Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Off Topic: Favorite Music?


Recommended Posts

I've never heard of it as "The killing of Brian Jones."  Always heard of it referred to as an accidental death.  Some of us long time JOHN MAYALL lovers were kind of glad to hear MICK TAYLOR was picked as a replacement, though we still thought of Jones as irreplaceable.

 

We also thought of Taylor as an equal of Clapton, but an odd fit of sorts for the Stones.  But it was all good.

 

I was just starting to get "into" Johnny Winter at that time, so it all didn't hold that much importance for me.

 

(also don't understand the ALMOST double post!)

 

 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

Complete change of pace...getting to the end of summer, let's soak up the sun while we can. (Well, actually I don't like soaking / baking in the sun,  I like rain, but that's not the point.)

 

Sheryl really evokes the 60's hippie-girl vibe for me. Reminds me of summer times with girls (and buddies) I hung with back in '69-'71.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to go back and check some of the details about this theory as my memory

is rather hazy on the whole affair. The "mysterious" death of Brian Jones is just

short of a cottage industry and it percolates up to the top every once in a while.

There are even two "suspects" now. The best known is Frank Thorogood, no

relation to George. Thorogood was a contractor helping Jones with some work

on his new country estate, the former home of A.A. Milne, the creator of Winnie

the Pooh. That is why one of the books about the Jones' affair was called Who

Killed Christopher Robin? Thorogood was supposed to have gotten into an

argument with Jones and killed him, or else they were fooling around in the pool

and Thorogood held Jones under the water too long, accidently killing him.

I don't think there is much evidence either way, so solo accidental drowning is

still the best solution, especially as there was a lot of booze and other drugs

in the mix.

 

Though Jones founded the Stones, he was never a songwriter. So when Mick

and Keith started to write their own material that put Jones on the outs. Oldham

knew there was more money in writing one's own material than in covering

old blues songs. Can't argue with that.

The only Stones' song I really associate with Brian Jones is "Paint it Black".

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only Stones' song I really associate with Brian Jones is "Paint it Black".

True, he played sitar on that one, and often, as a multi-instumentalist, added harmonica and keyboard parts in other songs.  I misspoke when I referred to him writing many of their tunes.  It was what I was always led to believe.

 

I always did like The Stones, but never a huge fan, and shied away from those pinheads who always wanted to start fisstfights over  which was the BETTER band;  The Stones, or The Beatles.(I liked both equally).

 

I often wondered how much the frustration of having formed the band, and all the attention paid to Jagger in spite of that fact had to do with his overdoing the booze and dope that essentially led to his death.  According to coronor's reports, nobody HAD to try to OR kill him.  He was well on his way out anyway.

 

 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

True, he played sitar on that one, and often, as a multi-instumentalist, added harmonica and keyboard parts in other songs.  I misspoke when I referred to him writing many of their tunes.  It was what I was always led to believe.

 

I always did like The Stones, but never a huge fan, and shied away from those pinheads who always wanted to start fisstfights over  which was the BETTER band;  The Stones, or The Beatles.(I liked both equally).

 

I often wondered how much the frustration of having formed the band, and all the attention paid to Jagger in spite of that fact had to do with his overdoing the booze and dope that essentially led to his death.  According to coronor's reports, nobody HAD to try to OR kill him.  He was well on his way out anyway.

 

 

Sepiatone

If you liked them both equally, doesn't the fact that the Stones did a lot of great stuff after the Beatles broke up make you have a preference for the Stones at this point in time?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you liked them both equally, doesn't the fact that the Stones did a lot of great stuff after the Beatles broke up make you have a preference for the Stones at this point in time?

 

Not really.  All of The Beatles' stuff was still available, and the stuff the Stones did AFTER the Beatles broke up that was really any good kinda(to me) dried up after a year or two.  Maybe one or two really good songs spread out over ten years or so.  "Start Me Up" was the last thing they did I thought was really good.  There IS no "fact" that they did a lot of  great stuff after the Beatles broke up.  It's really all subjective.  And at "this point in time"(did you mean NOW?) I have no use for The Stones.  Oh, I'll listen to and enjoy all the old stuff I enjoyed back in "the day", but nothing NEW they've done in the last decade or so has impressed me much.  In fact, it's all been so dismal it makes me kind of sad in a way.

 

 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

I owned 4 Stones albums - one of which was the great hits collection "High Tide and Green Grass'.

 

I owned every Beatles album.

 

Guess you could say I had a greater fondness for the Beatles than the Stones. Yep.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really.  All of The Beatles' stuff was still available, and the stuff the Stones did AFTER the Beatles broke up that was really any good kinda(to me) dried up after a year or two.  Maybe one or two really good songs spread out over ten years or so.  "Start Me Up" was the last thing they did I thought was really good.  There IS no "fact" that they did a lot of  great stuff after the Beatles broke up.  It's really all subjective.  And at "this point in time"(did you mean NOW?) I have no use for The Stones.  Oh, I'll listen to and enjoy all the old stuff I enjoyed back in "the day", but nothing NEW they've done in the last decade or so has impressed me much.  In fact, it's all been so dismal it makes me kind of sad in a way.

 

 

Sepiatone

 

I actually agree with you on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, the old "Beatles vs Rolling Stones" debate. I too loved them both. (The Beatles up to their break-up, and the Stones up to but not after "Exile on Main Street", except for a few isolated tunes here and there.)

 

This conversation reminds me of a song by a band called "Metric". They're pretty good.I posted this once before, quite a while ago, I think on another thread. Once you hear the chorus you'll know why I thought of it.

By the way, sorry, can't resist adding, these guys are Canadian. Gimme sympathy.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like both groups, but if I had to choose one, I'd go with the

Fab Four. Yeah, etc. Before the CD era, I had the U.S. versions

of the Beatles' albums, which were different from the U.K. versions

up until Sergeant Pepper. Then when CDs came out, the U.K.

versions were used. I think the U.S. versions are now also out

on CD. Tis a quandary. (And why isn't sergeant spelled sargent)?

 

Then again, Mott the Hoople had their own take on the subject.:

 

And my brother's back at home with his Beatles and his Stones

We never got it off on that revolution stuff

What a drag too many snags.

So now it's four against one. I can handle it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been avoiding this one, but what the heck.  In high school and college in 60's.  Did not and still do not care at all for The Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Who, et. al.

Listened to (and still listen to) Rock and Roll, pop and country from the late 50's and early '60's. Also fair amount of classical.  Some music since then, but not much, mostly country, pop or instrumental.

To get to a movie tie in, I think Percy Faith, Ray Conniff, Henry Mancini, Mantovanni and many others did great arrangements and collections of movie music.

I purchased a lot of movie soundtracks and some were quite good, but for many just the movie's theme and maybe one other were good. This is where the collections of themes by above named really came in well.

I watched CNN's documentary on the 70's Music the other night.  Not impressed as it seemed to ignore the HUGE amount of music that was not derivitive of The Beatles, Stones, heavy metal, acid rock, the Jacksons and a few others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a drag it is. I know the gritty Stones' fans will survive.

I do like the Stones from the mid 1960s to the mid 1970s.

Kind of lost interest after that, though Some Girls was a

great "comeback" album. I've always meant to go back and

buy some of the Stones' pre-Satanic Majesties albums, but

have never gotten around to it.

You people are penalizing the Stones because their creativity diminished after about 15 years of great stuff. How many groups have maintained an "edge " for that long or longer? Maybe U2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been avoiding this one, but what the heck.  In high school and college in 60's.  Did not and still do not care at all for The Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Who, et. al.

Listened to (and still listen to) Rock and Roll, pop and country from the late 50's and early '60's. Also fair amount of classical.  Some music since then, but not much, mostly country, pop or instrumental.

To get to a movie tie in, I think Percy Faith, Ray Conniff, Henry Mancini, Mantovanni and many others did great arrangements and collections of movie music.

I purchased a lot of movie soundtracks and some were quite good, but for many just the movie's theme and maybe one other were good. This is where the collections of themes by above named really came in well.

I watched CNN's documentary on the 70's Music the other night.  Not impressed as it seemed to ignore the HUGE amount of music that was not derivitive of The Beatles, Stones, heavy metal, acid rock, the Jacksons and a few others.

 

Thanks for sharing your musical preferences, Cid.  (Can I call you "Cid", and omit the "The"?) While I love all those  bands you say you didn't care for, I also like the stuff you say you do listen to. 

I'm not aware of the documentary about 70s music you mention. Sounds interesting, even if (by the sound of it) it leaves out a lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You people are penalizing the Stones because their creativity diminished after about 15 years of great stuff. How many groups have maintained an "edge " for that long or longer? Maybe U2.

 

Nobody's penalizing anybody. Seems as though most people, to a greater or lesser extent,  like the Stones' pre-1975 stuff.  I still love their music from that era as much as ever. I can't help it if I feel that most of their work from about the mid-70s on is sub-par.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love XTC, a very talented and interesting band. Not so much under-rated as under-recognized. (Not quite the same thing.)

There's been a discussion recently elsewhere on the boards that made me think of this very catchy and well-done song. But then, I'm just a simpleton.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You people are penalizing the Stones because their creativity diminished after about 15 years of great stuff. How many groups have maintained an "edge " for that long or longer? Maybe U2.

???

 

WHO you callin' "YOU PEOPLE"?

 

We're not "penalizing" anyone.  Just forwarding opinions.  You know, you may not come across a bigger Bob Dylan freak than ME, but I WILL adamit that the period between "New Morning" and "Blood On The Tracks" was mighty vapid and disappointing.  He finally did "come back" with some interesting stuff("Love And Death"  Was his best in a LONG time!), but not much of late.  And, like the Stones, I don't hold it against him. 

 

I can't however, go along with Vautrin's assessment of "Some Girls".  It made a better FRISBEE than a musical contribution.  But then again, it's one person's opinion.  That their earlier stuff is still available is a good thing, and really should suffice.

 

Yeah, we'd ALL like it if our favorite bands and artists managed to live long enough to occaisionally tour with a nostalgia tour.  But, some people should, and some do, know when it's time to hang it up an step aside for the next shift to come in.  Well, maybe I don't much CARE for what the next "shift" is bringing in, but that's not the point.  It's sort of like what RICK NELSON asserted:

 

"If memories are all I'll sing, I'd rather drive a truck."

 

 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's youse people. The Stones had a very good run, but nothing

lasts forever. Like many groups, they hung around too long. And

fans gradually drift away from bands after a certain amount of time.

Maybe their material from the 1990s is great, but by that time I didn't

have much of an interest in their stuff. There will always be all those

wonderful 1960s singles and albums. I still like Some Girls. There was

a lot of disco influence on that one because of the times, but it still

holds up very well.

 

Pink Floyd had a good run, though they were never much of a singles

band in the U.S.

Speaking of U2, they emerged in 1981 with "I Will Follow". In 2014, from their most recent release, was the great "Volcano". That's a gap of 33 years, with a lot of great stuff in between. Not bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

???

 

WHO you callin' "YOU PEOPLE"?

 

We're not "penalizing" anyone.  Just forwarding opinions.  You know, you may not come across a bigger Bob Dylan freak than ME, but I WILL adamit that the period between "New Morning" and "Blood On The Tracks" was mighty vapid and disappointing.  He finally did "come back" with some interesting stuff("Love And Death"  Was his best in a LONG time!), but not much of late.  And, like the Stones, I don't hold it against him. 

 

I can't however, go along with Vautrin's assessment of "Some Girls".  It made a better FRISBEE than a musical contribution.  But then again, it's one person's opinion.  That their earlier stuff is still available is a good thing, and really should suffice.

 

Yeah, we'd ALL like it if our favorite bands and artists managed to live long enough to occaisionally tour with a nostalgia tour.  But, some people should, and some do, know when it's time to hang it up an step aside for the next shift to come in.  Well, maybe I don't much CARE for what the next "shift" is bringing in, but that's not the point.  It's sort of like what RICK NELSON asserted:

 

"If memories are all I'll sing, I'd rather drive a truck."

 

 

Sepiatone

From SOME GIRLS, "Shattered" and "Miss You" are both great tracks. That's the period when Mick was spending most of his time in NYC, and the lyrics reflect it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing your musical preferences, Cid.  (Can I call you "Cid", and omit the "The"?) While I love all those  bands you say you didn't care for, I also like the stuff you say you do listen to. 

I'm not aware of the documentary about 70s music you mention. Sounds interesting, even if (by the sound of it) it leaves out a lot.

Cid's fine.  CNN has a continuing feature on different aspects of the '70's.  They did one recently on the '60's as well.  If you have On Demand, it shows up on CNN On Demand - sometimes.  Otherwise it's a weekly program.  CNN website should show what is being shown when.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From SOME GIRLS, "Shattered" and "Miss You" are both great tracks. That's the period when Mick was spending most of his time in NYC, and the lyrics reflect it.

Beast of Burden is also good. Respectable is a great lesser known song and Keith's Before They Make Me Run, which pertains to his drug use. The line in it where he says " I wasn't looking too good, but I was feeling real well" must have been an awakening for him.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I've loved The Rolling Stones for half a century ! , since my sister got an album for her birthday.  We were children and I couldn't comprehend what all the lyrics meant (as Miss Wonderly mentioned), but I knew they were exciting and dangerous and I wanted to know everything about them.  I played their music before the first day of school each year to give me courage.  When times were fraught I had dreams about Mick Jagger (still do) and would feel comforted.  Just seeing their photos or reading about them still gives me a little thrill.  The moment when they're announced ("Ladies and Gentlemen...") and come out on stage is like riding a rocket ship to the moon. Or so I imagine!

 

The last time I saw them in concert, 10 years ago, was with a friend who'd gotten tickets from a friend.  We assumed we'd be in the rafters, but were shocked to find we had front row seats.  (Bucket list!)  They were so close I could read (upside down) the set list taped to the stage.  Mick didn't make eye contact with the audience, but what a showman, just fascinating to watch.  I was in heaven and grinning like an idiot when Keith Richards smiled at me. I looked at my friend who screamed "Keith Richards just smiled at you!"  A bit later Ronnie Woods winked at us.  It was just too much. 

 

Anyway, as much as I love The Beatles, Mick and Keith and the boys are my favorites, maybe because I've felt such a emotional attachment for so many years 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...