Beatles or Stones (or Kinks? Monkees? Herman's Hermits?) (1 Viewer)

[mjp]

Yoko was an artist, not a singer, and Lennon was an idiot to foist her caterwauling on those who would listen for more than 10 seconds. And what is it with ex-Beatles? McCartney did the same thing (anyone who has heard that tape of Linda McCartney's isolated vocal mic knows what I mean).

Having said that, I admire Yoko for not cashing in on John's legacy, or allowing others to do so. She could make a billion dollars this year just by putting out a slew of products with Lennon's mug on them. But you don't see that kind of exploitation where Lennon is concerned, and you have Yoko to thank for that.

Compared to someone like Rita Marley, and those 500 Marley kids, who are happy to stick Bob's name on everything from an expensive beachfront resort to commercials for maxi-pads. Really. That kind of behavior should put Yoko into perspective, and make you realize that she's done a good thing, despite any "singing" you've had to endure over the years.

 

[homeless mind]

Yoko has always been very protective of Lennon's legacy. I'm not sure I'd agree with what I've read about how she treated Juilan. But that's personal, and probably shouldn't be out in the public laundry "” as there's certainly some backstory.

And how many, "great" bands have shitty songs, anyway? Even BUK has shitty poems. So if this was a science experiment, or a showing of love, who gives a fuck?

Yoko has proved more than a few things in her life, and one was her true love for JL by not selling him out. Go Yoko!

As far as Rita Marley, that is just plain wrong. Especially what you wrote on Smog, about her not taking care of people that trusted Bob. A fucking shame.

(Note: I like that caterwauling line -- hmmm.)

 

[d gray]

i know, that linda mac tape is brutal - they made good use of it on howard stern. her singing taints alot of wings stuff for me and i always admired lennon for having the good sense to not have yoko sing much on his tunes. rest her soul, but linda made for a bad singer.

 

[slimedog]

I was at that concert of the Dead that MJP was at and let me tell you that was the best tuning up I have ever heard, every string being twisted was like a thousand peace vibrations resonating through every pore of our existence. And you were there for the best part! You're lucky you weren't there for the actual songs, if you want to call taking "I've Been Working On the Railroad," and playing it for 47 minutes a song. I could hardly play my tambourine and do my fairy dance I was so excited when they started tuning up. And people like to bring up how us Deadheads are on drugs but how else were we going to stand this music?

By the way I was there with Buk's dad and he said he hated it and preferred the Lennon Sisters (no relation to John).

 

[mjp]

I guess all I needed was some context in order to understand. Now I get it.

 

[chronic]

Context... or acid.

 

[Lord Sorth]

I first heard the Beatles on the radio in 1963 and on that day my life changed forever. I loved the Stones too in London in the late sixties and seventies. But the Stones were like good mates, the Beatles were my brothers.

 

[skiroomalum]

Thus sayeth the Lord.

 

[chronic]

A rock god? No, a silly old phoney! As Jagger turns 70, still basking in adulation from sell-out concerts, a top historian has a provocative view.

 

[Lord Sorth]

Chronic, that is so funny, and so true. Cop a load of this:

[This video is unavailable.]

- the lads in drag looking like Monty Python mums. 'What a drag it is getting old.' 'Well, they didn't play that at Glastonbury,' said my wife. And you can see why. But still, they are dear boys. On the night my wife and I met, which is now just over 38 years ago, in North London, during a heatwave, we danced all night to the Stones and I stole a rose for her from someone's front garden. Happy days.

 

[mjp]

A rock god? No, a silly old phoney! As Jagger turns 70, still basking in adulation from sell-out concerts, a top historian has a provocative view.

The Rolling Stones are an easy target, as are most of those geriatric 60s and 70s rockers who are still out there hitting the stage and cashing the check. It's a nostalgia show. The problem is, if you're 20 or 30 years old and you go see the Rolling Stones, Aerosmith, Alice, Ozzy, Iggy, et al, you are seeing an approximation of what made them noteworthy in the first place, a lifelike recreation, and that's what makes the whole thing more than a little sad.

I'm not saying that rock and roll is for the young, blah blah blah, but these rich old men regurgitating the same set they played in 1984 are a joke. The only people from the 60s I'd pay to see today are Bob Dylan or Neil Young, those type of guys who still stir shit up. Still try to create. The Rolling Stones haven't written a good song in 30 years. They haven't had to so they haven't tried to. They don't want to upset their investors.

As far as most other kinds of music are concerned, the older the performers get, the better they get. Jazz, reggae, country, blues - most of those guys will kick your ass harder when they are 60 than they could when they were 30. Because they just gain skill and strength the longer they play. The more skilled you get at playing rock and roll, the less interesting it is. Rock and roll isn't supposed to be a demonstration of chops, it's supposed to be an animalistic cage match for wound up teenagers.

 

[Purple Stickpin]

Back in my mid-30s, when I was actively playing jazz gigs, I had a few opportunities to play with some guys who were in their 60s and 70s. It was mind-blowing how fresh and original their playing was. As long as I knew the material, it was almost effortless playing with them. Their energy, drive, and originality literally lifted my feet off the floor. After 50-odd years of playing, they had essentially evolved into creative masters, and yet they were virtually unknown outside of their jazz circle. I wish I'd had more of those experiences, but the few I had are among the greatest moments of my life.

 

[Short Bus]

What else are you supposed to do if you love music and people want to hear you as much as you want to play?
Keith Mick Ronnie and Charlie have all done solo projects that show they still yearn to create and could without the others.
They went through the fire and are still here-thats fucking great and the entire circle of 60's musicians have a bond that should be celebrated-is it the best way?? Who knows really since being an artist in the 60's now being 60+ is a new thing with no history.
Does it seem crass and overtly nostalgic at time perhaps but never to me. I watch Keith- the Stones and the members of the DEAD (and others)and enjoy every second knowing the planet will be a little less when each one passes. To me thats why Neil still plays with CSNY. To keep that Hippie Dream alive!

 

[mjp]

Well, okay, but I wasn't talking about artists and musicians, I was talking about rock and roll and what it is. Two different things.

The Rolling Stones don't continue to tour because they love doing it (I guarantee you they do not), they continue to tour because they are financially obligated to each other and to ROLLING STONES INC., and frankly, if someone drags a steamer trunk full of hundred dollar bills into the room and says, "Just go tour for a couple months and you can have this," most people are going to say, "Wait right here, I'll go pack!"

You don't have to take my word for it, a lot of those guys have said they only tour out of obligation to the hundreds of people whose livelihood depends on them. I've read interviews with Pete Townsend and Keith Richards where they say that quite directly and without apology. And there's no shame in that. But call it what it is - it's an industry, it isn't rock and roll. It's entertainment, like Cats on Broadway or Bugs Bunny at the Symphony at the Hollywood Bowl.

 

[skiroomalum]

Interesting though that the Stones still (or until recently)
played some gigs at clubs as well as the stadia shows. I've never seen them live and probably never will but those small
shows must be amazing.

 

[Bruno Dante]

A rock god? No, a silly old phoney! As Jagger turns 70, still basking in adulation from sell-out concerts, a top historian has a provocative view.

That's pretty much spot on and I love their music (up to about 1974 / Out of Time anyway). I get the feeling that they're obsessed with money (Jagger in particular). I find it pretty distasteful when people go around sowing their wild oats and leaving kids behind that they can't be arsed to look after too. No matter how rich / famous you are and no matter how many women are throwing themselves at you that is still the behaviour of a grade-A cunt in my view.

 

[Skygazer]

I find it pretty distasteful when people go around sowing their wild oats and leaving kids behind that they can't be arsed to look after too. No matter how rich / famous you are and no matter how many women are throwing themselves at you that is still the behaviour of a grade-A cunt in my view.

Oooo! that's harsh, oddly I'm listening to them right now whilst perusing, you cut me deep. If you use that criteria 2/3 of the rock bands would be sucked down a black hole never to be seen again.I agree about them turning it in, it's way past time, no expert Bruno, bit I think he's on pretty good terms with his children, that they have a serial shagger for a dad, well they seem to have accepted it. I agree that men who walk away from their responsibilities as fathers financially and emotionally are cretins.