Rolling Stones: Classic or Dud

I like albums that it seems other people don't think about much, like Emotional Rescue, Aftermath, It's Only Rock N' Roll, Tattoo You.

It seems like people get hung up on the "classics" they made, most of which appear on Hot Rocks 1 + 2, I guess. But, I almost shun all that stuff in favor of the laid back good-time blues riffing stuff. I've noticed most of the Hot Rocks stuff is kind of angry or emotional. There's plenty of Stones that sounds nothing like that stuff. I like it all, though.

Better to burn out than to fade away, as it goes...

They never released an album that was the equivalent of masturbation, as many bands do after a while. I can't think of one self-indulgent turd amongst the whole lot of 'em. They're a good, consistent rock band. Seems kind of ludicrous to deny that.

to me, they're classic enough that they've yet to expend all of their credit. i give them 'til 2010 before i may have to call them a dud.

I'll have to echo neuromancer's disregard for charges that the Stones "ripped off" the blues. Sure, they utilized the blues, played with it, turned it over under sideways down, and made it unspeakably boring as well, but they never made false claims to its invention -- except perhaps when the stole "The Last Time" from the Staple Singers and credited "Love In Vain" to "Woody Payne" instead of Robert Johnson.

when you factor in all of the contributors, with the obvious exception of party-pooper ned raggett, freaky trigger becomes THE pop site. we write about madonna and destiny's child and janet jackson, which allows tom to pen lengthy examinations of mazarin and charlemagne palestine. (which i prefer, actually, because when he goes straight pop, we get *shudder* that jessica simpson "interview," post-modernism that'd make eggers proud.) he'll struggle to find the pop in these artists, but will ignore the far more obvious pop in artists like the stones because they're "classic rock" and are white boys playin' the blues.

I dont like rock and roll as an attitude much - it seems played out, of its time, interesting for sure but as inspirational and relevant to me as flappers are, or young edwardians, or any other historical cultural movement.

Simon Reynolds once wrote that, for him, there's something resolutely unlovable about The Who; I feel that way about the Stones, but even stronger.

Anyway I suspect that if you cross-reference the outcome of this thread with The Smiths thread you'll very likely find out that you either like The Stones or The Smiths (who indeed seem like the perfect anti-thesis of The Stones: weak, safe, effeminate, boring, etc.)

I think after 30 years it's hard to imagine anything safer than the Stones, too. Of course they were 'dangerous' in their time, but this is what I mean by the historical interest of rock and roll. (I'd hardly claim any different for the Smiths, at least musically.)

Patrick - almost everyone in the focus group gives a 9 or 10 to two or three pop tunes. It's just the marks then drop because of the averaged-out nature of things. And R&B and Hip-Hop do well, which pretty much define the pop charts now in the way that - as you rightly say - the Stones did 30 years ago. (I think "Satisfaction" is a genius pop single.) But by all means, everyone on this forum join in next time, please. The more the merrier.

Jagger's Voice? It's a question of mannerisms. Some mannerisms I like - some I don't like. Jagger's, in general, I don't.

omar: well, i love both the stones and the smiths. ;) however, i reckon that if i got into the latter before the former, that might not be the case: if my teen years were soundtracked by the smiths, i imagine my tastes might be quite different.

i don't think it's possible to love the stones and not, at the very least, *like* jagger's voice. it's very non-threatening: you can shout along with the music and never have to worry about sounding worse than him. he's one of those singers i wish would always shout because they're voices are really awful when they sing, though he wasn't totally without his charms as a singer.

Dan, the original question was:

"brash, brassy rock gods or bloated, pathetic blues thieves?"



and...



Ally said they'd turned into duds merely by sticking around so long.



So, I was just addressing two ideas at once. (First of all, how could 

they be bloated? They're all scrawny mofos!)



As far as the self-indulgent speil, what I meant was that they stayed 

true to their formula, making decent blues rock music. Yes, I know the 

whole rebellious schtick is self-indulgent, being that they do what 

they wanna do, etc., but I meant, they never produced some barely-even-

music artistic piece of crap halfassedly, like so many other bands.



Sure, you could say "Their Satanic Majesties Request" is a self-

indulgent piece of crap, but I happen to like it quite a bit and it's 

not too different from their other stuff.



"2000 Man" is a great tune off "Satanic", covered decently by a punk 

band called the Groovie Ghoulies and "Summer Romance" off the 1981 

"Emotional Rescue" is a great tune covered by another punk band called 

New Bomb Turks. If you listen to both cover tunes, without any prior 

knowledge of the Rolling Stones, you'd swear they were from the same 

album, probably made in the late '70's. And yet, those two songs span 

almost 20 years.



Point being, their "artsy-fartsy" stuff *and* their later "dud" 

material are still, basically, the same great kind of rock and roll as 

ever.



Now, THAT was a tangent, Dan!
― , Thursday, 22 March 2001 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)  link

ANYHOW, lots of replies. First of, I think it's "ludicrious" to claim that anyone who thinks that the Stones AREN'T consistent is wrong. You like them. I generally do not. End of story. It's like me telling the entirety of the Manics thread that they are idiots because several of them preferred EMG to THB. I mean, clearly I disagree so vehemently that I could spit blood out my mouth thinking about it, but they aren't being ludicrious or stupid. It's just what they think.

The Stones to me are a great singles band when they were good, but their albums tended to bore me. And yes, Kris has a great point: they were designed to be indulgent masturbatory rock. You could make a case that all rock is meant to do that - I mean, can someone please explain to me what albums are if NOT indulgent? You aren't exactly curing cancer if you're doing music, despite loads of artists' insistance that if you sing about changing the world, it is the same as doing something about it... ;)

And no, it did not take the Stones, for me, 20 albums to wear out their welcome. They wear it out, for me, about halfway through Hot Rocks. If the dadrock band is not called "MANICS" or "WHO", I am not interested, to give full disclosure. I only like the Stones in theory, because Mick Jagger is such a talentless, ugly man that it's fascinating - it's the ultimate triumph of someone who just really WANTED to be famous tricking the world into making him famous, based solely on personality. That's a kick ass thing, and he's great and fabulous for it; if he wasn't a "singer" he'd have been a tv presenter or actor, just because he really wanted to be a star. It of course works both ways - Mick might be ugly and unable to hit a note with a hammer, but the rest of the band are so dull that no one would've bought them without Mick.

As for FT: what are you talking about, "when you factor in all the contributors..."? As far as I can tell, 90% of any activity on this site comes from Tom. What, because you, Solinger, posted a Destiny's Child piece (which, I might add, is like the 5th piece on that song on NYLPM - can we give it a rest people? At least review a DIFFERENT DC song, look for their album on Napster or something), suddenly it's all pop and sunshine and glory? Tom does post a lot about pop music because there is a lot about pop music on this site and the contributors here are LAZY SODS, including myself, who don't write anything a good portion of the time. I mean, what is Pop Eye if not about Pop? Poor Tom, getting maligned on being a wuss rocker when he does so much work. :)

And where do I fit in, not really liking the Stones and REALLY hating the Smiths? :)

as far as the albums go, i was trying to be fair to both the manics and the stones. clearly you could give or take albums, depending on your particular opinion!

the stones have accumulated a great "legend" over the years and, going back to the weezer thread, very little of it fuels my interest in the group. besides jagger and everything surrounding him, who is a source of personal inspiration.

my comments about f.t. were meant to be taken as tongue-in-cheek. clearly none of us would be here, that is to say in this forum, if it weren't for tom and his ideas about pop.

and you fit in as that very rare hybrid, the manics-who worshipper. ;)

As for me being a party-pooper -- hm, you mean my disdain for singles last year, or my disdain in general? ;-)

Woops, was that fontswitch my fault? I forgot to close the endtag. I just thought it screwed up my message, but it appears to be screwing up everyones?? I just ended the tag, so maybe it'll look normal again?

A long time ago, galaxies away, I went through a brief period of trying to like them, but everything about them rubbed me the wrong way: voice, style, lyrics, attitude, general crankiness. I just couldn't stand them -- they always sounded like a glorified dumb bar- band. I gave up, and then I realized that it's okay to dislike bands that rock critics think are classic.

And I like the Smiths, so I guess that makes me a pussy.

Some further thoughts: for me The Stones are year zero, i don't care about Elvis or any other blues guys they ripped off. and with year zero's you just need a lot of mythology, I would say mythology + intensity + riffs = rock 'n roll. Now regardless of The Stones becoming old farts, I immediatly forget when I put on "Beggar's Banquet" or "Let it "Bleed", for that moment you live in that record and what you get is: psychotic cops cracking skulls, cities burning, lots of knife-pulling, mountains of drugs, under-age girls, armies of rapists flooding the streets, the danger of getting hit by a stray bullit at any moment. Now, in real life I'm a very sweet, liberal, no- violent guy, but this shit excites me. :) Anyone remember the way Guy Pellaert drew them in "Rock Dreams"? A bunch of English dandy's dressed up in SS uniforms drinking tea with naked little girls on their laps. So you see why I don't really find The Smiths very interesting ;)

With the Stones though, the cult of Mick n' Keef is far more important than the actual music. The court cases, publicity stunts, Brian Jones' death, Altamont etc all loom large over the music. The press seem to perpetuate this to such a ridiculous level - I mean who wants to hear about Altamont again and again? If you strip all this away and get back to the music it's pretty obvious that Jagger is a fairly average singer and that a lot of their material lacks the kind of excitement that you might expect it would have if you'd read about it first.

Also I was talking more about the mythology in the music itself, the images of the lyrics (although eventually the spilled out into the real world). All those tales of debauchery eventually become stale, though Nick Kent's 'Twilight Babylon'(in The Dark Stuff) is a great read about the Stones in the 70s, very sick and amusing. Also some brilliant characterizations esp. of Mick 'n Bianca Jagger (man, did he see through them :)

As for Rock Dreams, it's a great book but the whole Godstar decadence trip on the Stones didn't wash with me. It would have worked better for Led Zep I think. Generally though it makes the best case for classic rock and pop of any book out there - some of the images are just magnificent, capturing everything you need to know about a star in one image (the Brian Wilson one stands out).

aside from the odd single ("under my thumb" may be my favourite), a ho-hum dud i wouldn't bother thinking about if they weren't so acclaimed. stiff and wooden rhythm section, mechanical faux-blues vocals. give me the stooges any day. "hand in glove," "handsome devil," or "what she said" are infinitely heavier, more biting, harder rocking, and more dangerous (since when is macho more threatening than effeminate?). in fact, the idea of the stones, an institution as thoroughly mainstream as kellogg's corn flakes, being threatening at all is positively hilarious.

ah well. better get back to stephin merritt and iancu dumitrescu.

I'm prepared to throw my theory out, although since i was re-reading The Dark Stuff I noticed how Kent was fascinated by Mozzer's fear for thugs, crowds and rude violent behaviour (I put 2 and 2 together and built myself a hypothesis, nothing to serious, so I'll take those comments on the wooden rhythm section & the heavyosity of The Smiths with a pinch of salt).

"Oh, I bet they'd be billionaire marrionette ghouls by now..."

But Eminem has come along to CHANGE all that!

Pretty awful, by and large.

Jody Beth - comparing a Jagger vocal and a B&S vocal seems odd - the one is operatic (i.e. meaning lies in what he does with the voice), the other theatrical (i.e. meaning lies in the relation the words and phrases have to 'natural' speech),

good point...don't know how i would anwer this.

good point...don't know how i would answer this.

Good answer, if a bit glib.

Does your taste in rock music run to the hard stuff at all? (Thinking of all the "wimp rock" stuff mentioned above.)

I don't think I have a "taste in rock music" anymore. I like noise and aggression in music sometimes but for me the particular form of 'rock' as The Stones et al. practised it seems to diminish the noise and aggression, straitjacket it and make it an 'attitude'. (I love attitudes and striking poses but this particular one is 35-plus years old and doesn't connect with me any more.)

That's not a hard-and-fast rule, of course - but take the Stooges, who you mentioned. I like them, but the bits of them that draw a bloodline from the Stones (Iggy as onstage 'Rock God', the extroverted attitude of Raw Power as opposed to the introversion of "No Fun"/"1969"/"Dirt") are the bits that stop me loving them. And on the G'n'R thread I suspect I'd be one of those beside-the-point people who like the band for their 'genre synthesis' (the New York Dolls, too), i.e. for their pop qualities. The Stones tracks I do like, I like for those qualities too.

Doesn't seem too odd to me... both bands play variations on fairly straightahead rock music, so it's not really apples and oranges. The B&S vocal sound is pretty monotonous, though; the entire range of emotions is sung EXACTLY the same way. It's not a very creative expression of feeling.

"Now let's remember the most fundamental fact of life, folks: everything good is the Beatles, everything awful and bogus and pretentious and gross and condescending is the Rolling Stones.
Okay?
Mainstream pop has routinely offered two paths... One is all about happy times and getting lucky and being not miserable, while the other, at its most fruitful, might lasoo you something venereal in the East Village if you yap long, loud, and boringly enough. If you're past age 23 and the latter is still your idea of fun then you probably thought Will Self's "My Idea of Fun" was too, and, pal-o-mine, all your ideas are wrong. About Everything."

- Mike McPadden in "Bubblegum Music is The Naked Truth"

Most of Jagger's lyrics, save the occasional stutter, bear more than a passing resemblance to normal conversational speech. I can't even think of a case where this isn't so.

The amount of "emotion" wasn't my point (and I fucking KNEW you lot would get on my case about that, which is why I hesitated to use the word) -- it was the range of things Jagger DOES with his voice within the course of a single song, vs. Murdoch, who doesn't offer the listener that much variety.

I don't KNOW whether Jagger would cover B&S well, but to be fair, the stately Britpop of Between the Buttons and Their Satanic Majesties Request isn't really very different from B&S, is it?

(Mind you I think the stately Britpop era of the Stones is staggeringly awful, loads loads worse than their 'rock' stuff (or even their disco stuff!) precisely because Mick sounds like he's having to squeeze his tongue into a corset for every song. How anyone can listen to "Lady Jane" and enjoy it is a great mystery to me.)

...just because he's sounding like he has to squeeze his tongue into a corset... it's quirky in a good way. also, it matches the harpsichord.

A good alternative to "Lady Jane" is "Play With Fire." Similar mood, similar era, similar theme, much less mannered, much more biting.

bubblegum is good too

it's a continuum

SO THERE.

And yeah yeah the beatles weren't all sunshine and lollipops any more than the stones were all needles and spoons. That's a total red herring. But I think the strength in McPadden's attack isn't that he hates that The Stones are dark, it's that he hates that they are bogus and ... pretentious and condescending and, love em as I do, THEY ARE!

As for the influence thing I guess the most obviously Stones-influenced artists I like are 70s Aerosmith, Patti Smith, and the Blue Oyster Cult. I recognize they're probably all more limited than the Stones but I like their voices or songs or beats more. They all added something else too. Zeppelin got into Stones-influenced territory sometimes but not usually on my favourite songs by them. Is "Houses Of the Holy" Stones-y? I don't know. I like "Night Flight" if that counts. On the whole, I'd probably take Zeppelin-influenced or Purple-influenced or Cream/Hendrix-influenced or even Velvets-influenced.

a late comment: I think there's more cross-pollenization than borrowing going on there: Dylan had certainly listened to "Aftermath" more than once by the time he made "Blood on the Tracks," say

Do you think Dylan stole anything from the Stones?

Does anyone know anything about the Rolling Stones remasters? I have a few of them - the cool digipack setup with great looking artwork and everything - but I just saw them in the store today and now they're all in shitty looking jewel cases with "DSD remasters" written down the side. Are there any differences between them, and are the digipack versions still available?

The digipacks are dual layer SACD/CD hybrids. Normal CD players will play the CD layer. Players that can handle SACD will play the SACD layer. I recently got an Oppo, a player which can seemingly play almost anything you put into it, and the SACD Stones are kind of mind blowing. I suspect the normal jewel case versions don't have the SACD layer. I don't know if the digipacks are still in print, but I'm sure you can get them if you look around.

!!!!!

rolling stones - miss you (morgan geist edit)

woah thats really good! and i usually hate shit like that.

chaki otm, it begins in this inauspicious way, but then, boom

I was listening to Out of Our Heads tonight. I never realized how directly the Velvets ripped off "Hitch Hike" on "There She Goes Again". I know that's not a Stones original, so I'm not sure if Lou Reed was lifting the riff from the original or if the Stones played it differently and that's what he ripped off. Anyhoo.

He ripped off the Stones' cover of the Marvin Gaye song, yeah.

ffs

yeah gff, it's a weird remix and maybe sort of redundant-sounding at first, but i think geist really just tweaked it a little and made it flow a little better. i think i just like how he adds that bass line during the spoken bit.

Man, I love Morgan Geist.

"He ripped off the Stones' cover of the Marvin Gaye song, yeah."

Nah, he ripped off the original.

i honestly didn't think you could make Miss You sound any better. morgan geist has done it again.

i gotta admit, that's a pretty solid remix

A++ bump

Larry Levan should have played it.

All positive comments on Geist remix OTM.
I just made a mixtape with the original at the beginning and the Geist remix at the end. Perfect bookends.

HA HA, YOU GUYS.

Universal will reissue 14 remastered albums from The Rolling Stones catalog this year.

The titles, spanning from 1971 to 2005, will be released in the U.K. on CD and as downloads in three separate batches in May, June and July. A special collector's box to hold all 14 albums will also be available.

"The Rolling Stones redefined music," says Universal Music Group International executive VP Max Hole. "By making these iconic albums available again — and retaining the essence of the original track listings and sleeve design — we believe that music fans will rediscover just why they are the world's greatest rock 'n' roll band."

A special version of the Stones' 1972 Exile On Main St. album is also apparently being planned, but no details have been announced about its release.

North American release dates for the reissues haven't been disclosed.

Here are the release dates for the Stones' reissues:

May 4:
Sticky Fingers
Goats Head Soup
It's Only Rock 'N' Roll
Black And Blue

June 8:
Some Girls
Emotional Rescue
Tattoo You
Undercover

July 13:
Dirty Work
Steel Wheels
Voodoo Lounge
Bridges To Babylon
A Bigger Bang

Amazon now has the first batch on-line released May 5 in America:

Sticky Fingers [ORIGINAL RECORDING REMASTERED]
The Rolling Stones (Artist)

List Price: $13.98

This title will be released on May 5, 2009.
Pre-order now!

Andrew Loog Oldham's early life as part of the Swinging Sixties set to be turned into an HBO series.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118007324.html?categoryid=14&cs=1

I need to rant. I made the ridiculous mistake of picking up a used copy of Robert Greenfield's 'Exile on Main Street: A Season In Hell With the Rolling Stones". I remember seeing it when it came out and thinking hmm, I ought to read that one. Bollocks. It's paining me to finish this piece of...whatever it is. Makes an excellent case for starting a "hot mess" genre. Ridiculous pandering cliches and TOO MANY BLOODY ADJECTIVES, and whatever scant 'events' are strung together with the drivel that I presume he calls 'writing'. I'm so annoyed by it now that just seeing the book on my nightstand puts me in a bad mood.
Blarg.

not read his exile book, but his book on the 1972 (?) US tour is about the best music book i've ever read

That's the crazy thing. I really really REALLY don't get what happened between the tour bio and this. It's like they were written by two different people.

but wasn't the tour book written in the 70s? and wasn't the exile book penned recently? i mean, compare and contrast 'exile' with, say, 'a bigger bang' or whatever the last stones lp was called... disappointed that it sounds like a stinker tho, because that 72 tour book is just great.

I got copies of the ABKCO 'Let It Bleed' and 'Beggars Banquet' vinyl reissues and the cd of 'Sticky Fingers. I'm blown away by how fresh these recordings sound. The vinyl issues especially. I'm sure I read somewhere that the vinyl cuts originate from the same mix as the SACD copies released. I downloaded FLAC's of the regular ABKCO non hybrid CD issues of 'Beggars Banquet' and 'Let it Bleed' for some comparison. On 'Sympathy for the Devil' the spikey lead guitar solo the sound on the CD is quite harsh and cutting but on the vinyl the solo's sound more balanced and better placed within the mix.

I was interested to read this;
"In August 2002, ABKCO Records reissued Beggars Banquet as a newly remastered LP and SACD/CD hybrid disk. This release corrected an important flaw in the original album by restoring each song to its proper, slightly faster speed. Due to an error in the mastering, Beggars Banquet was heard for over thirty years at a slower speed than it was recorded. This had the effect of altering not only the tempo of each song, but the song's key as well. These differences were subtle but important, and the remastered version is about 30 seconds shorter than the original release."

Either way the remastering on the 3 I've heard so far is revelatory. Up there with the recent Beatles reissues.

Aha! I did this with Exile last night. It does sound better, but tbh I couldn't tell you if it's the different mix or if the vinyl rip is better quality (I put it onto cd, and I don't even know if I've destroyed any pick-up by doing so - no audio geek, me). Someone said it was like having the band in the room with you though, and that's true.

Deconstructing ‘Gimme Shelter’: Listen to the isolated tracks of the Rolling Stones in the studio

I just wanted to say that "Time Waits For No One" is probably one of the best Rolling Stones songs that needs to be heard by more people. If only they'd given Mick Taylor the credit he deserved: what could have been!

In fact, this is probably the one thing that rankles me about the Rolling Stones overall... Jagger/Richards never really gave the rest of the group the credit they deserved if they contributed anything, did they? I'm sure Bill Wyman, as gentlemanly as he has been about it, was a bit pissed off when he found out he wasn't going to get a credit on "Jumpin' Jack Flash"... and wasn't Ronnie Wood a regular songwriter before he joined The Stones? Then suddenly, nothing... save some co-writes on "Dirty Work" at a point when Jagger couldn't be arsed with the band.

Sez the caption:

This photo of The Rolling Stones by world famous photographer Rankin was taken in London today to mark the 50th anniversary of the Rollin’ Stones first ever live performance on 12 July 1962 at the iconic venue on London’s Oxford Street.

https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/8114_10151042838078287_1165543580_n.jpg

NO BASS

That's actually Bill Wyman wearing Ron Wood's discarded face.

Can somebody repost that in the "men who look like old lesbians" thread?

Well if you're going to do that:

http://www.somanyrecordssolittletime.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/RollingStonesMotherShadowPSB.jpg

always wondered why Mick looks so much more, er, deeply tanned in that picture compared to everyone else

i hope i age like CW

Pffft. In 100 years, people will still be listening to the Rolling Stones and plenty of people will like Steel Wheels more than Exile.

Lol

The scuttlebutt I heard was that Keith needs to get his creaky fingers in shape for next year, and that Wyman and ... drum roll ... Mick Taylor are both on board for select performances of Taylor-era albums in their entirety shows. Who knows, though. No doubt Jagger will screw it all up and we'll get a huge hits tour.

(TS: Mick Jagger vs. Mike Love)

man that is a genuine tough call for me

I'm not sure I could even decide which one does a worse funky chicken/naughty schoolteacher

All we needed:

Mick Jagger sings about class tensions and oil fracking over a Keith Richards guitar riff

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/rolling-stones-blend-past-and-present-on-doom-and-gloom-20121011#ixzz290OBxaZs

It's not bad!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DqJcNCLU0w

Every so often Mick goes 'oh yeah, the world' in his lyrics. Thus, 1989:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pYBQg4qifU

doom & gloom sounds like the hives

always like this late era politijagger tune https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjwIhyMfvRY

Saw Cocksucker Blues for the first time last night. Does anyone know who the guy who does the hotel-room monologue near the end about the brotherhood of junkies? It's a fairly polished comedy monologue.

HEAR THAT FUNKY NOISE
THAT'S THE TIGHTENING OF THE SCROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWZ

hpy nw yr

charlie looks like derek jacobi or something

You guys I don't want to blow your minds but this Beggars Banquet album is pretty good.

bump

listening to exile

this band is an unabashed dud 4eva

Lol

I looked at photos of young Mick Jagger this morning. Then I read a chapter of "Life". And then things got weird on ILM

Life was a fun read

that junkie zombie was such a friggin' genius. jeezus how is it possible that i often forget that he wrote the music to all those songs? its a credit to the fact that i think of them as a BAND. a complete whole. and i don't think of individual accomplishments. but for real that scarecrow bastard is one of the great songwriters of the 20th century! i'll try not to forget.

The Rolling Stones. To me they are no more than just overrated jerks who write melodically dead emotionally dry music. The most overrated band I know of, actually. The Rolling Stones receive way too much praise and credit for everything from influence to the quality of their hooks. I'd give them a one at best. That said, there are a bunch of Stones songs that I do like (even a couple that I love) and I can easily say Beggar's Banquet is a really good album, but for the most part they really leave me cold. Sorry, this is just how I feel.

sorry to anyone i offended with my awesome last comment btw

oh, i forgot - Classic.

i always passed over "Emotional Rescue" but lately i've found it kind of hypnotic and amazing.

i love that song. i have a friend far away who sings that every time i end up karaoke-ing with him. i think his version may be better, but i don't know.

jeezus how is it possible that i often forget that he wrote the music to all those songs?

Ha, probably because he didn't. Mick Taylor and Billy Preston have both claimed to have co-written a bunch of stuff not credited to them, and Wyman came up with the riff for "Jumpin' Jack Flash."

Saw Cocksucker Blues for the first time last night. Does anyone know who the guy who does the hotel-room monologue near the end about the brotherhood of junkies? It's a fairly polished comedy monologue.

― saltwater incursion (Dr Morbius), Friday, November 16, 2012 10:40 AM (2 months ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I think maybe it's Danny Seymour? He was Frank's right hand man, shot alot of CS Blues--is he the guy who shoots up the girl in the hotel room? if so, that's him. think he od'd shortly after the film was made (maybe i'm wrong)

mick taylor and billy preston and bill wyman didn't write shit. i'm sure lots of people came up with ideas or riffs though.

mick & keith wrote amazing songs for decades and those dudes were definitely not in the room the whole time.

i ponied up -- $150 for "limited view" seats, angled side/back but pretty close all things considered. and then there's mick taylor up there and they're playing midnight rambler. i was a tail-end boomer; '72 stones was just out of reach for me. so forgive me for getting all misty-eyed 'mbv-reunion' on you guys. it was dreamy.

i think bill wyman wrote ONE song on a stones album. "in another land". i like it though. i also like that when they put it out as a single they credited it to bill alone and not the stones. ha! no respect...

i saw that "charlie is my darling" movie and it sure looked like mick/keith/charlie were the ones in the room when songwriting was happening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_nKdvOSg4Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO9p2q2T5ug

i never even knew that there was any kind of question about who wrote most of the music for the stones??!!

i just forget cuz i see that pirate skeletor dude everywhere and then i play the stones and i go jeeeeez he wasn't always some sort of punchline he co-wrote some the greatest rock music i've ever heard!

qlassic

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/low_concept/2010/11/please_allow_me_to_correct_a_few_things.single.html

bill wyman's whole reputation is built on leading people to think he did things he couldn't possibly do

keef is awesome, skott otm

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Keith didn't write the overwhelming majority of stuff that's credited to him. But there's a few credible claims from others to authorship on some tunes. And if M&K couldn't be bothered to correctly credit "Love In Vain" ("Woody Payne"??), I can't imagine they'd be too much more conscientious with session players and new-guys.

(almost wrote "too much more conscious," and that's probably more accurate)

And I yield to no one in my love for Keith -- I still think Talk Is Cheap is the only great Stones album after Some Girls.

mick & keith wrote amazing songs for decades and those dudes were definitely not in the room the whole time.

― scott seward,

12-15 years tops...

yeah that's probably about right. still! what they did in that time...

i don't really care who they stole/took from. bill wyman owes them every ounce of gold in his gold vault.

The recent doc (Crossfire Hurricane) had some interesting stuff on their earliest songwriting attempts. Their chief goal was just to come up with something they could confidently bring back to the rest of the band. But they were pretty panicked: "You want us to write a what? You want us to what a song?"

and they almost immediately started writing hits! it was fate.

that whole thing about Loog Oldham locking them in a room together was pretty amazing. hard to think of it not coming naturally to them from the start

Jagger's written plenty of songs himself (Yesterday's Papers, Brown Sugar, Miss You and most of Some Girls).

i've been listening to tons of tom petty and reading a book of conversations with petty - which is really repetitive and poorly edited and completely addictive - over the last couple of weeks and what some people might not know is that mike campbell wrote a TON of the music for tom petty songs - all the way back to when they were in mudcrutch together - including big hits, but i would still call tom petty a great songwriter and not mike campbell. which is weird. mike was integral to the songs and the sounds and he co-wrote lots of stuff but they wouldn't have been the songs they are without tom. plus, tom wrote all the words. but with the stones it was really the combo that made it work. though they did write songs separately a la lennonmccartney.

man, i love mike campbell. did you know the solo at the end of "runnin' down a dream" was ONE take in his tiny home studio? tom and jeff lynne couldn't believe their ears. like, for real, the first and only take. one of my favorite guitar solos ever.

Mick doing Brown Sugar in the outback, on his own, is kind of amazing to me. If you can do that you can do anything, you know? Yet he didn't get up the nerve to put out a solo album 'til a decade-and-a-half later.

campbell's a god. totally

i want mick to play harmonica at my funeral. he's such a beautiful harp player. and I'm p sure I'll die before he does

That Petty book is awesome enough to make me listen to those mid eighties records

totally!

and now i want every petty album i don't own. and the boxed set.

i love tom petty so much. and the rolling stones.

i love when stevie wigs out at the end of this!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bN9OHDssYSE

Saw him on the Southern Accents tour. Blinding show all around, but Stan Lynch was a fucking monster. The shit he did on "Don't Come Around Here No More" wasn't human.

i think i might actually go to the cd store and buy a copy of wildflowers cuz that stuff sounds so good to me on youtube. plus, its tom's favorite album.

wildflowers is gorgeous.

the live box set is great, 78 - 07. playback is awesome also, split six ways into "the big jangle," "spoiled & mistreated," "good booty," "the other sides," and "nobody's children"

i think the band he has now is amazing. steve ferrone. scott thurston. mike. benmont. i think that's still his band. one of the best rock bands i can think of.

yeah the live set killed me! i mean all incarnations of heartbreakers were just so good.

i would love to see them live. i never go to big shows though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1Rwqn9YTBs

I forgot, I also saw TP&H with Dylan in 1986, but I was so far away from the stage that I barely remember anything about it.

I polled Wildflowers a couple years ago and got a tepid response. It's long but he was in a songwriting peak

fuck yeah at tom snyder "woman in love"

his life is kinda unreal when you read that book. in working bands since he was 14 and goes from florida bars to working and writing with pretty much all of his influences and idols and becomes one of the biggest things on earth. and when his house burns down annie lennox rushes to the hotel with clothes for his family. i don't think i'll ever forget THAT anecdote as long as i live. even the stories about dave stewart are entertaining. and yet he totally remains the petty. such a cool dude. anyone ever hear his radio show? i should look for archives.

Forgot his house burned down. And didn't he totally stick it to MCA, and win?

Haha yes -- the Annie Lennox anecdote compensated for some boring solo albums. Scott, what about his George stories? Petty's still in awe of the Wilbury period

so much Petty talk on ILM lately

yeah man he really loved george. they loved esch other.

and dylan begging him to keep touring with him. sorry, bob, my house burnt down and i'm one of the most popular performers on earth...

where is the other petty talk? i could talk petty all day. apparently.

the downside of doing a lot of coke and partying with dave stewart:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3eQ5lxH-rc

damn that petty book sounds fun.
Have you seen the Peter Bogdanivich(sp) doc? Long and fun.

the downside of doing a lot of coke and partying with dave stewart:

Yeah, but that was the thing in the mid/late-80s. Springsteen had a couple of 12"s like that, with added vocals and Simmons drums, and I'm pretty sure he was straight-edge.

Petty and the Stones, Petty and Springsteen, Petty ballot poll ... I've only opened about three threads this weekend and he's cropped up on all of them. I assume every other thread must be the same.

the petty book is great but the guy who put it together or whoever was editing him left in tons of repetitions for some reason. don't know why. where tom will say someone was a great guy like five times in a response when you only really need him to say it once. don't think tom would have cared. but, like i said, addictive. if you are a fan. i just love Q&A more than about anything.

ah! i don't see polls. i have them hidden.

there was a Dave Stewart "documentary" on cable recently that was really horrible. Terrible music, insufferable person.

i like the arthur baker springsteen things. dave stewart remix is...something else.

dave and tom got along really well. and when they decided to sit down and write a smash hit - that's what they were trying to do - they wrote don't come around here no more. which is pretty cool. and dave had 70's rural rock roots. and tom thought he was a really good guitarist and sounding board and writing partner. he didn't like some of the things he did in the studio though. like the canned 80's horns. and the video for don't come around here was dave's idea and tom doesn't like that people will always think of that video when they hear the song.

Zollo inexplicably divides periods and albums.

Petty HATES "Make It Better."

Yeah, but he played it on that tour. Horn section and everything.

someone brought in the mudcrutch album a while back and i didn't listen to the whole thing and it didn't really hit me until i watched the promo studio videos and now i want that album too. it might still be at the store.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlYeq5f9lqM

That Petty book made me check out the very underrated Let Me Up (I've Had Enough)

yeah i was playing that the other day. sounded cool. his 80's and 90's stuff sounds good to me in general lately. oh and i don't think i knew that dylan came up with the eddie murphy/vanessa redgrave/joe piscopo line.

so in a way i guess dylan gave tom some crytpo-political thing by including vanessa. the whole palestine situation.

I can't find it, but there's a clip of Eddie Murphy saying "Fuck Tom Petty."

was relieved he loves "It'll All Work Out" as much as I do.

i love the part in the book when he was doing the wilburys thing and having the time of his life and the rest of the band...? mike writing and producing boys of summer for don henley and the rest of the band winning a grammy for best country album? only in america. and mike played everything on boys of summer. which again i don't think i knew.

and Benmont produced that great John Prine record!

right! grammy for that. the country thing might have been something else. maybe the carlene carter thing? i can't remember. but there is a country grammy in there somewhere.

Benmont was on a ton of records in the late 80s/early 90s...I mostly remember him playing a significant role on the "Replacements" (because it's really a Westerberg solo record) All Shook Down. But dude was in demand.

Those guys are second only to the E Street Band in expert studio indenturehood.

George Harrison comes off SO much better as songwriter-producer-personality in Petty's rendering than he ever did in life, which is why the Scorsese documentary, among other reasons, fails.

mick taylor and billy preston and bill wyman didn't write shit. i'm sure lots of people came up with ideas or riffs though.

― scott seward, Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:

not to interrupt our awesome T-Petty conversation but without Jagger telling me it's clear Mick Taylor wrote the music to "Moonlight Mile." Mick is singing along to Taylor's riff and Keef ain't credited with anything.

oooone song

a brilliant song

but let's not throw keith out with the bathwater

we can a few times. "Sway" too.

^^^

George Harrison comes off SO much better as songwriter-producer-personality in Petty's rendering than he ever did in life, which is why the Scorsese documentary, among other reasons, fails.
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn)

I won't be reading the Petty book, so can you please say a little bit more about the description of George? (Thanks!)

Sardonic, generous, avid about collaboration, ego-free about sharing credits. Also, a superb dinner and drink companion.

Ugh, that Scorsese doc was such crap. Thanks for the summary!

well i certainly wouldn't want to take anything away from LEGENDARY SONGWRITER mick taylor. what was he 12 when he joined the band as a hired hand?

yeah, man, tom just adored george. in a big way. but he also adored jeff lynne and rick rubin, so i dunno...

actually i have no idea what jeff lynne is like maybe he's the nicest guy in the world.

I want to believe Jagger hit on him.

watched this like 20 times the other day...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SFNW5F8K9Y

I've written about this elsewhere but the awesome/sad thing about George is how the Wilburys nurtured and encouraged his genuine talents in ways that the Beatles didn't. I can't imagine what a drag it must have been to sit around a studio with Paul a few years later and feel the old tension (which is why he insisted Jeff Lynne act as mediator).

yeah its just cool to read TP's accounts of the wilburys cuz you get this really excited george who is REALLY having fun and into the whole thing. instead of the usual george stuff. the boring mystical rich guy george. but he was having a confident moment. he had a number one solo song and a huge album and all that. he was ready for action.

and the other four Wilburys in awe of Roy Orbison and actively working for a commercial comeback for him

shit and i need the she's the one soundtrack too. i heard that in a record store years ago and really liked it. luckily the cover doesn't have assface mcmullan on it. that's like an entire tom petty album and most people have never heard it.

good Beck cover too!

...and Lucinda Williams!

YES

Wildflowers was the last time he held Gen X commercial cred, but it was so cool to have him selling records into 1995 instead of Steve Winwood.

Wasn't Dave Grohl his drummer on the Wildflowers tour?

One cool fact I remember reading about the recording of "You Don't know How it Feels" was that the band was having a hard time finding a drummer after having Stan Lynch quit/fire and went through a dozen drummers trying to cut that tune. Steve Ferrone comes in and the first take, not hearing the song ever before, nails the take that got released. I guess Petty & Co. were surprised that Ferrone being such a big studio drummer was actually interested in joining the band, as alot of those type guys don't really want to commit to a band that tours that much.

i like his whole approach. they never rehearsed before going into the studio. and would just live there and play everything live for the first time. that's how they got a lot of first take ad-lib stuff that made it onto record. he would ad-lib entire songs! and then put them out. 100% creative control. i like the element of chance + endless money to fuck around + access to the best of everything! kind of an enviable position to be in if you are a musician. and you know what to do with all that. that's key.

they made that mudcrutch album in 2 weeks and it sounds great! i admire how good those guys are at what they do. the main three. tom, benmont, mike.

scott, watch the documentary: swiftest four-hour Bogdanovich documentary ever

xxxpost re Let Me Up I've Had Enough when we do the petty poll in 2015 [SPOILER ALERT] "runaway trains" is going to be high on my ballot.

love that this thread has become the secret petty tree fort.

Was it the stones in partic caused the furore in the ilx canon poll a while back

I believe you want The Rolling Stones' "Too Much Blood" - is this the best thing they ever did?

This thread is for talking about Tom Petty

Benmont was on a ton of records in the late 80s/early 90s...I mostly remember him playing a significant role on the "Replacements" (because it's really a Westerberg solo record) All Shook Down. But dude was in demand.

― Tarfumes The Escape Goat, Sunday, February 10, 2013 7:54 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

He did great work on the first Lone Justice album, with the Petty-written lead single. As did Mike Campbell and Little Steven.

Dunno why we're talking Campbell here, but ... dude wrote the bulk of "Boys of Summer," so he gets a pass for life (in addition to about six Petty songs that earn him the same). Ironically, by "End of the Innocence," Henley was co-writing with Stan Lynch!

Y'all want to see something awesome, track down the interview-doc featuring Campbell talking at length about each of his guitars.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/videos/exclusive-chapter-7-of-mike-campbells-the-guitars-documentary-20120702

jimmy iovine grabbed that petty song from the archives and gave it to lone justice. petty wrote another one for them but they didn't use it. which is kinda dumb of lone justice.

Mike Campbell's dreadlocks break my heart

i love this. its like an alternate history or something. after mudcrutch dissolved tom was gonna make a solo album for shelter and he got with studio dudes like al kooper and jim gordon and you can really hear the path not taken!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKMAqFQJEeg

like they could have totally set him up as sensitive singer/songwriter guy if fate hadn't intervened and the heartbreakers hadn't happened.

love the song Petty-Tench wrote for Rosanne Cash: "Never Be You."

fast-forward to 1:08 and you get a great live stevie/tom duet of "insider".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRnqpI4QKRg

okay i promise no more petty youtubes on the stones thread...

Nice story about Petty writing "Insider" for Stevie Nicks but deciding it was too good to surrender.

He's fond of Hard Promises.

it's clear Mick Taylor wrote the music to "Moonlight Mile." Mick is singing along to Taylor's riff and Keef ain't credited with anything
keith doesn't play on it, but apparently it's keith's riff that taylor is working with (at least that opening thing) on that song.

i didn't know until i read Life that Keith is the only Rolling Stone who plays on "Happy"

More info on Wilbury serendipity: http://books.google.com/books?id=gnohXYuTDwoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=conversations+with+tom+petty&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Oh8ZUcDbComi8gSsrYFI&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

i didn't know until i read Life that Keith is the only Rolling Stone who plays on "Happy"

wait what you can totally hear Mick singing on that (granted Keith sings lead)

Mick may have overdubbed vox later, but the track was done with keith on guitar, miller on drums, keys & someone else on horns, then keith went back and overdubbed bass after

charlie watts has to be the most mellow classic rock band drummer -- he was always like, "oh whatever, jimmy can do it better, i'm going home."

I think there are few songs on "Exile" that feature all the Stones at once.

Ha I think it may have been more like ”keith said he had to go to the bathroom six hours ago and and now it's 3am I'm going home”

Nice story about Petty writing "Insider" for Stevie Nicks but deciding it was too good to surrender.

Good call on TP's part. Stone classic imo.

scott, you should buy Wildflowers. Petty's right to feel proud: one of his best collections of songs. "Crawling Back to You" would be top five Petty for me.

It can probably be obtained very cheaply too.
My favorite wildflowers moment is probably the piano solo in "it's hard to find a friend".

was listening to Long After Dark yesterday. not really a favorite overall. a little too much Iovine generic feel but it is of course almost singlehandedly worth owning for "one story town" and "you got lucky". i like "straight into darkness" too. plus, one weird closing track:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW-2s-zYmTA

plus, coming right after one of my favorite albums, Hard Promises, it really kinda suffers in comparison.

least essential petty album? if you had to choose. i really do think those first two songs make the album and everything else on it is just okay.

He's not fond of it either.

This seems as good a thread as any to make fun of the band for pricing its tickets so high that apparently sales are lagging (relatively speaking). A lot of spin going on, so hard to get the full story, but it seems sort of a fiasco all around, though I'm sure the band is still getting paid.

My understanding is that a lot of it can be put down to Watts. He despises touring, so he ups his price ridiculously every time they're about to go out, thinking no way will management be able to swing that. Problem is, the management/promoters keep meeting his price, necessitating higher ticket prices.

I just read the Stanley Booth book for the first time. An out and masterpiece. Seeing these ticket stories reminds me of Jagger telling Booth that he wanted to do the whole '69 tour for free, but logistics ruled it out. "You think you're rich, but then you try to buy a table or something, and yer accountants all 'oh no!'".

lol

i want them to make an electronic dance album where mick plays up his creepy old man schtick, whispering unspeakable things over a minimalist groove. it's the only way forward. this is my favorite band, probably, and they are too good for this retro "play the classics" touring shit they've been doing for the past 95 years or whatever

i think the reason they are still alive is because the universe wants them to make one more great album. i think this will happen, but i don't think it will sound like anything they've done before.

I think the reason they are still alive is because they collectively have a 10% share in the universe.

http://dangerousminds.net/comments/what_a_drag_it_is_getting_old_the_rolling_stones_then_and_now

This time, before there could be any serious preparations for a 50th anniversary tour – something Richards wanted to see happen – Jagger made it plain that there would have to be some sort of reckoning. The details of whatever transpired between the two men remain private, but as Wood commented, things were “tense and awkward.” There was even a rumor that Richards’ position as the Rolling Stones’ rhythm guitarist might be in peril. Some thought he was having trouble playing – that perhaps his hands were growing afflicted with arthritis or that his steady intake of alcohol affected his musical agility

was talking to a friend of mine last weekend who was taken along to their show in Oakland - he got in for free, tix were $600 and they weren't even on ground level/floor. insane.

i want them to make an electronic dance album where mick plays up his creepy old man schtick, whispering unspeakable things over a minimalist groove.

Mick beat you to it, bro

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P53QNZm1U44

Yeah I've noticed keiths playing recently in clips

Shine a Light was the first time I really noticed how bad they were

can we talk about the eternal lol that is the Bridges to Babylon cover

ok, that top video in the dangerousminds link above is truly...awful

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lLRD1R8GNgY#t=85s

1:25 in. ouch.

and that's an official rolling stones promotional video! they put that in there on purpose! to highlight it!!

good lord that part where gwen stefani is barely able to sing wild horses while the rolling stones are barely able to play wild horses is BRUTAL

jenifer divine 7 hours ago

YOU- ROLLING STONES- YOU ARE JUST GOING THROUGH THE MOTIONS- Keith can't even play his guitar with any proficiency whatsoever- and Mick is so horribly off-key its pathetic-

the ROLLING CLONES SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES!!!

i've heard better from cheesy lounge bands playing in crappy off-Strip Vegas casinos

Keith looks deeply bored/catatonic. Mick trying hard but he is basically a grandma.

good lord that part where gwen stefani is barely able to sing wild horses while the rolling stones are barely able to play wild horses is BRUTAL

seriously, i was barely able to watch! i stopped the video 10 seconds in, linked to it here, and closed the entire browser just to make sure

I would pay more to see Watts playing solo than to see him with the Stones at this point.

yeah that's painful to see, close your eyes and apart from mick's voice there's nothing to indicate you're not listening to some shitty anonymous bar band. not that i blame them too much for not giving much of a fuck after like six decades but it seems cruel to charge innocent ppl $600 for this.

I actually think this performance from a few years ago is quite good

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vjIP7-SiX0

I've seen the band be good and the band be bad, which is a sign to me that the band at least knows the difference between being good and being bad. One bad show I saw, Ron Wood's guitar pooped out, and mid song he simply strolled to the tech and struck up a conversation while the guitar was looked at, then slung the replacement over his should and walked back to his spot. Walked. This was mid-song. (After the tour Wood would return to rehab.) Another not so awesome show of theirs, a writer next to me who was covering for MOJO was apparently left a message by Mick Jagger himself that the band would be better the next night. And apparently the band was better!

The story I'd heard is that Keith suffers from arthritis in his hands, and that getting his playing in shape was the number reason they did not tour last year. But I guess there's only so much you can do.

I feel bad kinda, the Stones were sort of uniquely ill suited to old age, they rely on that energy, whereas like Neil and Dylan were kinda already old weirdos....and like McCartney ultimately can rely on such sturdy classic pop tunes that don't really require athleticism.....probably amazing the stones persisted as long as they did....I guess The Who is in the same boat

there are some interview clips w/ keith on youtube where he's answering ppl's questions (i'm guessing they were little promotional spots for his biography) and you can very clearly see the arthritis in his fingers - big swollen joints, and not the smoking kind

Glastonbury should be interesting. its going to be live on TV over here too. live! on the tv! all 2 hours of it...

also Macca having a young band every time out helps.

plus, the recent cover story in rolling stone suggests, there may be affects from the medication keith still takes because of his "fall from a tree" (something neurological?). whatever, keith obviously lacks dexterity. but maybe there's too much of a microscope on him, people calibrating what he can do now vs what he could do then. because as i witnessed recently in newark -- from $150 seats, not $600 -- is that the push and pull of their rhythm remains unparalleled. that's why i keep going. love this band.

effects. jeez.

Keith hasn't exactly ever been the most nimble of guitarists. That's been a lot of his charm. Charlie is always solid, Ron is up and down as support, Mick is in remarkable shape, bassist has the easiest job in the world (story goes he was hired because he was the least familiar with the catalog; also, supposedly he plays most of the parts with just his thumb, to keep his fusion chops in check). The only reasons I can think for the band sucking, or at least being really erratic, are a) have't practiced enough b) arrogant enough to think they're good enough and c) don't really give a shit. Or all three.

regarding c), When was the last time they did?

Well, per my anecdote just above, they do try harder some nights than others. But there's a cool, sloppy "don't give a shit" and then there's a mercenary "really don't give a shit."

See, there's been a whole bunch about how the tickets haven't sold hugely..

I remember about 15 years ago, a colleague had bought 2 full-price tickts for Wembley Arena (fairly sure it was there), come the day another lad in the office went up on the off-chance and got 2 tickets from a tout, and ended up with better seats. Also, they were within view of the colleague who was sat further up, behind.

There's only been a modest blurt about it, I thought, about a week ago, with massive spin from the RS camp re: how soft sales have actually been. I do know the last time they played here, and end of the season football stadium date where the temp. dropped down to the low 50s, maybe lower, the stadium was supposedly half full.

also wonder if mick taylor isn't along mostly as insurance, in case keith doesn't feel up to finishing a particular gig.

(story goes he was hired because he was the least familiar with the catalog; also, supposedly he plays most of the parts with just his thumb, to keep his fusion chops in check)

Hadn't heard that about Jones' lack of familiarity with the catalog, but the choice of bassist was left completely up to Watts.

So are you guys buying Mikal Gilmore's story that Keith's drinking and/or arthritis have taken a toll on his ability to play?

How did you research for the audition?

I didn't research much. Basically, I got a few of their "best of" records and listened and played along. Instead of learning Bill Wyman's parts verbatim and then trying to sound like him, I learned the form of the songs and the general shape of the bass lines, and then I added my own interpretations. I felt it was important to play in my own style so they would be hiring me for me. On certain songs, however, I play the lines note-for- note because they're essential parts--like in "Start Me Up" and "Satisfaction."

it's been a long run for keith though, all things considered xpost.

bob dylan said that the rolling stones ceased being "the rolling stones" once bill left, and that they are now a "second rate funk band" or something like that. this was in an interview.

Interesting re: Jones quote.

So are you guys buying Mikal Gilmore's story that Keith's drinking and/or arthritis have taken a toll on his ability to play?

Maybe a combination of the two, but certainly the latter. I'd been hearing that from people who would know for a couple of years.

Man, I've got a couple of awesome Keith drinking stories. The first was told to me by Taylor Hackford, who directed "Hail! Hail! Rock n Roll." He had visited Keith's house, and of course, the drinking began early. But just when Hackford was ready to call it a day (morning?) Keith decided to go horse riding, and Hackford sensibly bowed out and watched rather than, you know, die. He (like others) determined that what kills so many, like Gram Parsons, is trying to keep up with Keith when you should really know when the quit.

The other was this video director, or producer?, who wanted to use a Stones video in one of those Director's Series DVD collections. He shows up to Keith's house in Connecticut, and is surprised at the lack of security or anything. In fact, Keith answered the door himself and invited him in. I guess someone had given him a new satellite radio system, and he was fascinated with it, so he and this producer whose name I forget spent a few hours drinking and playing with the new toy. Then, after all that time had passed, Keith turns to him and asks, politely: "So, who are you, and what can I do for you?"

Bob Dylan has said he thinks The Rolling Stones aren't "real" enough without original bassist Bill Wyman in the band.

In an interview with MTV producer Bill Flanagan to promote his new album 'Together Through Life', Dylan said he regards The Rolling Stones as a mere "funk band" without Wyman on board.

The bassist quit the band in 1990, after nearly three decades service.

"I'm not saying they don't keep going, but they need Bill," he said. "Without him they're a funk band. They'll be the real Rolling Stones when they get Bill back."

Earlier in the interview, Dylan said he thinks The Rolling Stones are "pretty much finished," reports Bobdylan.com.

Flanagan then accused Dylan of being stuck in the '80s, before asking him if he really thinks The Rolling Stones are finished as a band.

"Of course not, they're far from finished," Dylan replied. "The Rolling Stones are truly the greatest rock and roll band in the world and always will be. The last too.

"Everything that came after them, metal, rap, punk, new wave, pop-rock, you name it...you can trace it all back to The Rolling Stones. They were the first and the last and no one's ever done it better."

quite generous, I reckons... (re: Dylan Quote)

xpost I think if you're coming off of Miles Davis, you don't need to put a lot of thought into the Stones.

his forefinger and middle finger look pretty fucked up, and this is from 9 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X6S34luGuE

smoking & drinking a lot is obv not going to do much good for an inflammatory disease

I remember talking with people about Richards in the Scorsese "Blues" series on PBS (from a couple years after that clip) and how none of us could get past how warped his hands were. Can't find any clips on youtube (other than one w/Clapton).

Rolling Stones C*cksucker Blues:
http://www.nga.gov/content/ngaweb/calendar/film-programs/artfilms/towardCS.html

Free showing of this 1972 Robert Frank directed doc that supposedly can't be shown in commercial theatres and such, is on view Saturday afternoon at the National Gallery of Art in Washington DC. Y'all should come see it. I liked it when I saw it there many years back

But maybe it wasn't that good. I also see folks have dismissed it on various threads

they come off as total assholes in it imho so in that sense it's worthwhile/interesting

i think it's a very accurate account of life on the road, which means it gets boring in places and is at times repellent, which is as it should be. a great piece of journalism, and the music kills.

I saw Cocksucker Blues once, and in all honesty it bored me rigid and didn't live up to the hype as far as I was concerned.

You get to see Keith nodding out on smack, Keith and Bobby Keyes throwing a TV out of a hotel, people shooting up and doing coke, girls with their tits out and all that stuff... and it all sounds on paper like it's going to be monumentally exciting, but in reality it's as dull to watch as wallpaper.

Like "Eat the document", kinda?

Its not a bad comparison, not as self consciously arty though

live performances in Eat the Document are better imho (even tho you can't really see them lol)

Writer Richie Uterberger:
On Saturday from 2:00pm-4:30pm in Koret Auditorium at the San Francisco Main Library at 100 Larkin Street, I'm presenting two hours of rare Rolling Stones film clips from the 1960s and early 1970s. This will be on the 50th anniversary of the month on which the Rolling Stones released their first single. Admission is free.

Unterberger

i had always thought the stones released their first single in 62. i feel like a fucking idiot. i also had thought their first single was "as tears go by," which i see now is not true.

i feel like a fucking idiot.

OK

gonna see them for (only) 100 dollars!

you can start being jealous now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AKez2s_K5Q

Thought this revive would be about the 45 anniversary of Brian Jones' passing.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t1.0-9/10455186_10152591232778287_2316212642802061970_n.jpg

he looks old in this pic

will never understand why this guy was a babe magnet. He looks like he demanded a horned toad be implanted into his face.

he was?

he sure was!

...so was Wyman...salt grains, please.

coke grams, please

all of the, were babe magnets, weren't they? i mean it's the stones!

i'm pretty sure any troll ass wanker in a rock n roll band could get extinction level event levels of trim in the 60s and 70s

http://www.punmaster.com/wyman.jpg

"You know it!"

http://www.deathroe.com/ktml2/images/uploads/ChoiceSux/DeadRoaches.jpg?0.7183861447097172

still searching for more booty

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/standard-pictures/article7328407.ece/alternates/w620/Treasure%20Hunt:%20Former%20Rolling%20Stone%20Bill%20Wyman%20says%20he%20finds%20metal-detecting%20more%20interesting%20than%20rock

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_S4cwgRYb1mQ/TOWEyBlw5rI/AAAAAAAAAbs/cX7yi2mAoVc/s1600/rsbowling.jpg

Bowling for Booty

i thought part of the point of the rolling stones was that they were grotesquely ugly but still luridly sexual. you can't be too pretty if you want to seem dangerous.

mick & keef were totally handsome back in the day!!

mick especially

brian looked like a dancing gnome though, creepy fucker

"grotesquely ugly" was strongly worded. they just looked like people but they tried to play up a savage dandyism that is antithetical to normative handsomeness and brian looking like he had a "horned toad implanted in his face" is in line with this aesthetic.

Plenty of pics of BJ looking pretty but in the one above he has bags under his eyes befitting a 60-year-old. Nice stereo though.

My god, is this bands '60s discography such a mess! Not musically, more that they haven't tidied it up like The Beatles did in the '80s by sticking with the UK versions and handily putting what was left over on the Past Masters compilations.

There used to be this 24-hour Chinese restaurant in midtown Atlanta that was legendary back in the days when we used to rage. It was walking distance of a bunch of punk houses, perfect for 5am helpings of the best vegetarian food you ever had in your life. One of the servers was ALWAYS there, day or night, any time you showed up.

It was a little ghetto and was actually right next to a hotel, by the off-ramp onto the interstate. Out front there was one of those concrete garden statues, of a duck, with his head missing.

First thing you saw when you walked in, on the wall, was a framed photo of Mick Jagger taken in the restaurant, with what looked like the owner and his wife beside him. Starting right underneath him and going up at a 45 degree angle were stick-on letters spelling out ICK JAGGER

lol

nice

Listening to Between The Buttons tonight, and man... could they just not be bothered to tune the bass properly before recording 'She Smiled Sweetly' or something?

The untuned weirdness is how it is good no?

Wyman would have spent more time tuning, but iirc he had a hot chick waiting in bed.

The untuned weirdness is how it is good no?

― Eyeball Kicks, Tuesday, February 9, 2016 1:26 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

No, it sounds like shit!

Wyman must have already been with the hot chick, 'cuz Keith plays bass on it iirc.

LOL Bill always had his hands full.

Coincidentally i found this really good article on Bill Wyman's non-Stones production experience during the late 60s. It is mostly about a really amazing record called "Introspection" he produced by a band called The End. Bill was recording so many psychedelic masterpieces he didn't have time to tune his bass.

http://billwyman.com/audio/the-end-introspection/

I've got to say that the Stones have put out some pretty good archive show material. The Marquee Club 71, LA Forum 75 and Texas 78 live sets are all quite ace. The sets are varied and some really good versions of some Stones album tracks.

marquee stuff is so good

this looks pretty cool!
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/12/12/recreating-rolling-stones-history
(Keith lives in Weston, Connecticut and my stepdad has seen him multiple times going to get cigs at the package store in his red pickup truck!)

He's apparently also a regular at a bar in Westport, CT, and as long as you don't ask him about the Stones, he'll drink with ya! (dm me for name)

So it looks like Abkco put up a bunch of mid-sixties Stones alternates up on Youtube last month for copyright preservation: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCT0-yq9GmqHaREng77mwB0A/videos?sort=dd&shelf_id=0&view=0

Very rough early version of "Dandelion":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3y9u4XG_3s

Can't believe they never released this version

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frF84BbYPUI

lol

Are we sure that's not Pussy Galore?

Garage-Tastic!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4tkxMeZuuA

Makin bets on Kentucky derby day

^^^

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MICK! You wrote some terrible songs!.

Lol. Good list, although I don’t mind Dancing With Mr. D

It's only rock and roll is a pretty dumb song, but I still like it. Lyric is pretty duh, but the production is ace, lots of details in the murk. Probably partial as it was my first Stones tape (8 track) as a kid, so I heard it a ton.

I know "It's Only Rock and Roll" is only rock and rock and roll but i like it

the other Mick looked good in a sailor suit
https://78.media.tumblr.com/aa9fcb18d884c350430d552a60569aee/tumblr_o64b62Vsff1smsmqro1_500.gif

It's Only Rock n' Roll is one of their most boring albums but I don't understand why anyone wouldn't love the title track which is hilarious

I love that (A) "IORnR" the song was written as a Slade cop, and (B) it was recorded at a hijacked session for ILX's favorite Ron Wood album (to do).

I like about a third of that list. 'Dancing With Mr. D' and 'Angie' in particular are superb. 'Luxury' is a notable omission on that list, and most of Emotional Rescue ...

Don’t mind “Luxury,” have a soft spot for cod reggae/calypso/cool runnings Island vibes

agree, those songs all rule

“It’s Only Rock ‘n’ Roll” (Mott the Hoople were doing this shit better)

kind of an interesting spin. feels closer to Slade to me ie "Mama were all crazee now"

It's only Mick & Keith on "It's Only Rock & Roll" -- everyone else was a non-(or future-) Stone: Willie Weeks, Ron Wood, and Kenney Jones (about whom Watts said, "I don't mind. Sounds like me, anyway").

The Rolling Stones have always been the biggest champions of the blues, so who better to have hand-picked a special compilation album of the music that has inspired them throughout their career. Order ‘Confessin’ The Blues' now: https://t.co/oTzhspfHgc pic.twitter.com/Qb4TkNblFs

— The Rolling Stones (@RollingStones) July 31, 2018

Friends, I ask you—who better?

Lol

weeee are the chaaaampions.... of the bluuuees

Superb Tracklist tho:

CD1
1. Muddy Waters - Rollin’ Stone
2. Howlin’ Wolf - Little Red Rooster
3. John Lee Hooker - Boogie Chillen
4. Little Walter - I Hate To See You Go
5. Chuck Berry - Little Queenie
6. Bo Diddley - You Can’t Judge A Book By Its Cover
7. Eddie Taylor - Ride ’Em On Down
8. Slim Harpo - I’m A King Bee
9. Magic Sam - All Your Love
10. Elmore James w/ Sonny Boy Williamson II - Dust My Broom
11. Little Walter - Just Your Fool
12. Muddy Waters - I Want To Be Loved
13. Big Bill Broonzy - Key To The Highway
14. Robert Johnson - Love In Vain Blues
15. Mississippi Fred McDowell - You Gotta Move
16. Jimmy Reed - Bright Lights, Big City
17. Big Maceo - Worried Life Blues
18. Little Johnny Taylor - Everybody Knows About My Good Thing (Part 1)
19. Howlin’ Wolf - Commit A Crime
20. Otis Rush - I Can’t Quit You Baby
21. Jay McShann & Walter Brown - Confessin’ The Blues

CD2
1. Howlin’ Wolf - Just Like I Treat You
2. Little Walter - I Got To Go
3. Chuck Berry - Carol
4. Bo Diddley - Mona
5. Muddy Waters - I Just Want To Make Love To You
6. Elmore James & The Broom Dusters - Blues Before Sunrise
7. Eddie Taylor - Bad Boy
8. Boy Blue - Boogie Children
9. Jimmy Reed - Little Rain
10. Robert Johnson - Stop Breakin’ Down Blues
11. Reverend Robert Wilkins - The Prodigal Son
12. Lightnin’ Slim - Hoodoo Blues
13. Billy Boy Arnold - Don’t Stay Out All Night
14. Bo Diddley - Crawdad
15. Dale Hawkins - Susie Q
16. Amos Milburn - Down The Road Apiece
17. Howlin’ Wolf - Little Baby
18. Little Walter - Blue And Lonesome
19. B.B. King - Rock Me Baby
20. Buddy Guy - Damn Right, I’ve Got The Blues
21. Muddy Waters - Mannish Boy

Including originals of most of the Blues covers they've released.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juChsS5KvhQ

Some Girls and Tattoo are just about the best things evah

do it , do it, do it , do it, do it, do it

Hey baby

You’re such a natural, you don’t need no actin’ schoo

Ain’t no use.

I picked up Hot Rocks Part 2 for a buck at a yard sale and it was well worth it. I doubt I need much more than what's on this.

rong

It has been out for a few months in CD, but that live "Ladies and Gentlemen l, the Rolling Stones" live release recorded on the Exile on Main St. Tour is great.

I mean it's not the only stones I've ever gotten into, I'm just saying going forward it meets my needs and still sounds fresh.
xp

q: should i bother seeing the stones next summer? they're gonna be playing a couple hours' drive from me, and i've never seen them. is it actually worth shelling out for a ticket to see the 2019 version of this band?

saw them a few years ago, was decent but would not pay to see them again, as I remember they had great tunes and I had a good times but I found the playing lacking

would see them if they played a festival I attended or if I was invited, wasn't bad

Can Keith still fret at this point?

he did some solo tracks mid-concert, that was the low-point

Not to mention Charlie

they're still the greatest rolling stones cover band in the world. worth seeing them once imo.

Going to see them again for first time in many years cuz wife has never seen them and wants to do so. Way back when I also saw Keith do a show with his New Barbarians group and that was kinda fun -- although I have now seen a couple folks grumbling about his current live renditions of solo tracks (as Niels did x-post)on the tour

When I saw them 20+ yrs ago on the Bridges to Babylon tour it already kind of felt like Keef was a little...uh, free with his playing

worth seeing them once imo.

yeah I'd have to agree there - I'll see any act like that at least once! and hey, maybe you'll totally dig it and you can go again some time

hardly any acts like that left on my "bucket list" though, saw Van Morrison this summer and I think that does it for me wrt "legends"... would like to see him again though, cause I feel like that show could have been much better...

I have seen the band be good before, I've seen the band be bad. I have never seen the band be great. interestingly, Mick has finally loosened the reins a little bit in recent years and shaken up some setlists, dusting off some seldom played stuff. however, he's pretty smug and mechanical about the whole thing, though I do not know if that is a new development. and the rest of the band is pretty visibly lazy about their duties, but that's not new either.

long story short, ticket cost aside it's probably better to see them now before Keith dies then wait for the inevitable Mick Jagger and Friends Tour the Stones when he passes.

I will say, there have been long stretches of time when I have absolutely loved the stones, and other times when I have been more ambivalent, but none of the shows I saw were remotely memorable.

Stones and Company featuring John Mayer

I guess with the Stones, for me, much of the appeal is in the playing, and, much as I appreciate Satisfaction and other hits, I really only love the playing on Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street, and when I saw them a few years back that's not exactly how they were playing

which is to say while they have good songs I think the magic's in the playing, and while the songs remain the same the playing doesn't (although they were not bad, just not magical)

I heard "Start Me Up" blasting from a car the other day. That is one hot hot performance

yeah Beast of Burden rules too, guess I came off a bit too exclusive

Haven't they been good-not-great live for almost forty years? I don't remember glowing reviews of the Steel Wheels and '81 tours.

there have been hopeful glimmers of some sort of return to form, but yeah, by and large they have been pretty much by the numbers since the 80s.

https://variety.com/2018/music/news/how-the-rolling-stones-shes-a-rainbow-got-a-seven-figure-synch-renaissance-1203092132/

wow that variety article makes me want to die

it reads like an abkco press release ffs

kinda horrifying to think that boomer classics not only never faded away after release but now we get to live through yet another revival as the barely-animated corpses who wrote those classics squeeze some more cash out of them for their 50th anniversaries

hey no one's buying Mick Jagger solo albums at Best Buy anymore

hey no one's buying Mick Jagger solo albums at Best Buy anymore

Fixed

Fwiw, this isn't even the first time "She's A Rainbow" has been used in ads. Apple licensed it to help launch the iMac, which was where I first heard the song.

Yeah, I was gonna say I remembered it on some advert at the back end of the '90s/beginning of the '00s, but couldn't remember what it was for. Also recall 'You Can't Always Get What You Want' on another ad around the same time.

i would like to cosign ums ie that article makes me want to die also

u_u

in other news, happy birthday keef

http://i.imgur.com/ZqLDJji.jpg

what the fuck is "the synch community"

wow that variety article makes me want to die

― No Smockin' (upper mississippi sh@kedown)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronization_rights

GREAT keef pic!

what the fuck is "the synch community"

it's what happens when corporations eat a word that used to mean something

I thought it might be some kind of amateur thing, calling it a "community", but I guess she just means ad companies lol

Ok this might be a hot take and I like the Stones but...have they ever been great live? Like maybe in the Jones era in the 60s? Whenever I dip into even peak-era live stuff I am always disappointed

Get thee to the Marquee Club!!
Also the live in Brussels show
and there’s another one I am forgetting

idk what is happening here (but i like it like it yes i do) (sorry)

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/09/27/19/2CC276D400000578-0-image-a-65_1443377434228.jpg

xpost
The 71 Marquee gig? I feel like I listened to that and it didn't do anything for me

and my favorite tshirt

https://i.amz.mshcdn.com/op3fPkXATeecib0vJaudKMVNE8A=/fit-in/1200x9600/https%3A%2F%2Fblueprint-api-production.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Fcard%2Fimage%2F48516%2FS_9220.jpg

The Ladies & Gents set is good, as is the Some Girls '78 set.

xpost huh. welp

Some Girls 78! Yes. Love that.

The thing is, live Stones rarely have the transcendent quality live like, say, The Who had for so long.

that is very true. I think the Stones def were way better in the studio than they ever were live. Or at least the studio showed off their arrangements a lot better.

if that 1978 set is the small club gig I'm thinking of, it's fantastic

The thing is, live Stones rarely have the transcendent quality live like, say, The Who had for so long.

― Infidels, Like Dylan In The Eighties (C. Grisso/McCain), Tuesday, December 18, 2018 6:22 PM (eleven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yeah, The Who were four individuals that always used to somehow coalesce into one unstoppable entity such was the degree to which they could somehow read each others minds musically.

With The Stones, they were always sloppy - they either somehow managed to sloppily make it come together or make an awful hash of it, depending on what mood they were in.

Also, The Who had a superior rhythm section - their bassist is one of the greatest rock bassists of all time and they had a drummer that didn't sound lumpen and could actually perform a good sounding drum fill.

Ok this might be a hot take and I like the Stones but...have they ever been great live?

I was gonna bring this up so glad someone else did cuz I think the answer is actually no, they were never consistently great live, even during their (multiple) peak periods. they were *always* sloppy, occasionally really hitting their stride for great moments, but they were hardly a lean, live performing unit and there are *tons* of shitty performances of theirs widely available that demonstrate this. they were def better in the studio.

Also, The Who had a superior rhythm section - their bassist is one of the greatest rock bassists of all time and they had a drummer that didn't sound lumpen and could actually perform a good sounding drum fill.

― Le Baton Rose (Turrican), Tuesday, December 18, 2018 6:47 PM (seventeen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

?? don't disagree about moon, but charlie watts was (is?) a great drummer, easily my favorite musician in the stones

I mean when I think about the Stones live I think about two things: one a dude getting killed at a concert & two them getting torched live so bad by the Who that their roadie buried the tape in his barn.

It is just weird to me that a band I love doesn't have a live record from the era that I like more than the studio albums

I think about the Stones live I think about two things

thought for sure one of these would be getting hilariously pwned by James Brown on the T.A.M.I. show

Ha, there is that too!

Oh and stealing Stephen Stills's idea of wearing a Jets jersey.

Every time I contemplate seeing the present-day stones (one "last" chance to see the legends) I think of Buzz Osborne's description:

I could not be bothered to see them live now. I saw them in the early ’80s and it sounded like amplified motocross. They’d literally be halfway through a song before I could tell what it was. “Oh, it’s ‘Satisfaction.’” It was this horrendous cacophony, which is good on one side, but that’s not what they were trying to do.

The '89 and '94 tours were much better. Everything I've seen of the '81 tour is hopped up and cynical, i.e. "Let's hurry the fuck up, we got chicks and blow waiting."

Oh and stealing Stephen Stills's idea of wearing a Jets jersey.

― chr1sb3singer, Tuesday, December 18, 2018 1:18 PM (two hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

"I invented wearing football jerseys in rock n' roll" - Stephen Stills, the original Kanye

"I invented wearing football jerseys in rock n' roll" - Stephen Stills, the original delusional hack

Stills seeing Jagger wearing that jersey and biting his knuckle in rage is beautiful image

"I invented wearing football jerseys in rock n' roll" - Stephen Stills, the original delusional hack

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, 18 December 2018 22:09 (four minutes ago) Permalink

Tbf Stills also said that "Ohio" was a good song but needed another verse to really be considered a classic song like "For What It's Worth" which was written by Stephen Stills

Jagger wore the pants too

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/80/5e/7c/805e7c06fab7adb1ff3914799b1df15f.jpg

Is that a Walter Payton jersey? Shouts to another fan of inhalants!

LOL

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mIl4WHHqtf4/TtUmqkn-BJI/AAAAAAAANY4/sXVC0vSexuY/s320/CelebRookie81Jagger.JPG

sure anyone can wear a football jersey, but can they record over a Jimi Hendrix solo to do an organ overdub?

With 44 new answers, I expected at least one of them to be dead.

Ron Wood's been a hologram for years.

Brian Jones has been dead for a while iirc.

they've all been dead for decades. on the inside.

Please, Stones, go away, gracefully

little late for that

lol

https://media.giphy.com/media/q62HFPVXW2tYk/giphy.gif

what the fuck is "the synch community"

― L'assie (Euler)

my understanding is there is this gentleman by the name of andrew wendland who has, for the past fifteen years, been listening to pink floyd albums while watching movies to discover all the movies that "synch" up with pink floyd albums

Anyone ever watch the Exorcist synched to Goats Head Soup?

whoa

that’s a thing ?

lol such easy marks itt

Thread got me listening to Tattoo You again last night - not all that bad for an outtakes collection.

“Security was a bit slow, and I saw some guy heading straight for Mick”, said Keith.
“I have no idea what this guy is gonna do...all I know is that he’s trying to get his hands on Mick, and I’ve got a weapon in my hands...” - Hampton Coliseum (1981).
Keith Richards is 75 today. pic.twitter.com/cGjFGpWn5S

— Music History (@RockWalkLondon) December 18, 2018

Dang — retweeted ✅

Keith's cool and all, but it's Mick who doesn't miss a note

From upthread, getting owned by James Brown is nothing to be ashamed of. I dunno about live Stones after 1964 but their T.A.M.I. set is fucking great.

I think I'm finally arrived at the knowledge that, as much as I love Exile, etc, the Brian Jones Stones is the real Stones

Thought you were gonna write, "Dirty Work is a fucking great album" after "as much as I love Exile, etc,"

When I was a child, I spake as a child, understood as a child, thought as a child; when I became a man, I knew Undercover was super underrated

I think I'm finally arrived at the knowledge that, as much as I love Exile, etc, the Brian Jones Stones is the real Stones

I'm all about 1963-1981 when it really comes down to it. There's some good stuff from Undercover onwards and A Bigger Bang is a very strong album, but 1963-1981 is the "essential, must have, couldn't live without it" stuff.

I have similar cut off points when it comes to The Who (1978), The Kinks (1971), The Beach Boys (1973), Pink Floyd (1977) and I'm sure it'd have been the same with The Beatles if they'd continued for a million years.

For me it's an even narrower range - from Let It Bleed through Tattoo You, basically, and I don't care about Black and Blue or Emotional Rescue, so that's what, seven albums?

You don't like any of the Decca singles or Aftermath or Beggars Banquet? Fwiw, I'm not a huge fan of Emotional Rescue either, but I think Black and Blue has some great stuff on it - 'Memory Motel', 'Fool to Cry', 'Hot Stuff', 'Hand of Fate', 'Melody' ...

or Out Of Our Heads? Or Between The Buttons?

I don't like Sixties rock in general - I'll take '69-'74 over '64-'68 any day of the year. (There are a few exceptions, like the first Doors and Steppenwolf albums, but that's pretty much it.)

fair enough. sad!, but fair enough

From upthread, getting owned by James Brown is nothing to be ashamed of. I dunno about live Stones after 1964 but their T.A.M.I. set is fucking great.

hard disagree. Stones' early period is littered with embarassments and Jagger's painfully awkward attempts to mimic the energy and authority of James Brown's dance moves is sad to watch.

Mick is rocking a great thousand yard stare in that set, the dancing is a little goofy but he has his own thing going on too. They all look great.

I mean if you are negate Stones performances based on Mick aping black frontmen/women you aren't gonna be left w very much

v true

part of why I don't think they were ever really a great live band tbh

You've seen Led Zeppelin Tupperware, now feast your eyes on...

https://therollingstonesshop.com/collections/tailgate

"CLASSIC LICKS CORN HOLE GAME"

the whole thing looks like the Uline freebies page

Down In The Corn Hole

"financially dissatisfied, sexually satisfied, philosophically trying" - Mick

I guess it still holds true 50+ years later.

Tour's been postponed due to Medical Issues... Jagger's!

Curious, so I looked it up: three years older than Trump, one year younger than Biden.

Huh, I was always impressed by Mick's reported exercise regiment, since he runs around so much and whatnot. I wonder what happened?

i was wondering that myself

He's still old

The healthiest guy on earth will still have trouble at 76 or whatever

how being skinny at 76......could kill you

It’s all those solo albums imo

Keith (the oldest man in the world for a few decades running) must be loving the idea of a Stones tour getting delayed due to Mick's health.