Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 51

Thread: when did the Rolling Stones stop being relevant?

  1. #21
    Helpful person Guest

    Default Re: when did the Rolling Stones stop being relevant?

    On Oct 8, 2:26*pm, Chemo <bhansen1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > On Oct 7, 8:35*am, Bryan <bryangsimm...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > On Saturday, October 6, 2012 11:55:51 PM UTC-5, Somebody wrote:
    > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj7mEyjvXKA

    >
    > > The Rolling Stones are the most relevant Rock'n Roll group ever, and noone else even comes close.

    >
    > > --Bryan

    >
    > I think the Beatles were.


    What about electric Dylan, Led Zeppelin, Chuck Berry, Little Richard,
    Eric Clapton, the great Jimi Hendrix, Elvis Presley, Bill Haley, The
    Grateful Dead, James Brown, B B King, The Who, The Yardbirds, Police,
    AC/DC, Keith Richards (Oh!, he's a stone), Joe Cocker and many more?

    http://www.richardfisher.com

  2. #22
    Bryan Guest

    Default Re: when did the Rolling Stones stop being relevant?

    On Oct 8, 5:34*pm, Dave Smith <adavid.sm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
    > On 08/10/2012 5:26 PM, Chemo wrote:> On Oct 7, 8:35 am, Bryan <bryangsimm....@gmail.com> wrote:
    > >> On Saturday, October 6, 2012 11:55:51 PM UTC-5, Somebody wrote:
    > >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj7mEyjvXKA

    >
    > >> The Rolling Stones are the most relevant Rock'n Roll group ever, and no one else even comes close.

    >
    > >> --Bryan

    >
    > > I think the Beatles were.

    >
    > I agree. The Stones were great in the early 60s. Then their music went
    > downhill fast IMO.


    You couldn't be more off base. Let It Bleed was released in December
    of '69, Sticky Fingers (possibly the best album ever released) in '71,
    and Exile On Main Street in '72.

    > The Beatles were incredibly versatile and set new standards for rock music.


    You said it. "Rock music." The Beatles had ceased to be "Rock'n
    Roll" by '67. I've gone back and forth on my opinion of The
    Beatles. Where I'm at right now is thinking that they would have been
    way better if Paul McCartney had written way less songs, and stuck
    mostly to composing bass lines and singing backing vocals.

    Those of us who have an almost religious feeling about Rock'n Roll,
    and who self ID as Rock'n Rollers, know that the Rolling Stones are
    the archetypal Rock'n Roll band. Sure, they got old and kept playing
    as they steadily declined, and so did Bowie and Lou Reed. The Beatles
    were certainly unique, and made some neat music. As I've gotten less
    fundamentalist in my latter years, I view The Beatles as more positive
    than I have in decades.

    As I write this, I'm listening to baseball, and getting a kick out of
    the *American Opium of the People*. Here in STL, it's hard not to
    feel some passion about the Cardinals in the post season.

    --Bryan

  3. #23
    Colt T Guest

    Default Re: when did the Rolling Stones stop being relevant?

    The only Beatles song that I like is Rain, it does sound more or less
    like rock, thumping bass in it.


  4. #24
    Somebody Guest

    Default Re: when did the Rolling Stones stop being relevant?

    "Dave Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:eyIcs.23841$[email protected]..
    > On 08/10/2012 5:26 PM, Chemo wrote:
    >> On Oct 7, 8:35 am, Bryan <bryangsimm...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>> On Saturday, October 6, 2012 11:55:51 PM UTC-5, Somebody wrote:
    >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj7mEyjvXKA
    >>>
    >>> The Rolling Stones are the most relevant Rock'n Roll group ever, and no
    >>> one else even comes close.
    >>>
    >>> --Bryan

    >>
    >> I think the Beatles were.
    >>

    > I agree. The Stones were great in the early 60s. Then their music went
    > downhill fast IMO. The Beatles were incredibly versatile and set new
    > standards for rock music. Unfortunately, the fame got the better of them
    > and they simply could not perform publicly. I can understand their
    > feelings on that, having been to a Beatles concert and not being able to
    > hear a note. They broke up in the early 70s and half the band has died,
    > but their music is still enjoyed by a wide variety of people.



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3VVykEt37c



  5. #25
    Somebody Guest

    Default Re: when did the Rolling Stones stop being relevant?

    "Colt T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]..
    >I liked pre plane crash Lynyrd Skynyrd best.
    >



    Freebird *flashing lighter*



  6. #26
    Somebody Guest

    Default Re: when did the Rolling Stones stop being relevant?

    "dsi1" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:k4vlf6$r19$[email protected]..
    > On 10/8/2012 12:37 PM, Colt T wrote:
    >> I liked pre plane crash Lynyrd Skynyrd best.
    >>

    >
    > Let's face it, most things are a lot better before a plane crashes.



    unless it's a plane load full of lawyers.



  7. #27
    Somebody Guest

    Default Re: when did the Rolling Stones stop being relevant?

    "Bryan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:97f13eb6-d337-4bea-acb5-694bad6e2[email protected]..


    As I write this, I'm listening to baseball, and getting a kick out of
    the *American Opium of the People*. Here in STL, it's hard not to
    feel some passion about the Cardinals in the post season.

    --Bryan

    ---

    I think this may have gotten me laid:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8MhpofxMgk



  8. #28
    dsi1 Guest

    Default Re: when did the Rolling Stones stop being relevant?

    On 10/8/2012 3:29 PM, Somebody wrote:
    > "dsi1" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:k4vlf6$r19$[email protected]..
    >> On 10/8/2012 12:37 PM, Colt T wrote:
    >>> I liked pre plane crash Lynyrd Skynyrd best.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Let's face it, most things are a lot better before a plane crashes.

    >
    >
    > unless it's a plane load full of lawyers.
    >
    >


    There's not much point in stating the obvious. Even here.

  9. #29
    Bryan Guest

    Default Re: when did the Rolling Stones stop being relevant?

    On Oct 8, 6:19*pm, Helpful person <rrl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > On Oct 8, 2:26*pm, Chemo <bhansen1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > > On Oct 7, 8:35*am, Bryan <bryangsimm...@gmail.com> wrote:

    >
    > > > On Saturday, October 6, 2012 11:55:51 PM UTC-5, Somebody wrote:
    > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj7mEyjvXKA

    >
    > > > The Rolling Stones are the most relevant Rock'n Roll group ever, and no one else even comes close.

    >
    > > > --Bryan

    >
    > > I think the Beatles were.

    >
    > What about electric Dylan,


    Blonde on Blonde was very good. "Stuck inside of Mobile..." is one of
    my favorite songs.

    > Led Zeppelin,


    I burned my LZ albums after seeing them live. That was the day that I
    became a purist Rock'n Roller.

    > Chuck Berry, Little Richard,


    Well. of course.

    > Eric Clapton,


    I loved Cream and Derek and the Dominoes, and liked Blind Faith, but
    everything after that pretty much sucked.

    the great Jimi Hendrix,

    Are You Experienced was great, and Axis: Bold as Love, even better.

    > Elvis Presley,


    I'll take the old Elvis over the young. Suspicious Minds and Burning
    Love wre great songs.

    > Bill Haley,


    Rock Around the Clock was a great song.

    > The Grateful Dead,


    Boring.

    James Brown, B B King,

    You won't get ant disagreement there.

    The Who,

    Who's Next is is an album that I have described many times as possibly
    the best album put out by any band other that The Rolling Stones.

    The Yardbirds

    A good band, and like Mayall's Bluesbreakers, teed off great
    guitarists.

    , Police, AC/DC,

    Both of those bands sucked.

    Keith Richards (Oh!, he's a stone),

    Perhaps the best guitarist who ever plated Rock'n Roll. His only
    downside was how ****ty he was toward Mick Taylor. I blame that
    conflict for the decline of the Stones, post Exile.

    Joe Cocker

    A very minor player.

    > and many more?


    Yes, "many more." I'll mention Traffic, The NY Dolls, Mott the
    Hoople, and certainly Bowie. If you haven't heard the early Clash,
    you are missing true greatness. The Sex Pistols rocked too. Punk was
    the restoration of Rock'n Roll, but was short-lived, and degenerated
    into crappiness.
    >
    > http://www.richardfisher.com


    --Bryan

  10. #30
    Bryan Guest

    Default Re: when did the Rolling Stones stop being relevant?

    On Oct 7, 7:48*pm, "Cheri" <cher...@newsguy.com> wrote:
    > "gloria p" <gpues...@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >
    > news:k4t4pg$qm1$[email protected]..
    >
    > > On 10/6/2012 10:56 PM, Somebody wrote:
    > >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj7mEyjvXKA

    >
    > > When they became Old Men.

    >
    > > Now they are relevant only to other Old People,
    > > most of whom detest current rock.

    >
    > > gloria p

    >
    > Not really true at all.


    My ten year old son adores the song, Loving Cup. How cool is that?
    >
    > Cheri


    --Bryan

  11. #31
    Bryan Guest

    Default Re: when did the Rolling Stones stop being relevant?

    On Oct 8, 9:59*am, "Cheri" <cher...@newsguy.com> wrote:
    > "sf" <s...@geemail.com> wrote in message
    >
    > news:[email protected]..
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 17:55:27 -0600, gloria p <gpues...@comcast.net>
    > > wrote:

    >
    > >> On 10/6/2012 10:56 PM, Somebody wrote:
    > >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj7mEyjvXKA

    >
    > >> When they became Old Men.

    >
    > >> Now they are relevant only to other Old People,
    > >> most of whom detest current rock.

    >
    > > I'd agree completely, except for some reason generations still seem to
    > > bond over them. *We took our kids to a Rolling Stones concert when
    > > they were teenagers and now our 11 year old grandson wants to listen
    > > to a Rolling Stones CD every time he rides in our car... so they are
    > > definitely a cross generational band.

    >
    > True, same with our grandkids...they all love The Stones, ages 12 to 27.


    There have been times in my life when I have felt that some other band
    was my favorite; Cream, Mott the Hoople, The Who, The Doors, David
    Bowie, New York Dolls, Sex Pistols, Clash, but those were mere
    punctuations. I love Neil Young too.
    >
    > Cheri


    --Bryan

  12. #32
    Cheri Guest

    Default Re: when did the Rolling Stones stop being relevant?

    "Bryan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]..
    On Oct 8, 9:59 am, "Cheri" <cher...@newsguy.com> wrote:
    > "sf" <s...@geemail.com> wrote in message
    >
    > news:[email protected]..
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 17:55:27 -0600, gloria p <gpues...@comcast.net>
    > > wrote:

    >
    > >> On 10/6/2012 10:56 PM, Somebody wrote:
    > >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj7mEyjvXKA

    >
    > >> When they became Old Men.

    >
    > >> Now they are relevant only to other Old People,
    > >> most of whom detest current rock.

    >
    > > I'd agree completely, except for some reason generations still seem to
    > > bond over them. We took our kids to a Rolling Stones concert when
    > > they were teenagers and now our 11 year old grandson wants to listen
    > > to a Rolling Stones CD every time he rides in our car... so they are
    > > definitely a cross generational band.

    >
    > True, same with our grandkids...they all love The Stones, ages 12 to 27.


    There have been times in my life when I have felt that some other band
    was my favorite; Cream, Mott the Hoople, The Who, The Doors, David
    Bowie, New York Dolls, Sex Pistols, Clash, but those were mere
    punctuations. I love Neil Young too.
    >
    > Cheri


    --Bryan

    ===========

    Neil Young, pretty hard to beat.

    Cheri


  13. #33
    Somebody Guest

    Default Re: when did the Rolling Stones stop being relevant?

    "Bryan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]..
    I love Neil Young too.

    --Bryan

    ---


    acoustic or electric?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeH8s_RAuTI

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0O1v_7T6p8U



  14. #34
    Somebody Guest

    Default Re: when did the Rolling Stones stop being relevant?

    "Bryan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]..

    --Bryan

    ---

    I like when he kicks Pedro's butt
    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5l...n-the-fr_music

    http://www.rollingstone.com/music/ne...young-20120614



  15. #35
    Somebody Guest

    Default Re: when did the Rolling Stones stop being relevant?

    "Bryan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]..


    --Bryan

    ---

    I was wrong, Pedro kicks his ass... while Neil is kicking ass

    I like how he eggs on the drummer... Who then took it up a notch... Then
    Neil takes it up about 8 notches.
    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5l...n-the-fr_music



  16. #36
    gregz Guest

    Default Re: when did the Rolling Stones stop being relevant?

    Helpful person <[email protected]> wrote:
    > On Oct 8, 2:26 pm, Chemo <bhansen1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >> On Oct 7, 8:35 am, Bryan <bryangsimm...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Saturday, October 6, 2012 11:55:51 PM UTC-5, Somebody wrote:
    >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj7mEyjvXKA

    >>
    >>> The Rolling Stones are the most relevant Rock'n Roll group ever, and no
    >>> one else even comes close.

    >>
    >>> --Bryan

    >>
    >> I think the Beatles were.

    >
    > What about electric Dylan, Led Zeppelin, Chuck Berry, Little Richard,
    > Eric Clapton, the great Jimi Hendrix, Elvis Presley, Bill Haley, The
    > Grateful Dead, James Brown, B B King, The Who, The Yardbirds, Police,
    > AC/DC, Keith Richards (Oh!, he's a stone), Joe Cocker and many more?
    >
    > http://www.richardfisher.com


    I can deal with most of them. The stuff that most influenced me, led
    zeppelin, Santana, doors, Neil young, Hendrix, sly stone, and soul groups.
    Oh what a lovely year, 1969, then more jazz, jazz rock, disco....

    Greg

  17. #37
    Somebody Guest

    Default Re: when did the Rolling Stones stop being relevant?

    "Cheri" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]..

    > There have been times in my life when I have felt that some other band
    > was my favorite; Cream, Mott the Hoople, >




    I love Ian... Ronno's CD "between hell and hull" is quite good.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhGOx1lidGc

    And Ian's "Rant"...love the man. He came back with a vengeance
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT6Luh-D6TY


    Read the Mott book. Had to get it InterLibrary loan.... I need to get his
    "diary of a rock star"



  18. #38
    gregz Guest

    Default Re: when did the Rolling Stones stop being relevant?

    Bryan <[email protected]> wrote:
    > On Oct 8, 5:34 pm, Dave Smith <adavid.sm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
    >> On 08/10/2012 5:26 PM, Chemo wrote:> On Oct 7, 8:35 am, Bryan
    >> <bryangsimm...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>>> On Saturday, October 6, 2012 11:55:51 PM UTC-5, Somebody wrote:
    >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj7mEyjvXKA

    >>
    >>>> The Rolling Stones are the most relevant Rock'n Roll group ever, and
    >>>> no one else even comes close.

    >>
    >>>> --Bryan

    >>
    >>> I think the Beatles were.

    >>
    >> I agree. The Stones were great in the early 60s. Then their music went
    >> downhill fast IMO.

    >
    > You couldn't be more off base. Let It Bleed was released in December
    > of '69, Sticky Fingers (possibly the best album ever released) in '71,
    > and Exile On Main Street in '72.


    For me, listening to the underground sound late at night on WBCN of the
    stones in 1969, and in the army 1970, the stones were the ****. But then
    came led zeppelin.
    Just getting drafted, that bridge over troubled water made me sick. How I
    was tormented with that song.

    Just thinking, the stones and credence were king on the jukeboxes in 1969,
    as well as the popularity of credence at Woodstock.

    Greg

  19. #39
    gregz Guest

    Default Re: when did the Rolling Stones stop being relevant?

    Bryan <[email protected]> wrote:
    > On Oct 8, 9:59 am, "Cheri" <cher...@newsguy.com> wrote:
    >> "sf" <s...@geemail.com> wrote in message
    >>
    >> news:[email protected]..
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 17:55:27 -0600, gloria p <gpues...@comcast.net>
    >>> wrote:

    >>
    >>>> On 10/6/2012 10:56 PM, Somebody wrote:
    >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj7mEyjvXKA

    >>
    >>>> When they became Old Men.

    >>
    >>>> Now they are relevant only to other Old People,
    >>>> most of whom detest current rock.

    >>
    >>> I'd agree completely, except for some reason generations still seem to
    >>> bond over them. We took our kids to a Rolling Stones concert when
    >>> they were teenagers and now our 11 year old grandson wants to listen
    >>> to a Rolling Stones CD every time he rides in our car... so they are
    >>> definitely a cross generational band.

    >>
    >> True, same with our grandkids...they all love The Stones, ages 12 to 27.

    >
    > There have been times in my life when I have felt that some other band
    > was my favorite; Cream, Mott the Hoople, The Who, The Doors, David
    > Bowie, New York Dolls, Sex Pistols, Clash, but those were mere
    > punctuations. I love Neil Young too.
    >>
    >> Cheri

    >
    > --Bryan


    There is a lot of I might want to listen to at elevated volumes including
    the chambers brothers, blue cheer, but there is one song I must absolutely
    turn up the volume to the max.....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0O1v_7T6p8U

    Greg

  20. #40
    gregz Guest

    Default Re: when did the Rolling Stones stop being relevant?

    gregz <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Bryan <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> On Oct 8, 9:59 am, "Cheri" <cher...@newsguy.com> wrote:
    >>> "sf" <s...@geemail.com> wrote in message
    >>>
    >>> news:[email protected]..
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 17:55:27 -0600, gloria p <gpues...@comcast.net>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> On 10/6/2012 10:56 PM, Somebody wrote:
    >>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj7mEyjvXKA
    >>>
    >>>>> When they became Old Men.
    >>>
    >>>>> Now they are relevant only to other Old People,
    >>>>> most of whom detest current rock.
    >>>
    >>>> I'd agree completely, except for some reason generations still seem to
    >>>> bond over them. We took our kids to a Rolling Stones concert when
    >>>> they were teenagers and now our 11 year old grandson wants to listen
    >>>> to a Rolling Stones CD every time he rides in our car... so they are
    >>>> definitely a cross generational band.
    >>>
    >>> True, same with our grandkids...they all love The Stones, ages 12 to 27.

    >>
    >> There have been times in my life when I have felt that some other band
    >> was my favorite; Cream, Mott the Hoople, The Who, The Doors, David
    >> Bowie, New York Dolls, Sex Pistols, Clash, but those were mere
    >> punctuations. I love Neil Young too.
    >>>
    >>> Cheri

    >>
    >> --Bryan

    >
    > There is a lot of I might want to listen to at elevated volumes including
    > the chambers brothers, blue cheer, but there is one song I must absolutely
    > turn up the volume to the max.....
    >
    > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0O1v_7T6p8U
    >
    > Greg


    It's 2012.

    An artist that I just recently started to appreciate, along with my
    favorite bass player.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipSspfDNVGc

    Greg

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32