What's in Your cd Player

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unchainedguitars

The Stones, for me, by a wide margin.

The Who were kinda the Deep Purple of those classic bands (Zep, Stones, Beatles).
The Who were great musicians, but kinda came up short in relation to the others.
Like 1234 mentioned, they weren't physically appealing, and they didn't have the same
caliber of song's as the others (though The Who had awesome tunes, in their own right).

The Stones just seem untouchable.
They were bad boys, effortlessly cool, but such deep songwriters.
"Let it Bleed" still blows my mind, to this day.
There's a looseness to everything they do.
The music is sexy, sometimes dark or serious, but also full of humor.

"Skittles" lent me the Rock 'n roll circus DVD, which i hadn't seen, and i could
not take my eyes off Jagger.
That version of "Sympathy for the devil," the chicks are losing their minds.
I'm thinking, "This guy invented all this shit," in a lot of ways, at least for the bands i
listened to later on.

I love hearing The Who, but i can't watch them.
From Daltrey to Townshend, they just look so goofy.
The Stones, though, sounded exactly like they looked.

---

No band has ever linked their celebrity life so closely to their music as the Stones did. They embodied their myth so completely, and were more interesting than even the Beatles (whose lives were pretty remote, and controlled), and their music was really a soundtrack for their characters. It was so complete, that after Altamont, they had to pull back on the messianic aspects that developed around them (people performing a play called "The Assassination of Mick Jagger" is a bad sign). Only the Beatles and Stones had that kind of "status", no other bands provoked that kind of adulation. It's musical theater at a whole different level than even the Who (they mainly attracted frustrated, adolescent boys)

Roth learned plenty from the Stones that's for sure, but he couldn't cover the cracks after "1984". Then when they brought in Hagar, they immediately dismantled any mystique the band had, and we saw that the band was really just regular guys in Jammz, that liked to drink, drug, and play music in their garage (5150).

Never got into the Stones, and to be honest, I don't see or hear the hype.

Last year they played some vintage concert of theirs on TV, and everything just sounded redundant. I'm sure most people could say the same about Robert Plant and Dave, but I find Mick Jagger's one stage persona very homosexual.

Maybe I just haven't heard the right stuff, I don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cream Man

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/2-german-clip...2,w~~60_35.JPG

I think you'll find it hard to locate a woman who thinks the guy above is "ugly."

Pete's "mistake" was probably in not giving Roger sexy lyrics for the ladies. Instead he stuck him with songs about blind children playing pinball. Major missed opportunity. Robert Plant ripped off Roger Daltrey's look but had "I'm gonna give you every inch of my love," and, "When mountains crumble to the sea/there will still be you and me," and ta-da, he's much better known.

Mick Jagger and Keith Richards are definitely not "good looking."

The Who looked like they sounded - raw, in-your-face anarchy. Pretty boys have nothing to have massive angst about. If you dropped Kip Winger and Jon Bon Jovi into that Woodstock clip, I wouldn't believe their passion and energy at all.

---

It's all true, but regardless, The Who aren't as popular as the Stones or Beatles. It's just a fucking fact. The Who's songs have a more limited appeal, and that is why they aren't as highly regarded as the Beatles or Stones, whose songs have a wide appeal, hence they are more highly regarded. Yes, that is why the Who aren't considered to be at the same level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1234over

No band has ever linked their celebrity life so closely to their music as the Stones did. They embodied their myth so completely, and were more interesting than even the Beatles (whose lives were pretty remote, and controlled), and their music was really a soundtrack for their characters. It was so complete, that after Altamont, they had to pull back on the messianic aspects that developed around them (people performing a play called "The Assassination of Mick Jagger" is a bad sign). Only the Beatles and Stones had that kind of "status", no other bands provoked that kind of adulation. It's musical theater at a whole different level than even the Who (they mainly attracted frustrated, adolescent boys)

Roth learned plenty from the Stones that's for sure, but he could cover the cracks after "1984". Then when they brought in Hagar, they immediately dismantled any mystique the band had, and we saw that the band was really just regular guys in Jammz, that liked to drink, drug, and play music in their garage (5150).

---

Brilliant last line, i agree.

I couldn't articulate it, at that time, but that's what it felt like.
It felt less HUGE, less majestic, when they reappeared as a "buddy band" with 5150.
Sammy was too much the "everyman," though i guess Jimmy Barnes also had that quality.

I don't even know if it's about "pretty boys" regarding The Who vs. The Stones.
The Stones just look cool.
From Charlie's crazed grin, to Richards wasted glamour and Jagger's relentless confidence.
The music, the sound, the look...
It all was like one thing: The Stones.

I still love Charlie Watts as a drummer, can't picture them with anyone else.
I love the holes in the music, the way they play off each other at that relaxed, loose pace.
The Who seemed overly earnest, overly serious, with Townshend's chronically tortured lyrics.
The Stones seemed more observant, taking things in around them.
Townshend was writing more from an introspective, personal point of view.

Different styles, i guess.

I still really like The Who, just not as much as i dig the Stones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unchainedguitars

Brilliant last line, i agree.

I couldn't articulate it, at that time, but that's what it felt like.
It felt less HUGE, less majestic, when they reappeared as a "buddy band" with 5150.
Sammy was too much the "everyman," though i guess Jimmy Barnes also had that quality.

I don't even know if it's about "pretty boys" regarding The Who vs. The Stones.
The Stones just look cool.
From Charlie's crazed grin, to Richards wasted glamour and Jagger's relentless confidence.
The music, the sound, the look...
It all was like one thing: The Stones.

I still love Charlie Watts as a drummer, can't picture them with anyone else.
I love the holes in the music, the way they play off each other at that relaxed, loose pace.
The Who seemed overly earnest, overly serious, with Townshend's chronically tortured lyrics.
The Stones seemed more observant, taking things in around them.
Townshend was writing more from an introspective, personal point of view.

Different styles, i guess.

I still really like The Who, just not as much as i dig the Stones.

---

I love plenty about the Who. I have studied them plenty, it's not like I'm just taking out my ass about a band that I only have a passing interest in. They are GREAT, and added plenty of innovation to Rock, but The Beatles and Stones just added more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vhfanjack

Never got into the Stones, and to be honest, I don't see or hear the hype.

Last year they played some vintage concert of theirs on TV, and everything just sounded redundant. I'm sure most people could say the same about Robert Plant and Dave, but I find Mick Jagger's one stage persona very homosexual.

Maybe I just haven't heard the right stuff, I don't know.

---

Not sure what to say, except that you are viewing them in hindsight. I was born just at the end of the 60's, and remember listening to those bands. They really captured (or defined?) the times. The history of the Stones is easily the most interesting of any major band's. If you are truly interested, read this Stanley Booth book:
http://creativethinkersintl.ning.com...s-by-aberjhani

I have seen it with different titles as well ("Dance With the Devil", and "Sympathy for the Devil". It was written by a guy touring with them in 1969, who is documenting that tour (including Altamont), and he alternates the chapters of their early history, with his coverage of the tour (written on the road with while he is touring with them, like "live" coverage"). It gives you a great sense of the Stones place in society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1234over

Not sure what to say, except that you are viewing them in hindsight. I was born just at the end of the 60's, and remember listening to those bands. They really captured (or defined?) the times. The history of the Stones is easily the most interesting of any major band's. If you are truly interested, read this Stanley Booth book:
http://creativethinkersintl.ning.com...s-by-aberjhani

I have seen it with different titles as well ("Dance With the Devil", and "Sympathy for the Devil". It was written by a guy touring with them in 1969, who is documenting that tour (including Altamont), and he alternates the chapters of their early history, with his coverage of the tour (written on the road with while he is touring with them, like "live" coverage"). It gives you a great sense of the Stones place in society.

---

I'd need to get into the band first. But I'll try to read it at some point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1234over

They are GREAT, and added plenty of innovation to Rock, but The Beatles and Stones just added more.

---

Here's all the innovation Pete Townshend and John Entwistle ever had to add:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5209/...384a44afd8.jpg

The Marshall stack exists because of THE WHO! Jim Marshall had copied the Fender Bassman, and John Entwistle was using one as a combo amp. He would set it on top of a piano at a bar they would play at. He had the idea to add a bottom cabinet so that it would look cooler. Then Pete requested a separate head with eight 12" speakers. That was eventually cut in half to make it more maneuverable, and there's your Marshall stack.

On top of that, I can show you thousands of bands between 1968 and 1993 that had a blond singer in an open shirt out front, and a tall, skinny brunette guy on guitar making super hero poses as he played through a wall of stack amps (all copying The Who in some way, whether intentional or not, from Zep to Van Halen). As for bands playing funky blues riffs through Fender Twins with semi-clean tones like the Rolling Stones I can show you...The Black Crowes and the London Quireboys.

Once again I have sat indoors locked in musical debates on this board, as the sun has risen and set outside. Meanwhile, Pete Townshend enjoyed the sunshine and added another $100,000 to his bank account, not giving one fuck about any of it. Clearly my priorities are in order.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Cream Man

Here's all the innovation Pete Townshend and John Entwistle ever had to add:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5209/...384a44afd8.jpg

The Marshall stack exists because of THE WHO! Jim Marshall had copied the Fender Bassman, and John Entwistle was using one as a combo amp. He would set it on top of a piano at a bar they would play at. He had the idea to add a bottom cabinet so that it would look cooler. Then Pete requested a separate head with eight 12" speakers. That was eventually cut in half to make it more maneuverable, and there's your Marshall stack.

On top of that, I can show you thousands of bands between 1968 and 1993 that had a blond singer in an open shirt out front, and a tall, skinny brunette guy on guitar making super hero poses as he played through a wall of stack amps (all copying The Who in some way, whether intentional or not, from Zep to Van Halen). As for bands playing funky blues riffs through Fender Twins with semi-clean tones like the Rolling Stones I can show you...The Black Crowes and the London Quireboys.

Once again I have sat indoors locked in musical debates on this board, as the sun has risen and set outside. Meanwhile, Pete Townshend enjoyed the sunshine and added another $100,000 to his bank account, not giving one fuck about any of it. Clearly my priorities are in order.

---

Sheeeet....2 words, "Fuzz Box".

I think Led Zep had more to do with spreading the "Blond singer/brunette guitar" thing (even if they got it from the Who, which is debatable, considering the Yardbirds (who were DIRECTLY influenced by the Stones) had the same set up (in the "pre-open shirt"-era of Rock)

So the Rolling Stones influence merely extends to The Crap Crowes, and The Quireboys? Really now ICM...

My favorite concert footage...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V2b0PUi1gg