|
|
Post by maarts on Mar 16, 2007 7:19:54 GMT -5
Gonna watch the expanded version of Cocksucker Blues this weekend. Hope it lives up to the hype!
|
|
|
|
Post by loudaab on Mar 16, 2007 12:34:40 GMT -5
Theres just a lack of originality in everything I do, that makes me uninteresting. For once I agree. THey have maybe a dozen songs throughout their career that I like. The rest are like background music at best... Also: " If there wasn't a _________, we'd have to make him up" God, can we please retire this cliche? It's terribly overused by wankers who repeat what TV persoalities say in an attempt to seem informed and its absolutley fucking meaningless!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Ryosuke on Mar 16, 2007 12:52:04 GMT -5
THey have maybe a dozen songs throughout their career that I like. The rest are like background music at best... Also: " If there wasn't a _________, we'd have to make him up" God, can we please retire this cliche? It's terribly overused by wankers who repeat what TV persoalities say in an attempt to seem informed and its absolutley fucking meaningless!!! God, who the fuck cares. Shut up. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Mar 16, 2007 13:03:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Mar 16, 2007 13:13:17 GMT -5
I like it when Mick pretends to play guitar like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Mar 16, 2007 13:15:19 GMT -5
Look at Keef, he's all "What the fuck is Mick doing?".
FTR, Mick's actually a pretty decent guitar player.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Mar 16, 2007 13:35:56 GMT -5
Perhaps, but what's the point? None of their songs need 3 guitars.
That's a nice looking SG he's got though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Mar 16, 2007 13:59:39 GMT -5
It's for when they cover Sweet Home Alabama.
|
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Mar 16, 2007 15:44:27 GMT -5
" If there wasn't a _________, we'd have to make him up" God, can we please retire this cliche? It's terribly overused by wankers who repeat what TV persoalities say in an attempt to seem informed and its absolutley fucking meaningless!!! It's a variation on a famous quote from Voltaire, dude. |
|
|
|
Post by loudaab on Mar 17, 2007 11:27:12 GMT -5
Voltaire was talking about Christianity though when he said that. Christiainity IS something that could be made up, whereas Keith Richard is not--Richards is an actual person.
Voltaire was cool, but he also said something like the Bible will be forgotten and eliminated within a hundred years (this was back in the 18th century and the Bible is still one of the better selling books around). THe point being, just because Voltaire said it, doesnt mean it cant be total bullshit and meaningless...
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Mar 17, 2007 14:13:52 GMT -5
Yes, the Bible is still around and there is no signs of it to be forgotten or eliminated. He was wrong about that.
And yet, his claim about the Bible makes more sense than your claim about the Rolling Stones.
Just because you post it on a blog doesn't mean it could be total bullshit and meaningless.
|
|
|
|
Post by bowiglou on Mar 17, 2007 15:27:52 GMT -5
Hi everyone..as one who initially saw the Stones on the Red Skeleton hour circa 1964 and early on fell in love with 12 x 5 and Aftermath, I never really took seriously all the Beatles vs. Stones comparisons one frequenctly read in such teeny-bopper mags as 16 or Tiger Beat...I thought, even as a kid, they were just two very different and talented bands....however, I will admit when they came up with Beggars Banquet/Let it Bleed/Get your ya yas out/sticky fingers/exile on main street frm 68-72 they were a force to reckon with...........yes, they may not have had an original bone (as Rod Stewart pre-disco era had to contend with also), but they had the nucleus of just a great rock and roll band......yes, they may continue to tour the same songs, but I've seen them twice in the last decade and they are still great entertainers...........one of you made a good point earlier that given the relative youth of rock and roll (birth date 1954?), that we don't know how to deal with 60 year old rockers, as opposed to Jazz or Blues or classical musicians where aging is not a pejorative..........my wife saw Clapton the other night (and yes, she admitted the average age was bordering on those who were valid members of AARP) but she said, especially when JJ Cale shared the stage, "old" songs such as Layla and After Midnight were as galvanizing as ever.....................
I have no problem with rockers rocking until their demise...it is their livelihood, and yes it may sound odd to hear a 60 year old sing 'satisfaction', but I don't begrudge them for that....
|
|
|
|
Post by loudaab on Mar 17, 2007 17:43:00 GMT -5
Yes, the Bible is still around and there is no signs of it to be forgotten or eliminated. He was wrong about that. And yet, his claim about the Bible makes more sense than your claim about the Rolling Stones. Just because you post it on a blog doesn't mean it could be total bullshit and meaningless. Ofcourse it doesnt and I would never make such a claim. However, I did give specific reasons as to why I have a beef with the Rolling Stones--and I gave sepcific examples to back that up. I also pointed out WHY Voltaire's comments about the Bible were bullshit. You on the other hand are implying what I've said on my blog was bullshit, yet you provide no logic, no examples, no proof, nothing but gradeschool 'I know you are but what am I' kind of verbage. Okay, you've stated that you dont agree with my comments about the ROlling Stones. Yet you havent been articulate enought o explain why. So, why the hell should I give a rat's patoootie about your opinion? |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Mar 17, 2007 17:46:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Mar 17, 2007 19:46:24 GMT -5
Ofcourse it doesnt and I would never make such a claim. However, I did give specific reasons as to why I have a beef with the Rolling Stones--and I gave sepcific examples to back that up. I've read the blog and while you no doubt have a serious beef with them, your examples are dodgy, like: - The Stones start writing their own songs right after the Beatles start writing their own - The Beatles record "Yesterday" a song that uses strings which was a huge deal at the time and the Stones quickly follow with "As Tears Go By". ~The Beatles use a sitar in "Norwegian Wood" and the Stones follow suit by using a sitar in "Paint it Black". Now I know Lennon publicly made it known that he thought the band imitated his (there was no ill will between either party, though). But how the fuck can you be sure when the Stones wrote their songs in relation to when the Beatles wrote theirs? And how do you know the Stones used certain instruments to ape what the other band did, instead of deciding the instruments would work best for the song? All I got from your blog (in these 3 claims in particular) is a bunch a statements, highly opinionated, with no evidence. That's all well and good but what the fuck did that have to do a) the issue at hand or b)with Ken posting a variation of the quote? I implied that your blog had the potential to be bullshit, as much as Voltaire's comment on the Bible had the same potential (and, his views on Christianity aside, there's no evidence he actually made that statement). Just because he said it doesn't make it so, but the same rule applies to everyone else. And as far as myself having an obligation to prove your blog wrong: I've better things to do with my imagination. I thought the entire point of this thread was for you to post a link and put forth the idea that the Stones suck. I think the burden of proof is on you. I still don't think the Stones suck after reading your blog. I think certain similarities between both bands are coincidential (and I think the Stones mock the Beatles with their album covers and titles; no evidence, but I think that way) at best. The Stones still sound different and their material is just as engaging as that of the Beatles (especially when both bands were around). |
|
