isn't a very impressive animal without ever having
>seen one.
I guess they're wasting their time making recordings,
then. Waste of time & money, eh? What idiots.
I've heard live Stones recordings. They sound even
worse live than in the studio, to my ears.
>At their worst the Stones deliver a professional show
>and everybody gets their money's worth, at their best
>I've seen them send 20,000 people into orbit, and
>Jagger is a huge part of that, *nobody* is a better
>frontman.
I've admitted Jagger is a good front man. I give up,
already. Stop. My beef is with his "singing".
>> I notice you don't say much about his singing :-)
>
>Keith Richards isn't the greatest guitar player on
>earth either, there are plenty of guitarists who can
>play circles around him, so what?
Same goes for Joe Perry.
>Charlie Watts is quite a restrained drummer, lots
>of drummers play with way more pizzazz, so what?
Same goes for Joey Kramer.
>And there are vocalists who in an academic sense
>are better than Jagger, more range, more control,
>in theory they sound way better, so what?
"Academic sense"? "In theory"?
>The point you are missing is that together the Stones
>are way more than the sum of their parts,
So are a lot of bands, Aerosmith included.
>Jagger/Richards have written dozens of songs that
>bands like Aerosmith can only wish they had written,
I've admitted they've written some good songs.
>Keith the decent but not spectacular guitarist created
>riffs and songs that damn near every kid who picks up
>a guitar wants to learn,
Kids learn Aerosmith licks, too, and Chuck Berry,
and Ritchie Blackmore, and....
>Charlie Watts the non-showoff drummer is the rock
>upon which the most successful touring band in history
>rests.
Joey Kramer is simple & solid, too.
>Individually they might not be spectacular, but together
>the Stones have been blessed with a chemistry that
>made them so good there are only a handful of bands
>like the Beatles, the Who and Led Zeppelin on the
>same level.
>And again, I *like* Aerosmith, but take away personal
>preference and you have no grounds to compare them
>with the Stones, they haven't had anything like as many
>hit songs or sold as many albums or as many concert
>seats or had even a fraction of the influence on the public
>or other musicians.
They're both derivative, they've both made a lot of
money (granted, the Stones have made more) ,
neither has world-class instrumentalists... but one
band has a singer at the bar band level.
What makes a good rock band, in your opinion?
Selling tickets?
>How many books have been written about Aerosmith
>as opposed to the Stones? Amazon gives us 67
>'books' hits for Aerosmith, and that includes calendars
>and sheet music etc.. Now do the same search on the
>Stones, yikes, 458 hits, even with the false positives
>filtered out that still leaves hundreds of books just
>about this one band. Logically, if Aerosmith was so
>much better than the Stones, would music writers over
>several decades have missed that and for some
>unknowable reason decided to focus on the Stones
>instead?
Obvious conclusion: the Stones have been popular
longer, made more money, etc. Writers write about
popular bands.
Do you remember Paganini? He was so good in his
day that people literally thought he was possessed
by the devil... 136 hits.
>Shit, get a dozen rock musicians together and pour
>some beer into them and then ask them to list the
>three bands they consider the most influencial in
>rock. Depending on the ages of the musicians
>you'll see some variations, younger guys will include
>Nirvana while older guys might list the Who for
>example, but it's a dead-easy bet that you'll hear
>the Rolling Stones named a hell of a lot more than
>Aerosmith
Only in certain age groups. With people I know,
things break down into Beatles fans or Stones fans.
FWIW, choosing between the two I'm a Beatles fan.
>for the simple reason that for at least half their career
>the Stones have been seen as innovators and trend-
>setters while Aerosmith has almost exclusively been
>a derivative band that while pleasant enough in their
>own way had nothing new to say. The Stones
>*invented* what Aerosmith copied.
Richards admits building from Chuck Berry. You can
hear black American music influence in the Stones.
They didn't "invent" anything. They built on what was
there and made it rock a little more, same as Aerosmith.
>Now I know I'm coming across as bashing Aerosmith,
>but that's hard to avoid since you insist on the
>comparison. And if you wanna burn a candle in front
>of a Steve Tyler shrine, cool, that's nice.
I only started out here comparing one aging geezer-
rock band to another. I don't think he has the best
voice in rock, and I don't think I'd even like the guy.
But his voice has held up over the years, and you
can't be Joe Schmoe in a garage band and sing
Aerosmith songs (in the right key, anyway).
>But take a moment to consider how many pages
>are devoted to the Stones in the history of rock as
>opposed to how many lines Aerosmith gets, your
>personal preferences aside, there has got to be a
>reason for the imbalance,
Sure. As I admitted, the Stones made more money
and were bigger longer.
>to go on claiming the bronze medalist was *really*
>better than the guy with the gold medal around his
>neck is more than a little odd.
Ah... you're using commercial success to define
"better".
Somebody
On 26-Jan-2005, The Repair Guy <repair...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I've heard live Stones recordings. They sound even
> worse live than in the studio, to my ears.
Impossible.
> I've admitted they've written some good songs.
Heart of Stone was a good song. Actually, they had a few from that era.
"Last Time" was pretty good, in it's day. They still haven't written one to
top "Satisfaction" though.
> What makes a good rock band, in your opinion?
> Selling tickets?
Selling tickets and records?
> Only in certain age groups. With people I know,
> things break down into Beatles fans or Stones fans.
> FWIW, choosing between the two I'm a Beatles fan.
I never understood how anyone could compare the two. That's just crazy. It
was never even close, on any level, any way you want to look at it. If it
hadn't been for The Beatles opening the door, I'm sure the Stones would have
never risen to the heights they did. And how could they possibly even
compare? Song-writing? Vocals? Instrumentals? CLASS?? There's a reason
why Lennon and McCartney will be forever regarded as the #1 songwriting team
of the 20th century.
DGDevin
> I guess they're wasting their time making recordings,
> then. Waste of time & money, eh? What idiots.
> I've heard live Stones recordings. They sound even
> worse live than in the studio, to my ears.
You have a point there, with the exception of Get Yer Ya Yas Out the Stones'
official live catalog is pretty lame. Now, there are some old bootlegs that
tell a very different story, but since you're the fellow who is happy to
dismiss something without ever having experienced it, I'm probably wasting
your time even mentioning the subject.
> I've admitted Jagger is a good front man. I give up,
> already. Stop. My beef is with his "singing".
You're still missing the point, the best voice in the world is meaningless
with weak material poorly presented, Jagger is superb because he's a package
deal -- great songs, outstanding showmanship and a voice that works with
what he's doing. Opera singers have the finest and most carefully trained
voices in the world, so does that mean they'd make good rock singers? No,
of course not, look at the big picture, there is more than just the voice
involved.
> What makes a good rock band, in your opinion?
> Selling tickets?
That's obviously only part of it, aside from the music itself style counts,
and originality, and passion, and impact on the public and critics and other
musicians, all of it together makes a great band. And that's why the
argument we've seen here, "What about Britney Spears, she sells lots of CDs,
so is she great?" is so meaningless, because she lacks the other qualities
that truly great performers have. But at some point, yes, a band that has
sold that many albums and tickets for forty freakin' years can be presumed
to be more than average, to claim that a guy who has filled arenas for four
decades is a lousy singer is right up there with claiming that a quarterback
with half a dozen Superbowl rings on his hands really can't throw the ball
too well, it is on the face of it an absurd statement.
> Ah... you're using commercial success to define
> "better".
No, I'm using forty years of being on top to define better, but whatever, I
think we're just running laps at this point, you go listen to Toys in the
Attic and I'll put on Exile on Main Street and we'll both be happy, I might
also have a beer.
wb
"DGDevin" <dgd...@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote in message
news:44JJd.26552$8u5....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Keith Richards isn't the greatest guitar player on earth either, there are
> plenty of guitarists who can play circles around him, so what?
> songs that bands like Aerosmith can only wish they had written,
Having published over 400 songs certainly makes KR a great guitar player,
granted even if he only remembers the last 30 or so ... ;) There are
slingers
like Eric Johnson, SVR, Clapton , but blazing a solo for 64 bars and
writing
a song with a hook that has content is a skill way beyond 99% of the crap
called
music today. He best summed up his style/attitude as : "5 strings , 4
fingers , and 1 asshole ...
what else do you expect. from me ". But - unlike Jagger, he loves to tour
and play.
The Repair Guy
I agree.
Choosing between the two bands can be a sort
of litmus test - to see what sort of musician you're
talking to. If someone says they preferred the
Stones, I don't automatically think they're tone
deaf. It tells me that they don't value harmony
or singing in general. Then I ask further to see
what the person _does_ value. Usually it's the
whole attitude the Stones projected - the bad
boy drug addict image.
The Repair Guy
>"The Repair Guy" <repair...@yahoo.com> wrote...
>> I guess they're wasting their time making recordings,
>> then. Waste of time & money, eh? What idiots.
>> I've heard live Stones recordings. They sound even
>> worse live than in the studio, to my ears.
>
>You have a point there, with the exception of Get Yer
>Ya Yas Out the Stones' official live catalog is pretty
>lame. Now, there are some old bootlegs that tell a
>very different story, but since you're the fellow who is
>happy to dismiss something without ever having
>experienced it, I'm probably wasting your time even
>mentioning the subject.
My opinion of the Stones is based on a lot of
recorded music. Maybe they're better live.
But Jagger's still a hack singer.
>> I've admitted Jagger is a good front man. I give
>> up, already. Stop. My beef is with his "singing".
>
>You're still missing the point, the best voice in the
>world is meaningless with weak material poorly
>presented, Jagger is superb because he's a
>package deal -- great songs, outstanding
>showmanship and a voice that works with what he's
>doing. Opera singers have the finest and most
>carefully trained voices in the world, so does that
>mean they'd make good rock singers? No, of
>course not, look at the big picture, there is more
>than just the voice involved.
I can see past the lousy singing. What I see is
some good songs, and mediocre playing.
I see an image projected that people obviously
like. My theory is that the majority of the Stones'
fans are non-musicians, but that's only a guess.
Did you see that Chuck Berry tribute on TV that
Richards organized? Berry plays a lick for
Richards at least ten times. Richards can't even
hear that he's not getting it right.
And Chuck can't even tune a guitar, but that's
a whole other beef...
>> What makes a good rock band, in your opinion?
>> Selling tickets?
>
>That's obviously only part of it, aside from the music
>itself style counts, and originality, and passion, and
>impact on the public and critics and other musicians,
>all of it together makes a great band.
>And that's why the argument we've seen here, "What
>about Britney Spears, she sells lots of CDs, so is she
>great?" is so meaningless, because she lacks the
>other qualities that truly great performers have.
I was only pointing out how useless it is to equate
commercial success with talent, since you were
whanging away about ticket & album sales.
Britney, with her truly mediocre voice, has managed
to seize attention and make a lot of money by
projecting an image. Like Mick. (before you point
it out, I know she won't have the longevity or the
lasting songs)
>But at some point, yes, a band that has sold that
>many albums and tickets for forty freakin' years
>can be presumed to be more than average, to
>claim that a guy who has filled arenas for four
>decades is a lousy singer is right up there with
>claiming that a quarterback with half a dozen
>Superbowl rings on his hands really can't throw
>the ball too well, it is on the face of it an absurd
>statement.
The analogy would be good if the quarterback's
arm was somehow helped by his public image.
>> Ah... you're using commercial success to define
>> "better".
>
>No, I'm using forty years of being on top to define
>better, but whatever, I think we're just running laps
>at this point, you go listen to Toys in the Attic and
>I'll put on Exile on Main Street and we'll both be
>happy,
Actually, I don't listen to Aerosmith that much.
>I might also have a beer.
That explains a lot (I don't drink) :-)
Pri Vacy
Can I jerknoodle while you fist me?
Pri Vacy
Pri Vacy
Pri Vacy
James Brown, Chuck Berry, Bo Diddly, Jerry Lee Lewis...
Americans, ALL, ---ya simpering sack gargler!