markv@dartvax.UUCP (Mark Vita) (04/27/84)
<Ahem...> >I agree to some extent, I do not find those three bands to be >particularly interesting. Supertramp used to have some good >stuff but sound like they have started down the "bubble-gum- >teeny-bopper-syntho-pop" path. Loverboy is what I consider to >be "listenable" but they don't hold my attention long. Journey >is in about the same class and I do listen to them occasionally. I agree with your agreement. Nice to see that there are some rational people out there in netland. >Please tell me your kidding! Dwarved by the MUSICAL TALENT of >The Stones and The Who? My god, the Stones don't even tune up >before they play. I once heard them play a whole concert out >of tune! Well, I guess I could concede the Stones. "Musical talent" as I would define it (instrumental ability) is not what makes the Stones a great band. Sure, they don't always tune up before they play. I find that part of their unique, ah, charisma. Besides, it's so easy to flame the Stones these days. They are a (barely) living husk of a once great rock band. Sure their last three albums have been basically trash, but the Stones have been around for 22 years, and their prime has come and gone. I find hard to believe that people cannot see the majesty of songs such as "Sympathy For The Devil", "Gimme Shelter", "Time Waits For No One". But, chacun a son gout, as they say. (Well, someone says it. I don't. But I'm certain there are others that do. They probably live in France.) However, before leaving the subject of the Stones I would like point out one member of the band which I consider to be a *musician*, and that is Mick Taylor. If you have heard him play, you cannot deny his excellent blues-scale technique, especially on "Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out" and also the songs "Sway" and "Time Waits For No One." >The Who? Oh please, these guys do not produce what I call >music. Their simplistic droning is unimaginative, unchallenging, >(to listen to and play) and just plain boring. I can't bring >myself to sit and listen to a bunch of meaningless lyrical >drivel about sex & drugs accompanied by the same old cords >in 4/4 time. This is simply wholly inaccurate. I would hardly consider Townshend's lyrics to "meaningless lyrical drivel", but that is just my opinion. However, the assertion that the lyrics are "about sex & drugs" is simply not true. I'm fairly familiar with their work, and sure, there are a few sex and/or drug-related tunes, but not in greater proportion than your average garden-variety 60's rock band. Besides, I was referring to instrumental ability. Keith Moon was just an excellent drummer -- how can you say that Bonham is excellent and deny Moon? I would place their talents on about an equal par. And there are very few bassists that have the raw skill and creative talent of John Entwistle. (I would like to see you even PLAY some of Entwistle's "unimaginative" basslines, much less CREATE them.) As far as Townshend goes, I will agree that his talent is a little more nebulous -- you can either like it or hate it. I happen to like it. (If you would like to hear some excellent Townshend lyrics [better, I believe, than what appeared on the Who's last several albums, as Townshend began rather selfishly to save his best material for his solo work], try listening to either of his solo albums "Empty Glass" or "All The Best Cowboys Have Chinese Eyes"). One last note about the Who -- they too suffer (suffered, I should say, since are apparently now defunct) from the Stones Syndrome. Perhaps they should have quit five or so years ago when they still commanded some respect. >Zeppelin? I do like some of their stuff, though not much. Most >of their stuff was just too noisy for me. I can't deny however >that Bonham was a great drummer. He could really play. Now *you're* on the right track! Bonham was awesome. (God rest his soul.) But so is John Paul Jones and, how can you ignore Jimmy Page? The man's a true artist with the guitar. Sure, some of Zeppelin's stuff is noisy, but I would say that the large majority is not. They kind of get a bum deal publicity-wise, as most rock stations when playing a Zeppelin tune will usually pick one of their noisier tunes, such as "Black Dog" or "Rock And Roll". But you must really sit down and listen to all of their albums to realize what a truly diverse group they were. For example, their third album was recorded almost entirely with acoustic guitar - very little "noise". (Although Page does use a few effect boxes (phasors and the like) even on the acoustic.) Their music ranges from heavy metal ("Black Dog") to ballads ("Going To California") to classic 12-bar blues ("I Can't Quit You Baby") to weird Eastern-tinged stuff ("In The Light") to almost neo-classical ("Kashmir"). And much of it NOT in 4/4 time!! (Even "Black Dog" is 5/4, believe it or not. Listen carefully.) Just a clarification about the term "real musician" which seems to have raised a lot of hackles. The term is completely relative. Compared to me, who plays the guitar at an rather amateur level, even the bozo in Quiet Riot must be considered a real musician. I'm not trying to imply that people such as these have NO musical ability, but simply a unremarkable amount compared to such true greats as Jimmy Page. (And to that list of greats I would add Jimi Hendrix, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Dickie Betts, David Gilmour, Randy Rhoads and Brad Gillis. Why the latter two ever hung out with a loser like Ozzy is beyond me.) Mark Vita ..!decvax!dartvax!markv
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (04/29/84)
I guess anyone who thinks that Loverboy and Journey are even remotely listenable (badly in need of musical de-programming, MTV did a job on thee, now thou art a lobotomy), and Rush to be awesome (or some such adjective) would have nothing good to say about real composers/musicians like the Who. Oh, well... I think everyone's in agreement about the Stolling Rones. But realize that their media value is as entertainment, not music. (though this was not always true) Today, the Rones serve as entertainers, like Rick Springfield, and Boy George, and Loverboy (shirts open, leather pants on, hut!), and Journey (but they're so serious!!!!!), and Rush (no, I take it back, Rush are surely not entertainers, they're not even entertaining, they're artists, I guess some artists are better than others...) Just one man's opinion. -- Pardon me for ... oh, never mind!! Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
rossen@uiucdcs.UUCP (05/01/84)
#R:pyuxn:-60500:uiucdcs:10800045:000:2273 uiucdcs!rossen Apr 30 16:44:00 1984 So here's another man's opinion -- and pardon the music-critic-style cliches. I take exception to the addition of Loverboy and Dr. Noah Drake to a pot containing the Rolling Stones and Culture Club. I am in agreement that the Rolling Stones (at least concerning the music they are putting out currently) and Culture Club have mainly entertainment value, and I am of the opinion that it's *okay* to produce just entertainment. But the skill that goes into making Stones or Club music (I think) far outstrips anything we have seen yet from Loverboy or R. Springfield. The Rolling Stones, as a group of musicians, includes two extremely accomplished guitarists who haven't strayed too far from the "R&B roots" that got rock and roll on the map in thr first place. I defy Paul Dean to play "Going to a Go-Go" like Keith Richards does (i.e. with as much "soul") or come up with a hook like even the one in "Start Me Up." Culture Club is a different story. As if such things matter, I always thought of them as a "pop" band, not a rock & roll band. But where R. Stones have good R&B-style guitar going for them (at least now and then) Culture Club has at least one, and for a while had two, remarkable voices. Boy George's makeup and clothes concern me very little. But the man has a beautiful voice. Smooth as cream. And when played off against Helen Terry's red-hot gospel-style wailing, it's at least well-executed and at best inspiring. C. Club, too, seems to be acutely conscious of the roots of its music in black music -- in this case old Motown, from which it borrows a lot of its style. I won't attempt to draw any hypothesis from this "similarity." If entertainment value is to be judged regarding the four musical entities Rich mentions, I submit that C. Club and the Stones have been drawing their listening audience from a wider cross-section of the listening public than the other two (whose audiences, I gather, seldom extend past teenagers), and that, when all is said and done, the Club and the Stones will have held more of the public's attention for a substantially longer period of time. ------- "You can take the boy out of Detroit, but you can't take the Detroit out of the boy." Ken in Champaign-Urbana [pur-ee ihnp4] uiucdcs!rossen
rob@ctvax.UUCP (05/03/84)
#R:dartvax:-138700:ctvax:39000013:000:950
ctvax!rob May 3 12:04:00 1984
The funny thing about the Stones is their (or maybe just Keith Richards')
ability to write catchy licks. For example, I was at NBA basketball game
recently. During a timeout. the PA started playing "Start Me Up".
The place was jumping even before Jagger's nasal whinings came on.
I think the Stones have consistently been able to produce these licks.
From "Satisfaction" through "Bitch" to "Start Me Up", that's some
talent that few groups can emulate.
To digress from intros to endings, a local DJ pointed out recently
that on quite a few of ZZ Tops songs, Billy Gibbons really gets
steaming just when the record starts to fade. The DJ inferred that
he knew Gibbons and that this teasing is deliberate. I've never
had the fortitude to stand in line for ZZ Top tickets, so I cannot
confirm that their live performances deliver on this come-on.
Any opinions?
Rob Spray
uucp: ... {decvax!cornell!|ucbvax!nbires!|{allegra|ihnp4}!convex!}ctvax!rob