December 8, 2011
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Gamblor puts his reputation where his mouth is
- Shows I'm watchin on TV Right Now
- FTLOSBW Changes Direction
- . . . and let the Donovan McNabb era end
- Big Ten wins ACC Big Ten Challenge again
- This Was Slightly Less Inspiring than HIs 40 for 6...
- Miracles or coincidences?
- We'll Take It!
- The Minnesota Wild - I'm hooked
- Are these the Sam Bowie's of the Minnesota Vikings?
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
8 Comments:
I need an explanation on the difference between the two: I take it the all initial caps is the better of the two categories, but what's the criteria to move from the first to the second? Either way, it's probably hard to not make a case for the Stones in the higher tier, unless significant demerits are given for not knowing when to quit, which would have been a good idea right after Some Girls was released. Or at the latest, after Tattoo You.
What I do know is that Sonny Rollins laid down far and away the best sax solo of all time on a rock song on "Waiting on A Friend."
I'd also be willing to bet Jan ended up in that particular cul-de-sac of the intertubes by way of reading something having to do with Peter Tosh, and then remembering he was one of the dudes on the stoop in the video.
Also, check out Mick's f'ing velcro shoes in that vid. Yikes. Mick freaking Jagger without laces on his shoes. Didn't realize how terrible that was when we were 8.
December 12, 2011 at 11:36 AM
Very nice. I am surprised one of those links wasn't to Monkey Man. Those late 60s and early 70s albums can definitely suck one in.
I had a ticket to see the Stones on the Steel Wheels tour and sold it to Andy L because I had a wrestling match the same night. I did eventually see the Stones at Soldier Field during my Chicago years.
I am pretty sure that any internet linkage game eventually links to and ends with a list of dead porn stars. Not sure the dynamics on that but if you go long enough it happens.
December 12, 2011 at 11:39 AM
MCA good to see you back.
December 12, 2011 at 11:40 AM
I saw the stones at the first concert at a sold out Fedex fielf in Landover Maryland in or around 1997. Let me tell you, it was a spectacle to be seen. Also, they are old. Really old. But somehow the years of hard core heroin abuse has served to preserve them like some magic rock and roll embalming fluid.
I point out that next year marks their 50th anniversary. Take that Black Eyed Peas!
December 12, 2011 at 5:39 PM
The question about the Stones being Kick Ass was redundant and rhetorical at the same time.
Learn something new everyday, I didn't know it was Peter Tosh in the video. Good trivial pursuit answer.
We need a post about best sax in a song, I vote "Who Can It Be Now" as a top 10 contender:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swQi4CAzmrA
Oh, and no kenny g (not sure if that's a sax he plays or what)
December 13, 2011 at 11:46 AM
50 years is truly absurd. I remember thinking how weird it was a few months ago that R.E.M. lasted 30. U2 needs to break up, too - they haven't done anything noteworthy in years, and haven't had a great album since Achtung, which just had a 20 year re-issue. Hell, even Radiohead's closing in on 20 years now. Seriously - "Creep" was on the radio in '93.
We are getting old, gentlemen. MTV first came on the air when I was a year older than my daughter is now. Yikes.
rts - I never left you, little buddy. Just wanted to force jan into the change of format against his better judgment.
Re: sax in rock songs, I'll stand by Sonny Rollins, but other contenders for me would include Phil Woods on both Steely Dan's Dr. Wu and Paul Simon's Have A Good Time. Also, the solo on Deacon Blues is pretty great. And hard to not include the big man on Born to Run.
By the way, love the new music-centric focus. What are sports? Although I guess I'll add one sporting query: WTF? As soon as I stop caring the Wild are the best team in the NHL? This cannot be.
December 13, 2011 at 6:33 PM
Can I disagree wholeheartedly on U2 breaking up? that's insane talk. Two of the best, most fun, awesomest times at a concert I have ever had were U2 (and that was in the last 5 years.) They played old and new stuff and I loooooooooovvvvved every minute of it. I hope I can go to a U2 show with my kids because they will see the coolest band who has ever lived. The four of them walking out of smoke to start a show with (insert any U2 song here) gets me excited thinking about it.
December 14, 2011 at 10:44 AM
Hmmm, you've made me rethink, Jan. And I've probably overstated my point above. Understood on the point of U2 still being able to put on a great live show. The mediocrity of most of the latter half of their catalog can get covered up nicely in concert, where it's surrounded by so much great material from the first 7 or 8 albums. And the stage show spectacle they've perfected is pretty cool. I think we may just prioritize live shows and album work differently.
Although I should say, wasn't this what people were saying about the Stones during the Steel Wheels tour? Still an incomparable concert experience? When, by the way, they were about Bono's age?
At the age of 16 or whatever we were, that tour pissed me off. I distinctly remember my annoyance that they wouldn't exit stage left and leave the spotlight for someone doing something more vital. Someone not a Baby Boomer. It's more the Boomers' fault than the Stones themselves, rational economic actors that they are, I guess, but I'd still like them more if they'd just gone out on top.
Isn't it likely that today's youth feel the same way about U2? They didn't grow up rocking out to War and have their mind blown by Joshua Tree the way we did. They don't even know what Sunday Bloody Sunday is referring to. U2 not only isn't a direct part of their landscape, but isn't even an influence on any musicians they listen to. Other than Coldplay, but the kewl kidz hate Coldplay, anyway. U2 is a symbol of the establishment, of a corporate rock hegemony, showing up at every major sporting event on television. I suspect Jan's kids would have a rather different opinion on whether or not their old man's favorite group was the coolest band ever. I guess, when I said they "need to break up," I meant that they're in danger of spending the rest of their careers being kind of snickered at for following the path the Stones laid out.
Also, can we analogize the old rocker to the aging sports star who can't quite hang 'em up even though hanging on is just tarnishing our last memories of them?
It was different circumstances leading to the breakup of the band (rather than necessarily just a desire to go out at the top of their game), but I'd pay about 10x what I'd pay for U2 or Stones tix these days to see Zeppelin. Why? In large part because I haven't seen them, and they haven't been going on arena tours annually for the last 25 years and being the face of Apple and Microsoft, respectively. At this point, the idea of seeing a Stones show feels just a touch like going to a museum to me, like something you're just supposed to do.
Somehow Bruce Springsteen seems to be an exception to that general worldview in my head, though. I don't know why, but it's still A-OK with me that he's out there rocking MSG. More confoundingly to me is that he's not even our generation's music.
RTS, by the way, love the reference to Andy L. I played Little League with that dude (if it's who I'm thinking of). He was a lefty. Scrappy, but not a ton of natural ability.
December 14, 2011 at 1:00 PM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home