Why?

Oddly enough, I've never been able to get into Jeff Beck but I love the Mick Jagger solo album and believe he did most if not all of the guitars on that one.
Interesting. I have tried valiantly to develop an appreciation of Jeff Beck, but was never enamored of any of his work outside of parts of Wired and his collaborations with guys like Jagger or Stewart. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Huge Stones fan through Some Girls-Sticky Fingers is their best, everything after Some Girls were either the rejects from the SG sessions or just crap.

Unlike most critics, I find Exile to be the most boring piece of crap they put out.  Totally bland and lame.

 
not a big fan, but I enjoy do enjoy some of their late 60s & 70s stuff in general,

Let It Bleed, & Some Girls in particular

 
Last edited by a moderator:
One of the things I learned slowly and painfully about forums is that I shouldn't talk about who or what I like.

I don't like any band all the time. but I like almost all of them once in a while.

Most of the people I really liked a lot are either dead or probably will be soon.

 
An irony of the British Invasion is that The Beatles kicked it off, but the bands that followed and lasted from a different culture and mindset.

Beatles were from Liverpool. Lennon started his Quarrymen as a skiffle group. Liverpool was the center of "Mersey Beat" rock/pop music. Other Mersey Beat bands were Gerry and the Pacemakers, Billy J. Kramer and the Dakotas, and--even though they were from Manchester--Freddie and the Dreamers. Brian Epstein was the manager for all of them.

The London-based British bands were inspired by the Chess Records artists' tour of England in 1958. That's why the Yardbirds did their pitiful cover of John Lee Hooker's "Boom Boom" in 1962. London-based Brit bands of the British Invasion were American Blues wannabes. The Rolling Stones were originally the "Rollin' Stones," named after Muddy Waters' signature song (later replaced by "Hoochie Coochie Man." Pink Floyd was named after two Piedmont blues artists, Pink Garrison and Floyd Council. Read the back of the record jacket of the Animals' first album and it's obvious they're all about the blues. The same goes for the Yardbirds, Mayall's Bluesbreakers, Cream, Blind Faith, and the Moody Blues." Then they took acid and the next thing you know, Pink Floy and the Moody Blues have gone psychedelic.

The Beatles went their own way, which included forays into psychedelia, but the thing that set them apart from the rest was a broad spectrum of stles and themes, and quality songwriting that could hold its own with Irving Berlin, Hoagy Carmichael, and other giants of the Great American Songbook. That, and the musicianship and the precise vocal harmonies (and that included Ringo) that validated the substance of their songs.

Comparing the Beatles and the Stones is like comparing apples and alligators. They had different reasons for being, different artistic gifts and values, different emotional states, and different standards of their respective artistries.

 
"Pink Floyd was named after two Piedmont blues artists, Pink Garrison and Floyd Council".

I always leaned toward this explanation......

Pink Floyd
1)A pink dildo. Origin, UK slang.
2)A sex toy, a plastic penis coloured pink, hence a Pink Floyd.
She preferred to use her Pink Floyd rather than a casual one night stand.
 
I like a lot of different music. But there are sometimes bands I don't listen much or even dislike even though I like other bands of that genre. I grew up listening to lots of 60's stuff in the 70's (I was a little kid then). So, I can enjoy Beatles and the Stones, Kinks, Who, Hendrix, Doors. Some old bands I got a little bit later into. Never got into Janis Joplin, Jefferson Airplane, CSN(Y), Neil Young, Peter Frampton, Rush, Grateful Dead, Springsteen, Bryan Adams, Kiss, Alice Cooper, Meat Loaf, Dokken, Motely Crue, GnR, Metallica, L. Skynyrd, Allman Bros and a lot more. While I enjoyed VH (got into them around 1982), I seem to have, kind of, "outgrown" their music. I think they stopped progressing after the "infamous" VH III from 1998 (I liked that album) when they just did what their fans wanted by going back regroup with DLR and play the old stuff again. In 1983 I kind of discovered Zappa and was really into it. When he died I suddenly stopped listening to his stuff. Nowadays I rarely give the albums from Sheik Yerbouti on a listen, but prefer the earlier stuff from Grand Wazoo to Live in NY. While I still like some heavy stuff, I admit to get mellower with age, I just see that as a progression of my listening habits.

Funny to see JoeO mentioning Lucifer's Friend, I always loved their albums, one of the few german acts I like. I also like Greenslade and Mahavishnu Orchestra.

 
Always liked the Stones and always respected the way they put a spotlight on a lot of the old blues musicians.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are some great Stones songs (mostly late '60s/mid '70s for me) but I have yet to see concert footage where they didn't sound like ass.

 
There are some great Stones songs (mostly late '60s/mid '70s for me) but I have yet to see concert footage where they didn't sound like ass.
Agreed. That Scorsese movie "Shine A Light" was incredibly bad. I literally felt sorry for the poor bastards who had to slog through all the post-production.

Edited to add I still love the Stones and a gazillion of their songs. Credit where credit is due!!!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have seen them four times, they sounded great every time. 

Lots of good live stuff on the Rolling Stones From The Vault DVD series.
Rolling Stones at the MAX, the Imax film, Ladies and Gentlemen and the Some Girls Live in Texas ´78 DVD are very good too. 

I have yet to check out Havanna Moon.

 
I'm forty-eight years old.

I've never listened to (or purchased) a Rolling Stones album in my life.

Why?

Many reasons.  They're not my thing.  Beatles or Stones?  Beatles. Pride. Ignorance. Just don't care. Life is too short.  Which is strange, because I've purchased albums of other artists who I've never cared for to see what, if anything, I might be missing.  Bruce Springsteen comes to mind as an example.* So does Prince.**

The 'Stones came up on some random playlist on the interwebs the other day.  It might have been YouTube or Pandora, but it was probably Amazon's music service which flows though the tele into the stereo into my family room.  An album is a click away, and so I clicked and added "Sticky Fingers," to my subscription, an album I remember for the vulgar intent of its cover, depicting and even providing an actual zipper embedded therein for purposes of, well, you get it, going back in time to regarding it as a mid-teen (15 years of age? 17?) in the early 80s.  The album itself, it turns out, was released in 1971, me just a toddler of a Toadroller.

And so, this evening, as I relaxed from a Sunday of Maine-styled roof-shoveling, I listened to "Sticky Fingers" from start to finish.

Not bad.  Bluesy, swaggery, sloppy, hardly polished and slick, but in the best way, and decent in attitude.

I'll listen again.

*Shame on me.  I've bought them, on vinyl even, but still haven't given them the "spin" that vinyl affords.

** Prince, it turns out, was awesome.
A 15-17 year old boy looks at the Sticky Fingers cover and thinks "vulgar"? You were obviously prematurely mature.  :lol:

 
Funny to see JoeO mentioning Lucifer's Friend, I always loved their albums, one of the few german acts I like. I also like Greenslade and Mahavishnu Orchestra.
Finding LF (and Greenslade) was one of the benefits of my keyboard-playing buddy and I being able to browse independent record shops near our homes that carried what were called "cut-outs" - deeply discounted non-mainstream or poor-selling records of bands no one had ever heard of. We would look through the collections of $3.00 and $4.00 albums, until we saw something with a quirky name or cover art, and if the bands' instrument list included things like a mellotron, synths, acoustic/classical guitars, woodwinds, or strings, in addition to the usual stuff, and instead of 5 3-minute songs per side, there were only a few longer ones, we might consider parting with "three fiddy" ($ 3.50, in this case!).  

I don't know how to duplicate that experience now... everybody buys records (er, music) online now right? Even perusing the back of a CD case isn't quite the same.  And yeah, i suppose now you can look up an unknown band on the net and even read all about them on their website, check them out on youtube, before you buy,but that kind of takes away some of the mystery... in the old days you never knew what you really had until you went home and popped it on the turntable after a couple of bong hits. More often than not you were happily surprised! I'm sure there are a lot of bands whose music i would never have come to appreciate if we didn't have that "discount" opportunity to take a chance on them.

 
Finding LF (and Greenslade) was one of the benefits of my keyboard-playing buddy and I being able to browse independent record shops near our homes that carried what were called "cut-outs" - deeply discounted non-mainstream or poor-selling records of bands no one had ever heard of. We would look through the collections of $3.00 and $4.00 albums, until we saw something with a quirky name or cover art, and if the bands' instrument list included things like a mellotron, synths, acoustic/classical guitars, woodwinds, or strings, in addition to the usual stuff, and instead of 5 3-minute songs per side, there were only a few longer ones, we might consider parting with "three fiddy" ($ 3.50, in this case!).  

I don't know how to duplicate that experience now... everybody buys records (er, music) online now right? Even perusing the back of a CD case isn't quite the same.  And yeah, i suppose now you can look up an unknown band on the net and even read all about them on their website, check them out on youtube, before you buy,but that kind of takes away some of the mystery... in the old days you never knew what you really had until you went home and popped it on the turntable after a couple of bong hits. More often than not you were happily surprised! I'm sure there are a lot of bands whose music i would never have come to appreciate if we didn't have that "discount" opportunity to take a chance on them.
I know what you mean. I always read the credits list and then was researching what else the people did, when I liked someone. And that was pre-internet, so the reseach was actually hard, but yet it was part of the fun. Uriah Heep's "Magician's Birthday" I gave a listen because of Roger Dean's cover. Also "Aqualung" by Jethro Tull had an interesting cover. Rainbow's "Rising" was my favorite album then (I still rank it very high after I listened to it for the first time in 1980) and Cozy Powell was my connection to give "Rough and Ready" (now my all-time favorite album) by the Jeff Beck Group a listen. At first an older relative had some of the influential albums. Later the record shops were like a 2nd home. I listened to radio then too. And sometimes there were cool songs we recorded on cassette tapes then. That way I learned of bands like Colosseum II, Traffic, Roxy Music and others (that was even quite a bit before I started buying records since I even didn't have my own record player then, but hey, I was about 10 or 11 years old). When I bought my first Deep Purple album (Made in Europe) I knew I wanted to make music. I read a lot of music magazines then too. And after some time I also bought records of people I read a lot about, like Zappa or King Crimson. It was in about 1988 I started buying compact discs. But a lot of that magic that was there when purchasing a new album was gone from that moment on, and the music scene also had changed by then. And yes, when I was about 12 or 13 years old, the "cut-outs" were the way to go. For me, the "magic" album buying years were when I was 11-16 years old, that was around 1980-1984, I still had fun buying albums until I bought my first CD. There was some magic "refreshed" in the early internet days when I was hunting down all the bootlegs that were offered on Napster (and boy, were there long downloading times for mostly low audio quality stuff). In 2008 I ditched my vinyls. Nowadays I even don't buy much CD's, most recent buys were albums by Sting, Winery Dogs and Vintage Trouble...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Huge Stones fan through Some Girls-Sticky Fingers is their best, everything after Some Girls were either the rejects from the SG sessions or just crap.

Unlike most critics, I find Exile to be the most boring piece of crap they put out.  Totally bland and lame.
Exile is amazing. 

Serial, I used to think you were cool. 

Now I've lost all faith! 

:o   :P   :D

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Exile is amazing. 

Serial, I used to think you were cool. 

Now I've lost all faith! 

:o   :P   :D
PLEASE tell me one good song on that album.

And I am also someone who has never seen good live footage of the Stones after 1978. I've never been to one of their shows and have zero regrets.  The live JFK show from 81 is awful and they never got better.

And I'm a big Stones fan.

 
PLEASE tell me one good song on that album.

And I am also someone who has never seen good live footage of the Stones after 1978. I've never been to one of their shows and have zero regrets.  The live JFK show from 81 is awful and they never got better.

And I'm a big Stones fan.
I never considered myself to be much of a Stones fan, but I really enjoy the Mick Taylor recordings. Other than that, I can honestly do without them. As for Exile, I couldn't name one song on the record, much less name one good one. So, I looked up the song list, and I STILL didn't know any of the songs (by name, anyway).

"Some Girls" stands on its own, I suppose.  You either enjoy that Disco-influenced period of music (everyone was doin' it) or you don't.
What followed, unfortunately, can only be described as a group of guys well passed their prime, performing "Rolling Stones Theater" as charicatures of themselves. 
Sure, the arenas are sold out, and the sheep flock to them wherever they go, but as my High School History teacher always said, "The masses are asses."

Grace Slick had the right idea.

 
Back
Top