| Author: mj |
Posted: 6/19/03 @ 2:35 AM |
|
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert?
In Response To: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert? |
REPLY |
|
I think the Stones or any band should go for as long as they can, it's up to us to not encourage them past the ridiculous...
|
| |
| Author: newman |
Posted: 6/18/03 @ 10:29 AM |
|
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert?
In Response To: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert? |
REPLY |
|
Nah, I don't think it's time for them to pack it in yet. Like Glenn says, they still put on a great rock and roll show. Sure, it's starting to look like "the Crypt Keeper Presents..." on stage, but they still deliver. Perhaps they'll call it a day when Keith Richards transcends from his mortal flesh and become a being composed of pure heroin.
|
| |
| Author: mj |
Posted: 6/18/03 @ 2:20 AM |
|
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert?
In Response To: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert? |
REPLY |
|
very good insights newman, or at least insights that agree with my own!!
|
| |
| Author: mabel |
Posted: 6/17/03 @ 5:42 PM |
|
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert?
In Response To: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert? |
REPLY |
|
Do you think the Rolling Stones should pack it in any time soon?
|
| |
| Author: newman |
Posted: 6/17/03 @ 9:51 AM |
|
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert?
In Response To: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert? |
REPLY |
|
The Stones definitely didn't invent Rock and Roll, but they may have invented (or been the motivating force for the invention of) "The Rock Star." Elvis was a hearthrob, the beatles were cute, but when the NME ran the headline "Would you let your daughter date a rolling stone" The bad-boy image of rock came into crystal clear focus. From that moment on the Stones could have lived on image alone. Thankfully, they'd wait another seven years before taking exactly that tactic. The stones didn't invent rock, they didn't even invent "stealing black music." Everyone knows that was Jesus, I mean, look at how many gospel songs he wrote! :) What is that guy, like triple platnum now? Need more coffee.
|
| |
| Author: mj |
Posted: 6/14/03 @ 2:27 PM |
|
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert?
In Response To: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert? |
REPLY |
|
Glenn: I have NO contention what so ever on the Stones massive influence on rock and roll, but like I said my contention is with saying they "invented" rock and roll. To me that discounts the collective creation of the genre by artists such as Berry, Elvis, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, and on and on and who themselves were influenced by the blues masters.
As for an example like Ryan Adams I hear all sorts of influences in his music including The Faces and Elton John *as well as* the Stones, that guy is like a sponge so it's far from just the Stones that come through in his music and the same can be said for all sorts of other bands that were influenced by the Stones amongst others.
Rock and Roll has morphed into many different genres just as it was morphed out of different genres. The influence of some artists has been very great indeed: The Stones, The Beatles, Bob Dylan, The Who, Zeppelin, but none of them "invented" the genre, they stood on the shoulders of those who came before them, took what they created and in turn created something lasting and far reaching in the process. And I'll say it again: to say that one band "invented" that genre is misleading to say the least.
|
| |
| Author: glenn |
Posted: 6/14/03 @ 9:02 AM |
|
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert?
In Response To: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert? |
REPLY |
|
Ok, let's look at it this way. Take any cd by the Tragically Hip, Fully Completely or Road Apples in particular. Listen to the guitar work. Then ask yourself, did this come from Bo Diddly or The Stones? How about Pearl Jam? I claimed (a claim i didn't formulate, but learned) they created Rock 'n' Roll as we know it NOW. Bo Diddly and the other blues greats created the Rolling Stones. The Stones learned from the Blues and over the course of the 60s morphed into the band we hear on Sticky Fingers. It is impossible to hear any of the groups that followed them without detecting some sort of influence, whether it's musical or aesthetic.
Now certainly there are bands subsequent to the Stones that have deviated from the gritty, hard-driving blues-based rock & roll they pioneered and others who had made wonderful innovations.
They are not the be all and end all of Rock, no more than Shakespeare is the be all and end all of literature. But, like Shakespeare in the literary world, all that came before them and all that followed, point directly to the band (and again, The Beatles and Dylan).
They're not perfect. They've had their truimphs and failures. But our debt to them is as apparent as is theirs to the blues. And you don't have to even like the band to see that fact.
You praised Bowie. Listen to his Ziggy Stardust days. Where did that glam rock guitar sound come from? Or listen to The Stone Roses? If that's Chuck Berry it is so via the Stones.
Don't take my word for it. Speak to any rhythm guitarist and ask them if Kieth Richards mean anything to them. Or ask any rhythm section if Charlie Watts and Bill Wyman inspire them. Or look at the myriad of lead singers ... such a Bono ... Mick created the template.
Do some research. Seek out what other successful rock musicians and rock historians/critics have said of the Stones. I have here in front of me a Mojo magazine that lists the groups' top 10 albums. Each album write up has a few words from other musicians talking about what they like about these albums. Here's that list of musicians; Queens of the Stone Age, Chris Stein (Blondie), Ryan Adams, Queen, Bobby Gillespie, Peter Gabriel, Beck, John Squire (Stone Roses), Air, Joe Perry (Aerosmith).
Look at the variety there! Don't just take my word for it.
|
| |
| Author: mj |
Posted: 6/14/03 @ 2:13 AM |
|
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert?
In Response To: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert? |
REPLY |
|
I just don't think they are the be all and end all of rock and roll. Yes they were major, no question, but it really gets my back up to hear anyone say the Stones "invented" rock and roll!!
|
| |
| Author: mabel |
Posted: 6/13/03 @ 5:30 PM |
|
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert?
In Response To: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert? |
REPLY |
|
glenn I'd say you did write a book. One thing about the Stones is they've never denied who their influences were. Unfortunately,? Fortunately? .. I think they were neccessary as was Elvis the King to expose the black music and musicians - Founders and perpetual Rulers.. of the time. And they are good role models of why NOT to do heroin. The problem for me is I associate that drug with them automatically, I don't just hear the songs without thinking of All their influences.
|
| |
| Author: mj |
Posted: 6/11/03 @ 4:01 PM |
|
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert?
In Response To: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert? |
REPLY |
|
Glenn: My contention was about claiming the Stones "invented" rock and roll. And yes they have made a major contribution but to say they INVENTED it is truly an overstatement in my view. One of the most important rock acts of all time? Absolutely, without question. But there are so many artists who created rock and roll, and to say the Stones are more important to rock and roll than say Chuck Berry is ludicrous. There would be no Stones without artists such as Berry, Waters and Bo Didley. Therefore they are not the inventors of the genre.
I also stand by my statement that they have become a virtual cover band of their former selves, unlike Bowie who has remained fresh and original. And when ANY band plays together for that long and has that much money to put on shows they better be good and solid and be able to wow, otherwise what the fuck are they doing still playing? And it IS formulaic, the Stones have a formula down that works for them and they have been using it for a long long time.
|
| |
| Author: glenn |
Posted: 6/11/03 @ 1:04 PM |
|
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert?
In Response To: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert? |
REPLY |
|
mj: that the Stones' output subsequent to 1981's Tattoo You has been, at best, inconsistent is not a matter of debate. What is were the contentions that they ripped off the blues and are merely a formulaic act. The Stone have always been about playing live. It is on stage playing as a live ensemble that the true Stones emerge. As for paying the price of admission they charge, that's for the fan to decide. If Torontonians are really pissed about this proposed expense they should write letters to the politicians involved and attempt to halt the show. Though, it may be too late for that.
|
| |
| Author: mj |
Posted: 6/11/03 @ 3:22 AM |
|
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert?
In Response To: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert? |
REPLY |
|
Glenn: I do admire your conviction, and I will finish reading your lengthy posting tomorrow when I get up, but for now (I got off work an hour ago) I'm too tired. In the end we may just have to agree to disagree. I don't discount the Stone contribution to Rock and Roll, nor do I see them as rock Gods. I stand by my view that they have not put out a good album since the 70's (and yes they put out great albums in the 60s and 70s). Hopefully I will have a clearer mind to continue this at a later time.
|
| |
| Author: glenn |
Posted: 6/10/03 @ 6:00 PM |
|
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert?
In Response To: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert? |
REPLY |
|
I would love to write a book on the Stones but I'm afraid it's a more than adequately documented history. My only aim with my post was to refute the notions that the Stones "ripped off" the blues and that they are nothing more than an overpriced jukebox. Glad to see others realise that, despite inconsistent studio work, as a live act, they're as solid as ever. It's only rock 'n' roll, but long live rock! And if ya'll are pissed about the mechanisms of supply and demand, let's do away with capitalism and money.
|
| |
| Author: ryman |
Posted: 6/10/03 @ 5:48 PM |
|
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert?
In Response To: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert? |
REPLY |
|
Holy living Christ Glenn are you writing a book??!
I pretty much agree with newman, I am a Stones fan though, but man Glenn your posting was too long I didn't finish, I was like "yeah okay whatever". I WANT the Stones to come, I'm a second generation Stones fan in fact. It's probably the only concert I can conceive of going to with my dad and still rocking out. But I also have to admit (mj) they haven't put out a decent album since the 70's....but, I don't care, they can still rock! It's all about generating much needed cash in this city and LOTS of people will come from all over for a free outdoor Stones concert.
The 10 mil part's a bit of a pisser but oh well, ya gotta do what ya gotta do.
|
| |
| Author: newman |
Posted: 6/10/03 @ 3:00 PM |
|
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert?
In Response To: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert? |
REPLY |
|
I've never seen the Stones live, except for some IMAX thing I saw as a child. The Stones songs that I enjoy the most are of the Brian Jones era The thought of Toronto spending 10mil on the Stones is a bit shocking. On the other hand I can't think of another band that would draw people from all over canada and the US for an outdoor concert. And that's the idea, to get people together. Toronto is a b-list town on the world stage and our image is getting trashed. This stunt isn't about music, it's about people. About cramming 500,000 people into an old air force base and making them cheer and smile and have a good time in toronto. I think it's sad that the stones would require a 10mil appearance fee, but on the otherhand, a large part of this show is an economic stimulus package. Can I think of better bands? No. In terms of appeal the Stones cut across generations in a way that few bands that are currently producing music can (actually, I don't think any band can compete. period. and I'm note even a large stones fan). The people of Toronto deserve a little bit of a circus every once in a while. I'll put my $20 in the hat if someone passes it around.
|
| |
| Author: glenn |
Posted: 6/10/03 @ 12:04 PM |
|
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert?
In Response To: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert? |
REPLY |
|
Rock ‘n’ Roll is at its best when fueled by passion and conviction; a belief in itself, its inheritance and the conviction to take a stand and risk falling flat on its face. It is the popular folk music of the latter half of the 20th century. And while record companies and calculating marketers have allowed the genre’s landscape to become glutted with disposable and insipid crap, transforming what was once true and honest into formulas to be repeated and taken to the bank to the near-fatal detriment of the genre and the cheating of the listening public, there does remain conviction and belief.
This conviction and belief is most assuredly the impetus at the very core of the genesis of the Rolling Stones. It was the late Brian Jones’ passion for American Blues music that began arriving in England in the late 50s and early 60s that lead him to start the band and attract the attention of Mick Jagger and Keith Richards who where also thrilled by this music. Back then Rock ‘n’ Roll’s potential for the rewards of superstardom and great wealth were yet to manifest themselves. The financial and critical uncertainty into which the band thrust itself could only have been fueled by the convictions and passions of musicians whose intentions were pure.
To claim that the Rolling Stones “ripped off” Chuck Berry, Muddy Waters and Bo Diddley displays a serious lack in ones understanding of the very heart, soul and foundation of the Rolling Stones. Indeed, Rock ‘n’ Roll history. They are and always will be a Blues outfit first. And all three of the men mentioned above have praised the band for their interpretations of the Blues and gave the band encouragement to carry on. This is a historical fact, not mere myth-making or wishful thinking. Bo Diddley said, “this is one of those bands to whom I begrudge nothing … if they took some of my music they also respected it.” The Stones only ever wanted to cover the Blues records to which they were listening. There is of course nothing too remarkable about this. Many bands start off covering the works of other musicians, usually their heroes. It’s one way in which they learn to play their instruments, learn to play as an ensemble and, most importantly, learn the of the musical inheritance that is theirs.
The first five highly acclaimed records the Stones recorded are largely comprised of Blues standards. They are characterized by a remarkable understanding of the Blues that these white, middle class British kids had and the energy and conviction with which they made these songs their own that creates the distinction between covering and “ripping off”. The Stones did not smooth out the rough edges of the music to sell at higher prices to “white middle class” audiences. Such a claim can only come from one who has never listened to England’s Newest Hit Makers [1964], 12 x 5 [1964], Rolling Stones Now [1965], Out of Our Heads [1965] and December’s Children [1965]. The exalted status and position of these records in the Rock cannon is another unquestionably accepted fact.
The claim that Rock ‘n’ Roll as we know it today was created by the Stones, and here we must equally credit The Beatles and Bob Dylan, is not erroneous and does not over look the influence of the great Blues giants. However it was the Stones’ metamorphosis from accomplished interpreters to making the Blues their own; they created a new Blues that became Rock ‘n’ Roll. Consider their landmark achievement Beggars’ Banquet [1968]. This album contains the irrefutable Rock classics ‘Salt of the Earth’, ‘Street Fighting Man’ and ‘Sympathy for the Devil’, hardly examples of polished and safe music. Though more to our purposes here are the remainder of the tracks. This is rough hewn delta Blues of the highest caliber. An achievement that the Stones themselves would rarely match ever again. But it was their own and fully established the Stones as a bona fide Blues outfit, respecting their inheritance and boldly claiming it as their own. The suggestion that they “ripped off” the Blues smacks of pitiable revisionist history with no understanding of the facts. It’s true that they brought this music to a middle class white audience. But is that a bad thing? The Stones took American Blues, folk music, and brought it back to a larger American audience and exposed them to it. If it weren’t for the Stones, would I know and love the Delta Blues? The Stones taught us.
Their next few albums created the sexually decadent and hard rock that characterizes their greatest achievements of original material; Let it Bleed [1969], Sticky Fingers [1971] and Exile on Main Street [1972]. The influence of these records upon future Rock acts is immeasurable and irrefutable. They contain everything from country, gospel, blues and rock. All performed with utterly believable vitality and conviction. That is when rock ‘n’ roll as we know it was created. The Stones bridged the gap. They’re not alone. As I said one must obviously credit Dylan and the Beatles. Wasn’t Bob Dylan just another kid imitating the folkies that preceded him? And then turning to Blues infected Rock in response to what was happening around him? But what sets he and the Stones apart is that they understood completely where this music came from and just what it was all about. This was Dylan’s advice to any new aspiring folk artists; don’t imitate me but go back and listen to the music from which I learned. When you understand that, you won’t be imitating me, but creating your own unique take on the form. Over the course of those early years they transformed themselves from students to masters and gave to the world music of a caliber that has rarely been matched since. And again, they did so with the respect of the heroes they set out to imitate. Witness Johnny Cash performing Dylan’s own songs and Chuck Berry hiring Keith Richards to be his rhythm guitarist on tour. And it hardly ends there.
Forty years later, the Stones emerge as a great live ensemble. And isn’t that what rock ‘n’ roll is all about? Isn’t that what a band is? Isn’t being in a band first and foremost all about performing live? The Stones are not merely a well oiled formulaic stadium act. Most of them have been playing together for over 40 years. By necessity there will be a “well oiled” aspect to their live performance. And isn’t that what every band hopes to achieve? And just what formula is it they are utilizing? If there is one, it’s their own. The Stones at this point are a band who can perform their songs in any fashion they like with the greatest of ease. They are these songs. They have lived with them and performed them for years. And why not? If you love something, if you have conviction and belief, why should you stop?
Consider their 1999 appearance at the Air Canada Centre. Even myself, a fan since ’81, stood in awe of the raw, sinister, vitriolic and sexually decadent incarnation that evening. They pulled Some Girls [1978] out of retirement and Mick towered over the audience, no mere reference to the bad boy he was, but a weathered and taking-no-shit man, delivering these songs as if they had just been penned backstage. They also raunched their way through numbers such as ‘Route 66’ and ‘Midnight Rambler’, reaffirming and reminding all just what they have achieved and passed down to future performing Rock acts. Consider their small-club shows that are becoming a part of their touring schedules. These shows are largely comprised of lesser known and performed tracks. These shows are small and packed with diehard fans. But in a larger show, such as at the SkyDome, where the audience will be more mixed, they play more standard fare. That is just wise showmanship. Intimate acoustic Blues won’t work well in that space. These shows are blistering, high energy fun. The Stones have always understood that Rock ‘n’ Roll is entertainment and that is exactly what they set out to do and few do it better. If that’s the formula, there’s nothing to fault there.
Comparing the Stones to David Bowie serves no purpose. Even Bowie covered ‘Let’s Spend the Night Together’. The Stones were never the experimental innovators that Bowie was. They never wanted to be. It is erroneous and useless to judge them by that standard. The Stones’ excursions into experimentation, most notably Their Satanic Majesties Request [1967], were competent at best. The Stones here are indeed a formulaic rock band; keep it simple, straightforward and couched in the blues. And while Bowie did influence future generations of musicians with exciting and compelling innovations on albums such as Heroes [1977], Low [1977] and Station to Station [1976] most of his output over the last 20 years has been, at best, academic exercises; experimentation for its own sake. This rarely makes for memorable music. Consider Heathen [2001]. What makes this a great record? It is Bowie returning to his roots and writing music that is fully aware of his ‘70s work. So much for innovation. Like the Stones, he knows what works best for his art. His own tried and true formula. Consider as well U2. On records such as Rattle and Hum, Zooropa, and Pop we see the band experimenting and coming up with competent but hardly great records. But when they recorded All That You Can’t Leave Behind [2000], they returned to what they do best; write and record simple and compelling songs with beautiful melodies. The result? A great record.
As for the money, don’t slam the Stones [or U2 or Bowie]. Instead criticize the fans who are willing to pay such inflated prices. Or, stop and consider why one would spend that kind of money to see this band. From a political point of view, spending $10 million to hire a band from public coffers is a bit much. And there are those here on Citygigs who are not oblivious to this. But, when asked if this would keep them away from the show, the overwhelming response was, hell no!
Think about it.
|
| |
| Author: mj |
Posted: 6/6/03 @ 1:56 AM |
|
Subject: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert?
In Response To: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert? |
REPLY |
|
>furthermore, the Stones, despite their age, are >one of the most exciting and vital rock acts >working today.>>
I disagree with you Glenn, I think the Stones are one of the most well oiled formulaic rock acts working today. If you like that sort of thing fine, but it's not my idea of "exciting". It's not just an age thing, I think Bowie totally rocks, because he HAS remained exciting. He keeps exploring new frontiers not just doing what amounts to a cover band of his former self.
>>they created rock, let's let them decide when one is too old to rock.<<
Uh, I'd say all the black artists like Chuck Berry, Muddy Waters, Bo Didley (the list is too long to name) that they ripped off created rock actually. They just polished it up and sold it for a higher price to a white audience who were more accepting of White Bad Boys.
>>name me one, just one Canadian band who have come close to producing music of the caliber as found on 'Beggar's Banquet', 'Let It Bleed' or 'Exile on Main Street'.<<
I'm sure there are a few Canadian bands who haven't put out a decent album since the 70's either only they had the good sense to retire.
>>remember as well that Toronto has been the Stones' North American homebase since the late 70s. they're not as foriegn as you think. hell, their 1977 El Macombo gig can be heard on their live set 'Love You live'.>>
Well then how nice of them to condescend to charge us 10million dollars to help out a city they supposedly give a fuck about. What would they charge a city they didn't like????
|
| |
| Author: glenn |
Posted: 6/5/03 @ 9:42 PM |
|
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert?
In Response To: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert? |
REPLY |
|
It would be grand. But if and when the day comes and Mick rips into Route 66 this'll all fade into distant memory. :)
|
| |
| Author: redheather |
Posted: 6/5/03 @ 8:30 PM |
|
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert?
In Response To: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert? |
REPLY |
|
I'd personally be way more up for that than The Stones!
|
| |
| Author: glenn |
Posted: 6/5/03 @ 7:03 PM |
|
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert?
In Response To: RE: RE: RE: 10 million dollars for a free Rolling Stones concert? |
REPLY |
|
If we're looking for charity why not U2, REM and Radiohead?
|
| |
