View Full Version : Really good...
Resident Loser
04-16-2007, 08:38 AM
...music weekend...
My wife had recorded a PBS pledge-drive special entitled The Rolling Stones' Rock And Roll Circus some time ago and we finally got an opportunity to view it...All I can say is far-out man...Anyone who may think the Who and the Stones have always been flash and hype need to see this show...It's amazing what a few talented musician/songwriters in groupings of 4 and 5 can do in an intimate setting...Couple that with Lennon, Clapton, Keith Richards (on bass no less) and Mitch Mitchell doing "Yer Blues" from The White Album and it don't get better...Could have done without Yoko writhing around in a black gunny-sack however...Jethro Tull, Taj Mahal and Marianne Faithful filled out the program...Thumbs-up most definitely...
Part of the 3-day respite was spent buying music and part listening to it...
As I've said in the past, I mostly have analog recordings and I have no intention of trying to replicate my collection in digital form...but...
One I have chosen to duplicate is jazz pianist Claude Bolling's Suite For Flute And Jazz Piano Trio with classical flautist Jean-Pierre Rampal...Anyone interested in classical or jazz really needs to look for this one IMHO. While it's over thirty years old, to these ears it still sounds as fresh and creative as it did when I purchased the orignal vinyl waybackwhen...Is it jazz laced with classical or classical jazzed up? In either case, I think if you like either form, you'll like this disc...A disk/disc face-off will happen eventually...
Next digital replacement: Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here...I actually like it better than DSOTM...Being a guitarist, I may be prejudiced, but some of Gilmour's best work is on this album IMO...Animals, when I can find it, will probably be next...
Van Morrison's Moondance joined my growing disc collection...I'm particularly fond of the title cut and Into The Mystic but had forgotten what an overall entertaining album it really is...
Last purchase: Boccherini's Guitar Quintets performed by Fabio Biondi and Europa Galante...unfortunately haven't given it a serious listen as of yet, but the cut I have heard (via radio) Quintet #4 in D major "Fandango" sounded interesting...I'll reserve further comment 'til...
Sunday was listening day, rare quiet day...the constant, steady rain helped...
First the Bolling "Suite", followed by Kind Of Blue (wife and I even sorta' danced to the more uptempo Freddie Frealoader), Bill Evans Portrait In Jazz which reprises KOBs Blue In Green w/two takes (Evans was the pianist on all but one KOB cuts BTW), then The Guitar Artistry Of Charlie Byrd just because I like it and ending with Brubeck's Take Five...
Next time I think it will be a Dylan-esque extravaganza...All in all a very satisfying musical weekend...
jimHJJ(...too bad there isn't the luxury of more like it...)
Rich-n-Texas
04-16-2007, 10:15 AM
Looks like RL is slowly coming over to the Digital Dark Side. Let me know when you're ready for a cell phone and service. I've done the research. ;)
As I was reading your paragraph about the Stone's R&R Circus, it dawned on me that I just read a piece in a Rolling Stone mag issue about that exact event while waiting to get my haircut last Friday. I had no idea it was on PBS. OTOH I usually avoid PBS during their begathons because they interrupt some great performances with their spiels.:incazzato:Hard for me to maintain interest...
BTW, was that a VCR recording or a DVR recording your wife made?. :cornut:
Resident Loser
04-16-2007, 10:41 AM
Looks like RL is slowly coming over to the Digital Dark Side. Let me know when you're ready for a cell phone and service. I've done the research. ;)
As I was reading your paragraph about the Stone's R&R Circus, it dawned on me that I just read a piece in a Rolling Stone mag issue about that exact event while waiting to get my haircut last Friday. I had no idea it was on PBS. OTOH I usually avoid PBS during their begathons because they interrupt some great performances with their spiels.:incazzato:Hard for me to maintain interest...
BTW, was that a VCR recording or a DVR recording your wife made?. :cornut:
...I like to listen late at night w/ 'phones and my gear isn't in a comfy spot and setting up my STAX is a PITA at night, so I use my Sears-sourced GPX CDP ($7 after rebate) and modded $6 SONY 'phones...and once in a while I plug the CDP into my Waveradio in the bedroom...so while I have a small CD collection, mostly stuff that's not in my analog stacks, I do miss the chance to listen to some of my fave albums...so until I get a CD recorder and can make transfers...yada, yada, yada...
A SONY Hi-Fi VCR of course...although a DVD recorder with at least an 80gig hard drive is looming large...tapes are getting difficult to find...
jimHJJ(...cell phone? Unless they outlaw land lines, not in this lifetime...BTW I already have one provided by my employer...it stays in my desk drawer...due to my building's construction it's all revved up and no signal to show...)
Dusty Chalk
04-16-2007, 11:23 AM
Next digital replacement: Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here...I actually like it better than DSOTM...Being a guitarist, I may be prejudiced, but some of Gilmour's best work is on this album IMO...Animals, when I can find it, will probably be next...Yup, I prefer both Wish You Were Here and Animals to Dark Side of the Moon by a long shot.
Jim Clark
04-16-2007, 02:29 PM
Yup, I prefer both Wish You Were Here and Animals to Dark Side of the Moon by a long shot.
not that I think anyone especially cares, but DSOTM is my least favorite of all I've heard. I know I won't like anything earlier than Meddle so I save myself the time, effort and dough.
jc
MindGoneHaywire
04-16-2007, 05:07 PM
The Circus is an interesting watch. Was that the only gig Tony Iommi did with Jethro Tull? If you compare Yoko's performance with side two of Live Peace In Toronto, it's positively melodic. Taj Mahal is great; Marianne Faithfull simply cannot sing well, though as a performer, she does emote effectively & brings something to the table.
The Rolling Stones simply didn't think this through very well. Brian Jones wasn't really a part of the band anymore, and I've read that part of the time his amp was turned down. Plus, outside of being tired after not having slept for more than a day, they were mostly previewing brand new material. Which doesn't seem brand new now, but Beggar's Banquet hadn't been released at the time (or maybe it'd been out for a week, if that). And they did at least one from Let It Bleed, which wouldn't be out yet for a year. They hadn't toured in nearly two years & after all the distractions they'd had during that period they were probably not at the top of their game, live-wise, to begin with, let alone being as tired as they were by the time they were filmed. Plus, they were capable of sucking wildly at times (ample evidence of which was on display a few months later, when they played Hyde Park, though who's to say how much impact the death of Brian Jones impacted that gig...but they had no such excuse for attempting to get through a song included on the extras of the Gimme Shelter DVD with Keith Richards' resonator guitar so out-of-tune it was painful).
That said, that material of course soon became very popular & most anyone watching the program is probably well familiar with it. It's not a bad performance, mind you, just one that stayed in the vaults for nearly 30 years for a reason. I remember the first time I saw a boot of it. My first impression was that the live takes in Gimme Shelter (at MSG, not Altamont, natch) & on Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out (same MSG shows, yet they of course weren't going anywhere near what the Maysles made available only recently) were much better, and that the Circus wasn't bad, just more interesting than good.
But the really surprising thing about how the Rolling Stones would've planned this thing is the inclusion of the Who. There are lots of people who think that the reading of A Quick One was far superior to the Stones' set, and I agree with it (and that's coming from someone who dislikes the Who's live performances by this time as largely a collection of jams that were destructive deviations & extensions of the material as originally written). Some even think that was part of why the Circus sat in the vaults--that they felt upstaged, and not by Lennon, who everyone would expect to be great, but by the Who, who took people by surprise. But they were just off a tour, I think. This is why I've never understood this, because it's the sort of detail Mick Jagger usually would try to avoid, or at least minimize. Instead, in a prime slot, they place perhaps the only outfit at that moment in time who was capable of coming off that much better than the Stones.
The problem with watching it on PBS is having to listen to the pledge drive stuff during the breaks. Yes, we know that the Rolling Stones were great. Some of the background interview stuff was interesting, but...
...outside of the very strange promotional video that the Stones did for 'Child Of The Moon,' the most interesting piece of video that I've seen of them from that period, is in a movie called One Plus One. I think it might be released as Sympathy For The Devil in some countries, and I think that might've been the original title? I don't know. Jean-Luc Godard, if I remember correctly. It's a tough watch: snippets of plotless avant-garde cinema verite, or at least that's my uninformed impression, interspersed with one-of-a-kind footage of the Rolling Stones in the studio recording the song Sympathy For The Devil. The first two or three sessions, the arrangement of the song is so radically different, it's almost unfathomable how the song morphed into the version we've always known. I'm not sure I'd call it a straight-up rock song, but it's a heck of a lot closer to that description than anything having to do with any exotic rhythms such as the sambe it eventually became.
It's the single best example of the musical imagination they possessed than anything else I've ever heard or seen. As you watch each progressive session, and see how the various elements of the song fell into place, compared to what it started out as...I think anyone would be hard-pressed to make a case that even Beatles songs underwent more impressive & dramatic transformations. That is to say, if you listen to the demos on, say, the Anthology, and then compare them to the finished product...this is at least as much an accomplishment so far as I'm concerned.
All of which is not to put down the Circus, but A Quick One is far & away the highlight for me; but do seek out a copy of the SFTD sessions for a watch that says more about what the Rolling Stones were capable of than just about anything I've ever seen.
bobsticks
04-16-2007, 08:07 PM
Oh, to be a fly on the wall for that weekend of great tunes--although I probably would have felt like a third wheel during the dancing bits...
I'll have to check out the Claude Bolling. It sounds like something in which I would have some interest.
Cheers
Resident Loser
04-17-2007, 04:51 AM
Oh, to be a fly on the wall for that weekend of great tunes--although I probably would have felt like a third wheel during the dancing bits...
I'll have to check out the Claude Bolling. It sounds like something in which I would have some interest.
Cheers
...I felt like a third wheel during the dancing bits...few have witnessed my peculiar manifestations of the terpsichorean muse...and for good reason...my wife tolerates it in her own bemused manner...
Re: the Bolling...It was supposedly "on the charts" for 530 weeks and became quite popular...I think that it is a really good synthesis of both genres...be sure to get the one with Bolling and Rampal, mine is a Dutch re-issue...There is at least one other reading of the work from an unknown (at least to me) group of musicians...According to the liner notes of the latter, the suite has become a part of the jazz canon and the performance is their take on it...Given the fact it's half the price, I may take a chance to compare the two...
Bolling also has a Vol. 2 and others in a similar vein...one for classical guitar w/ Alexandre Lagoya (sp?) and another for cello w/ Yo-Yo Ma...I do have the the Lagoya vinyl and while it was good, I don't quite think it's up there with the Rampal, although I really need to refresh my memory as I only can recall the melody of one piece...Never heard the Yo-Yo...
jimHJJ(...anyway, good listening...)
Resident Loser
04-17-2007, 05:20 AM
...a bit of that background was covered during the pledge-breaks with someone from the newer production team...Luckily, taping it allowed us to zipp through the usual PBS zzzzzz...
While the Who's a' cappella opening and overall performance was A+, I really don't know why Jagger had a problem with his own groups' performance. Given the fact it was a really straightforward, stripped-down performance makes that much more impressive IME, no harmonies (save for the chorus used in Salt Of The Earth), no overdubs...No Expectations, and Jones' simple but effective slide work in it, was top-shelf IMHO...and in a day where the current pop icons need either to lip-synch or use other bolstering frippery, Jumpin' Mick held his own impressively...Maybe it's just the petulant artiste in him that "delayed" the show's relase 'til now...
Anywho, whether it was the Who, the 'Stones or Dirty Mac, it's performances like these that only re-inforce my opinion of how p!$$-poor most current performers are...
jimHJJ(...within my admittedly limited purview that is...)
Bernd
04-17-2007, 06:07 AM
Hey Jim,
Sounds like a great way to enjoy tunes brought on by a great weekend.:) Excellent. And thanks for sharing that. I shall check the Claude Bolling out. Also finally got my mint copy of Charlie Byrd. Will listen to it tonight.
Wishing you many more days like that.
Peace
:16:
Resident Loser
04-17-2007, 07:58 AM
Hey Jim,
Sounds like a great way to enjoy tunes brought on by a great weekend.:) Excellent. And thanks for sharing that. I shall check the Claude Bolling out. Also finally got my mint copy of Charlie Byrd. Will listen to it tonight.
Wishing you many more days like that.
Peace
:16:
...hope you enjoy the Byrd...
I'm really sorry to hear about your pup problems, best wishes on that...
jimHJJ(...I like doggies...)
MindGoneHaywire
04-17-2007, 08:24 AM
>whether it was the Who, the 'Stones or Dirty Mac, it's performances like these that only re-inforce my opinion of how p!$$-poor most current performers are...
I'm not sure why you continue to insist on hammering home this musical non-point, especially since you seemed to only like the Dirty Mac when Yoko wasn't singing. Which was only for half of their performance, the same ratio as can be found on the Live Peace In Toronto album.
In the same era the Rolling Stones were also responsible for putting out performances like Jamming With Edward...familiar? Compare the "Rolling Stones" version of Memo From Turner on Metamorphosis with the version Ry Cooder played on? Hey, Metamorphosis, there's a good example of why anything that happened back then is automatically better than anything else going on today! Ummm...ever actually seen "The Stones In The Park?" Spin "Got Live If You Want It" recently? How about some of those great Ed Sullivan performances, such as when the bold rebels who'd refused to stand on the revolving stage for Sunday Night At The London Palladium not long before decided to sing 'Let's Spend Some Time Together?'
Oh, and let's not forget other great live albums like Love You Live and Still Life. Oh, I forgot. Those weren't of the same era. Guess they don't count, then? Never mind that, excepting the outtakes that made it to subsequent records, most folks would say that the Rolling Stones haven't made a great record in nearly 30 years.
I'm not a fan of Tommy, Live At Leeds, or just about anything Eric Clapton did after the one record he made with the Bluesbreakers. You are free to disagree, but if you want to talk about how great Lennon was, then perhaps you could tell us what was so great about Two Virgins, Life With The Lions, Some Time In New York City, Rock And Roll, or his contributions to Yoko's records...or David Peel's, for that matter.
Today we have folks like Tom Waits, Bob Dylan, Steve Earle, and especially Nick Cave, not to mention the scrapings of the Johnny Cash tapes, which are impressive. According to you, it was all so great then, and all is lost by now. Yeah, it wasn't like the Beatles were above collective works like some of the weaker MMT songs, Revolution 9, or brilliant endeavors like the Zapple label...or, individually, classics like the soundtrack to the Family Way, Electronic Music, Sentimental Journey, Wild Life...yeah, it was all peaches & cream from our approved musical heroes.
And Nick Cave is inferior...how?
In Got Live If You Want It, The Stones In The Park, Love You Live, and Still Life, the Rolling Stones have managed four of the absolute worst live recordings I've ever heard in my life. A far cry from their appearance at the T.A.M.I. show or Ladies And Gentlemen The Rolling Stones. Oh, yeah, there are those out-of-tune snippets on the aforementioned Gimme Shelter DVD as well. This is what proves to you how much better things were then, as opposed to now, when everything sucks, huh?
Interesting.
Lastly, as to the perceptions of the Rolling Stones as to their performance, remember that the material was all-new at the time; Satanic Majesties had been considered a flop, and Between The Buttons hadn't exactly set the world on fire either, meaning it was by then nearly three years since a well-received Rolling Stones album. They thought they had righted their path, but they couldn't be sure. The video footage of Sympathy For The Devil suggests that they were second-guessing their ideas every step of the way, as do certain bootlegs from the period. Mick Jagger played 'Stray Cat Blues' for Anita Pallenberg after having a variety of people affirm for him that it was brilliant, and she dismissed it as crap that required a major remix, which was promptly done. That couldn't have done wonders for his confidence, right?
That anecdote, as well as the recordings I referenced, were mysteriously absent from the puffery espoused by those trying to cajole folks into paying $90 or thereabouts for a $15 DVD. And I think it speaks to why the perception existed that it was not a great performance on the part of the Stones. And while I enjoy it just fine, I maintain that its obscurity speaks more to its interest than its quality.
Resident Loser
04-17-2007, 09:24 AM
...has it actually gone haywire?
Perhaps you would be happier if I said everyone sucks and once in a while they might be capable of a decent performance...Try to have a reasonable exchange with you and woosh! right down the toilet...
Foist, get it right:
Anywho, whether it was the Who, the 'Stones or Dirty Mac, it's performances like these that only re-inforce my opinion of how p!$$-poor most current performers are...
jimHJJ(...within my admittedly limited purview that is...)
I'd listen to four hours of "Yer Blues" (not my particular fave of the show, more noteworthy for the players) before I'll listen to just about any of the current musical spew...
Since I addressed you specifically, my paranthetical disclaimer was added to indicate that no, I haven't heard everything in the world, nor do I care to and yet you still run with it as is your style, your raison d'etre, your joie de vivre...give it a rest...is it any wonder folks don't particularly like you? Always one-upping anyone, anywhere, anytime with your vast pop icon lore...Who gives a rats @$$ about Anita Pallenberg or Anita Bryant for that matter? And just for the record, I am of the opinion that Lennon was an idiot for hooking up with Yoyo Ono...
So just sit down, with a Starbuck's tall mocha-chino, analyze your "man in black" personna and contemplate your Converse hi-tops...
jimHJJ(...perhaps you should consider being sedated...)
MindGoneHaywire
04-17-2007, 10:59 AM
>Perhaps you would be happier if I said everyone sucks and once in a while they might be capable of a decent performance
No.
>Try to have a reasonable exchange with you and woosh! right down the toilet...
That's about how I feel, too. Sorry for actually caring about music. The attitude that shows through in yr repeated statements about how great everything once was, and how lousy it now all is, is the enemy of music so far as I'm concerned. Hence my brief laundry list of inferior recordings and performances by some of the folks you consider automatically better than just about anything today, a determination you've arrived at apparently without hearing much by the 'current crop' that some of us would describe as actually being worth listening to, and possibly without having heard some of the recordings I've referenced. I'm not sure why this is supposed to make any sense.
>I'd listen to four hours of "Yer Blues" (not my particular fave of the show, more noteworthy for the players)
That says it all right there. I'm not impervious to curiosity myself, which is why I seek out the 'Jamming With Edward' type recs that feature players that interest me. But I'm far more interested in a toon I like than a performance I like a little less...that someone would sit through repeated listenings of due to who the players are, rather than what it is they're playing. But it also ignores that the musical intent of the Dirty Mac spent as much time on Yoko's ideas as it did on the one Lennon tune. Would you rather sit through repeated listenings of a record like Self-Portrait, or a well-recommended collection of Dylan covers by more contemporary artists? Not hard to figure the answer based on what you said about the Dirty Mac. And, in spite of the fascination of watching that lineup, that makes little sense to me.
>is it any wonder folks don't particularly like you?
I thought it was my tagline. Should I try harder?
>Always one-upping anyone, anywhere, anytime with your vast pop icon lore...
Give me a break. Spout crap, expect to get called on it. PLENTY of people have expressed that their tastes run towards the past, not the present, but you are, quite specifically, one of the most consistently condescending members of this subset of fans that I've come across. In spite of what you may think, I have no problem with someone not owning a record newer than 30 years & not wanting to hear anything any newer than that. But most people who feel this way seem to be able to express this preference without injecting obnoxiousness into it.
>Who gives a rats @$$ about Anita Pallenberg or Anita Bryant for that matter?
Anita Pallenberg's opinion happened to be valued by the Rolling Stones, musically & otherwise, so excuse me for bringing up something relevant to the discussion. I think it's interesting, and rarely mentioned, that the Rolling Stones entered arguably their best period after more than two years of musical, legal, physical, and romantic/sexual chaos that resulted in a career crossroads. Making Beggar's Banquet in 1968, after having made the mistake of following the trends of psychedelia, could've resulted in disaster & even ended the band if not well-received. It's easy in hindsight to say it's a classic & was always destined to be. It's more instructive to take a look at the development of Sympathy, to hear the sorts of half-a$$ed efforts they put forth such as on the Hyde Park show, and to realize that there were valid reasons for their confidence to have been compromised. The Anita Pallenberg anecdote is an example of this. So sorry for having bothered.
>And just for the record, I am of the opinion that Lennon was an idiot for hooking up with Yoyo Ono...
You are aware that he claimed that Ono's music influenced him a thousand times more than Chuck Berry's ever did, aren't you? That might seem like a ridiculous thing to say, but it's right there in the Rolling Stone interview, and it might not be all that silly, if you think about it: she inarguably influenced a great deal of his work after Magical Mystery Tour. You know...the White Album, Let It Be, Abbey Road, Plastic Ono Band, Imagine...what you describe as idiocy inspired a lot of his best work, whether you care to admit it or not. Just because she shrieked atonally didn't mean she didn't understand music, either; in fact, she knows quite a bit about it & was a music teacher the same year John Lennon MET Paul McCartney. But resurrecting this discussion is beyond pointless. Either you accept that she opened him up to different ways of approaching songwriting, or you don't.
>So just sit down, with a Starbuck's tall mocha-chino, analyze your "man in black" personna and contemplate your Converse hi-tops...
You may think you know something about me, but you're way off. Tell you what, though: I would relish the opportunity to play you some very bad recordings from decades ago by great artists, and also a few that I consider great that you apparently haven't heard, since you take the view that nothing, or next-to-nothing, is worthy these days. Is that something you'd be willing to try? I'm sure we could knock back a beer or two & have no problem maintaining civil discussion. I can PM you, you can PM me, whatever. Don't feel any obligation, but it's something I'd be willing to do, if you're game, that is. I'm willing to bet there's stuff you'd like, and I'd welcome the opportunity to pick a few tunes & see if that'd actually be the case. Let me know.
PeruvianSkies
04-17-2007, 11:51 AM
>Perhaps you would be happier if I said everyone sucks and once in a while they might be capable of a decent performance
No.
>Try to have a reasonable exchange with you and woosh! right down the toilet...
That's about how I feel, too. Sorry for actually caring about music. The attitude that shows through in yr repeated statements about how great everything once was, and how lousy it now all is, is the enemy of music so far as I'm concerned. Hence my brief laundry list of inferior recordings and performances by some of the folks you consider automatically better than just about anything today, a determination you've arrived at apparently without hearing much by the 'current crop' that some of us would describe as actually being worth listening to, and possibly without having heard some of the recordings I've referenced. I'm not sure why this is supposed to make any sense.
>I'd listen to four hours of "Yer Blues" (not my particular fave of the show, more noteworthy for the players)
That says it all right there. I'm not impervious to curiosity myself, which is why I seek out the 'Jamming With Edward' type recs that feature players that interest me. But I'm far more interested in a toon I like than a performance I like a little less...that someone would sit through repeated listenings of due to who the players are, rather than what it is they're playing. But it also ignores that the musical intent of the Dirty Mac spent as much time on Yoko's ideas as it did on the one Lennon tune. Would you rather sit through repeated listenings of a record like Self-Portrait, or a well-recommended collection of Dylan covers by more contemporary artists? Not hard to figure the answer based on what you said about the Dirty Mac. And, in spite of the fascination of watching that lineup, that makes little sense to me.
>is it any wonder folks don't particularly like you?
I thought it was my tagline. Should I try harder?
>Always one-upping anyone, anywhere, anytime with your vast pop icon lore...
Give me a break. Spout crap, expect to get called on it. PLENTY of people have expressed that their tastes run towards the past, not the present, but you are, quite specifically, one of the most consistently condescending members of this subset of fans that I've come across. In spite of what you may think, I have no problem with someone not owning a record newer than 30 years & not wanting to hear anything any newer than that. But most people who feel this way seem to be able to express this preference without injecting obnoxiousness into it.
>Who gives a rats @$$ about Anita Pallenberg or Anita Bryant for that matter?
Anita Pallenberg's opinion happened to be valued by the Rolling Stones, musically & otherwise, so excuse me for bringing up something relevant to the discussion. I think it's interesting, and rarely mentioned, that the Rolling Stones entered arguably their best period after more than two years of musical, legal, physical, and romantic/sexual chaos that resulted in a career crossroads. Making Beggar's Banquet in 1968, after having made the mistake of following the trends of psychedelia, could've resulted in disaster & even ended the band if not well-received. It's easy in hindsight to say it's a classic & was always destined to be. It's more instructive to take a look at the development of Sympathy, to hear the sorts of half-a$$ed efforts they put forth such as on the Hyde Park show, and to realize that there were valid reasons for their confidence to have been compromised. The Anita Pallenberg anecdote is an example of this. So sorry for having bothered.
>And just for the record, I am of the opinion that Lennon was an idiot for hooking up with Yoyo Ono...
You are aware that he claimed that Ono's music influenced him a thousand times more than Chuck Berry's ever did, aren't you? That might seem like a ridiculous thing to say, but it's right there in the Rolling Stone interview, and it might not be all that silly, if you think about it: she inarguably influenced a great deal of his work after Magical Mystery Tour. You know...the White Album, Let It Be, Abbey Road, Plastic Ono Band, Imagine...what you describe as idiocy inspired a lot of his best work, whether you care to admit it or not. Just because she shrieked atonally didn't mean she didn't understand music, either; in fact, she knows quite a bit about it & was a music teacher the same year John Lennon MET Paul McCartney. But resurrecting this discussion is beyond pointless. Either you accept that she opened him up to different ways of approaching songwriting, or you don't.
>So just sit down, with a Starbuck's tall mocha-chino, analyze your "man in black" personna and contemplate your Converse hi-tops...
You may think you know something about me, but you're way off. Tell you what, though: I would relish the opportunity to play you some very bad recordings from decades ago by great artists, and also a few that I consider great that you apparently haven't heard, since you take the view that nothing, or next-to-nothing, is worthy these days. Is that something you'd be willing to try? I'm sure we could knock back a beer or two & have no problem maintaining civil discussion. I can PM you, you can PM me, whatever. Don't feel any obligation, but it's something I'd be willing to do, if you're game, that is. I'm willing to bet there's stuff you'd like, and I'd welcome the opportunity to pick a few tunes & see if that'd actually be the case. Let me know.
MINDGONEHAYWIRE...
You need to be aware that RL's opinions, feelings, attitudes, reactions, and thoughts are the Law. If you do not subscribe to his point of view on things than you are automatically condemned and wrong. Unlike most people who can still be civilized with their debates and disagreements, RL must be condescending and amateurish in his attempts to make everyone else feel inferior and stupid. He doesn't like when people don't fall into line with his views.
Resident Loser
04-17-2007, 12:21 PM
MINDGONEHAYWIRE...
You need to be aware that RL's opinions, feelings, attitudes, reactions, and thoughts are the Law. If you do not subscribe to his point of view on things than you are automatically condemned and wrong. Unlike most people who can still be civilized with their debates and disagreements, RL must be condescending and amateurish in his attempts to make everyone else feel inferior and stupid. He doesn't like when people don't fall into line with his views.
...might get confusing, but tell us again why your power cords improve your soundstage...the confusing part is, last time I "spoke" w/MGH in the RR forum we were discussing power chords...perfect fifths...
I can't help it if you feel condemned, inferior or stupid ...simply provide better evidence than "because I heard it" or some other anecdotal twaddle to support your premise...Debate on opinion re: music/performers is way different than even a low-level discussion of physics and/or logic. I've never asked you to fall into line with anything, you've already fallen into a line of your own choosing...I've simply asked you to look at things from a different, more technically-based POV and weigh both sides with more scrutiny...and honestly, I think the prospect of being on the wrong side frightens you...
jimHJJ(...MGH, sorry for the interruption...I'll respond soon...)
Dusty Chalk
04-17-2007, 03:40 PM
Bolling is awesome, though I have to admit, I don't think I've listened to him in a decade or more...should dig his music out and see if I still like it as much as I remember liking it.
My thing is melody (I like my music to have prominant melody), and IIRC, his is, too.
Resident Loser
04-18-2007, 04:26 AM
Bolling is awesome, though I have to admit, I don't think I've listened to him in a decade or more...should dig his music out and see if I still like it as much as I remember liking it.
My thing is melody (I like my music to have prominant melody), and IIRC, his is, too.
...this will open Pandora's can of worms but...IMHO without things like melody, harmony, counterpoint, etc. there simply is no music...
And now, as he shakes his head knowingly, for the MGH-inspired, parenthetic (this time I spell-checked) qualifier:
jimHJJ(...at least to my western-biased mindset...)
Resident Loser
04-18-2007, 06:20 AM
...little did I think a simple, harmless recounting of my weekend would breed this thread...but...
First a few things, a legend, guide, some insight into what is to follow...and be forewarned, if "too many notes" makes your brain hurt, you might want to consider moving along...
2+2=4...The sum of two distinct entities results in a third...fixed and immutable...If I add it up, if you add it up, if a man on the moon adds it up, the answer is always gonna' be 4...
2+2 does not= opinion...Opinion is an abstract, and while it may contain some specificity, there are far too many fluid and yes, abstract components in the equation for my answer to gleefully align in perfect register with yours...although sometimes it might; just another bit of abstract happenstance however...
We all know what IMO means, or IMHO, or IMNSHO...well, here's another which may or may not appear in the following text: WMLP...which for the sake of brevity will mean Within My Limited Purview...almost IMO but not quite, as there is some very definite specificity involved...
Now to the crux of the biscuit...the weekend...
I saw...I bought...I listened...We'll ignore the last two and get right to the "saw" part...I saw a taped PBS pledge-drive special involving the 'Stones and some other Brit bands...I liked it...my wife thought I might and she taped it, sweet thing that she is...she liked it...collectively, we liked it, as it took us back nearly forty years ago when we was just a-courtin' and folks like John Lennon, Brian Jones and Keith Moon were still alive...
Some folks (even during the PBS broadcast) gave as one of the reasons for its' being MIA for so long as: Mick Jagger couldn't get no satisfaction from the band's performance and felt the Who upstaged them...His opinion, to which he is entitled...My wife and I thought otherwise...We were bemused by Ian Anderson's ubiquitous impression of a crane, thoroughly enjoyed the Who's performance, particularly the opening harmony, used Marianne Faithfull's performance as a bathroom/Coke break, were thrown for a loop at the iconic wonderment of Messrs. Clapton, Lennon et al, shook our heads at YOs "performance" (while discussing Mr. Lennon's idiocy) and could not fathom what was wrong with the 'Stones set...this is where all that abstract opinion rears it's ugly head...our youth, our music, stuff like that...
Insofar as Yoyo Oh-no and her effect on JLs music...after the Beatles' break-up, I bought music from all of them what had it to buy...I heard Lennon's anger...McCartney's music-hall pop-i-ness and Harrison's seriousness...I really heard none of YOs input in the first few albums (specifically Plastic Ono Band and Imagine), wasn't particularly interested in or exposed to John's output after that 'cept for the stuff WNEW-FM played...and it seems he spent a great deal of time wearing sanitary napkins on his head and carousing with Harry Nilsson and Ringo...The only other album was Double Fantasy and I don't recall whether it was before or after the fact...
So I post it...in far fewer words...but then...but then...but then...
Along comes MGH...Sooo, bein' the nice guy I am, I try to engage him on some sort of common ground...But...it all goes terribly wrong as I have dared to opine that >>>WMLP<<< most current music bites...
So then we get into Part Two of MGHs Tragical History Tour...Now I dunno' 'bout you folks, but I have a regular job and home life and while listening to and making music is important to me, I don't have the luxury of being keeper of the flame...While there are subjects I could bore you to tears with, I can't quote chapter and verse re: the minutiae of music...So Sabbath's Tommy Iommi performed with Anderson, Brian Jones was on his last legs and Anita Von Stumpf was boinkin' the boys in the band and held sway over them...How absorbing for you and all who might look upon such facts in amazement...I aint one of them...
I'm into the prima facie of it all...the performance, the right then and there...so if Miles Davis was hassled in front of the Cafe' Whatever on Dec 3, 1959 at 8:42 am, it may have played a part in his abstract and somehow influenced why he chose a particular chord progression and played a specific melody over it; it's of little or no consequence to me...I am interested in his performance fixed and immutable in the recording media, which then becomes a part of my abstract, of my opinion.
So goes it with the "Circus"...IMHO, It was enjoyable...And yes, I do care about music, I may not be as near-pathological about it, but I care about it...and no, I don't think the older stuff is somehow "infallible" if that's even the right word...What I am saying is that some musicians I enjoyed listening to gave a good showing in this venue and seeing it recalls many, many things which adds to the overall abstract related to it...How sadly, many are gone and how iconic many of them are/were...Period...
Now, keep this all in mind when I address my disdain for newer music. There is a conceptual continuity component involved...
jimHJJ(...as there usually is in my posts...)
Bernd
04-18-2007, 06:42 AM
.....Sir.
And in my opinion a post with some important issues mentioned.For me-Post of the year so far.:)
I also do not care or have the time to research every last bit of information and how it could relate to a certain performance.
I just wish that when I am Jims age (sorry Jim) my other half and myself can spent a weekend like that.:)
If the tunes do not stir the emotions then it surely does not matter who influenced who.
On the other hand some people like that sort of microscopic detail and enjoy the research. Good on them.
Anyway great thread.
Peace
:16:
Rich-n-Texas
04-18-2007, 07:38 AM
...and I enjoy RL's writing style. It's amusing while at the same time intellectual. I also agree with Bernd when he says... "If the tunes do not stir the emotions then it surely does not matter who influenced who." Who cares about the politics!!!
The amount of flaming that goes on at this site over people's OWN OPINIONS is phenominal. I consider myself somewhat of a veteran of internet discussion forums but I must say this is the one forum that has a serious lack of guidance and moderation. Three pages of personal attacks from one simple question? Threads going off in all sorts of directions? It's rediculous. I came here to learn, but I also came here to participate, and maybe make some online friends in the process. Very hard to do when I have to read all of the bitterness and animosity between people. I think I can say that we're all here because we enjoy the music, the film, and the gadgetry of home theatre, whatever form it takes for the individual. If I make a wisecrack, please feel free to point it out, but don't f***'in dog me everywhere I go. I see plenty of examples of the same thing from one topic discussion to another. This is just my opinion though.
I do like the idea though of being able to automatically delete or close a thread if I don't like what's being said. :ihih: Just KIDDING!!!
Anyway, back on topic...
RL, is this PBS presentation available for sale? Or is there a way to find out if a rebroadcast is in the future. I would just love watching Tony Iommi performing next to Ian Anderson. So much great history!
GMichael
04-18-2007, 08:00 AM
Sure is fun though huh?
I feel sorry for the mods here. Half of the posters here bash them for "interfering" with the flow of threads by asking people to calm down. The other half bash them for not getting more involved. Not that I'm saying that anyone here bashed anyone. It was just a thought I had that wondered into my head and then wondered away.
There are a few here who seem to follow each other around nipping at the other's heels. A jab here. A dig there.
Resident Loser
04-18-2007, 08:17 AM
...Rich-n-Texas...thanks for the kind words...
The Rolling Stones' Rock and Roll Circus...is out there, just do a Google...Amazon has it as does Circuit City via the web...of course you can always conrtact your local PBS station and spend way more than the $16-20 at a retail cyberstore...
jimHJJ(...just kidding...)
Rich-n-Texas
04-18-2007, 09:50 AM
Amazon, huh? Boy, ya never know what's gonna rear up in that shopping center do ya? I assumed that was a very rare recording and thus, would be hard to find. Thanks for the leads.
BradH
04-20-2007, 04:27 PM
The Circus is an interesting watch. Was that the only gig Tony Iommi did with Jethro Tull?
Yeah, that one night was it. He had those metal fingertips and it apparently hampered his ability to play those chords. That's why the Tull performance is the only one in the Circus that's not completely live. Only Anderson's vocals and flute are live, the rest is the studio recording. My guess is it's not so much the chords that were the problem for Iommi but a lot of sliding up the neck on that song.
And yeah, that's useless trivia and f*ck anybody who doesn't like it.
MindGoneHaywire
04-22-2007, 11:06 PM
If some of you aren't aware of what lies in the archives, then perhaps you might care to take a look, or, if you care to judge a poster on their contribution to this thread, that is yr prerogative.
Sometimes people just butt heads. If someone has a problem because I care about details that are factors relative to music being discussed, I'm sorry. It's not going to stop me caring. As for politics, influence, and whatever, I do care, damned straight. When we have a thread that's been running for 9 months that deals more with influence than any other factor, I'm not sure why we're not supposed to care. But I care about musical influences on music I don't like, too. If someone produces something I don't like, a good part of the time I'd like to know where it came from, and why. Maybe there's something I do like that incorporated similar or exact influences. I like comparing those sorts of things.
And I've taken serious issue with certain things that RL has posted because I've found that on occasion they don't speak to the relevant factors so far as the perceived intent of the thread, with a level of editorializing that has seemed over the top, and I'm not the only one who's challenged him on that. His opinion is certainly relevant, but, well, I don't see the point in rehashing why I have taken issue with his posts in certain circumstances. You guys can take a look in the archives, or, if you like, I could drop you a link or two. But you're free to draw yr own conclusions whether you care to look at those threads or not.
I'll have to find another time to respond more specifically to RL, but I was sincere about my offer to pick a few songs that I personally would think that a guy who so frequently opines that he doesn't care for the 'current crop' of performers might find something to like in. That's as close as I can come to putting up nice, touchy-feely threads about the music I listened to this weekend (Marvin Gaye live 1977, AC/DC, Bill Evans, the Muffs, Dusty Springfield, various Chess collections, Green Day, John Coltrane, the Stooges, the Ditty Bops, Big Maybelle, Miles Davis, the Innocence Mission, and a few more). I don't participate in the Tuesday threads as much as I used to because I have reached something of a critical mass on music and sometimes feel overwhelmed by some of it as I don't always have time to listen to what I want to listen to, let alone revisit old favorites, and not to mention piles of new stuff that manage to find their way across my desk at periodic intervals.
I'll respond in kind to RL's post when I can. For now, though, I am certainly going to construct one CD, for starters, of music that I think someone with sensibilities as he has displayed on this board would find something to like about. And if that's not the case, it won't hurt my poor little feelings. Maybe he'll be willing to listen, maybe not. That I have no control over. But I think that there are outlets out there for folks who are stuck in the past to varying extents, that provide them with guidelines for music that appeals to the sensibilities of people who have grown up on the older stuff & have little patience for so much of the newer stuff. But in a climate where there are publications like MOJO, I've never understood the 'there is no good music anymore' attitude. I'm no fan of Pitchfork, mind you. But unless we draw some sort of arbitrary cutoff, Bob Dylan's part of the 'current crop' also, and the last three albums he's put out in the last 10 years have been among the most lauded of his career, at least after 1966. I wouldn't use a song of his as an example on a comp, but I get a little sick & tired of this 'I don't care for the current crop' argument. If I had reason--any reason--to believe that the folks who say this sort of thing--and RL is of course not alone in this--had heard the sorts of artists whose work tends to appeal to folks whose appreciation for pop music began to wane at some point in the past 3 decades or so, you wouldn't be getting static from me on these threads.
But I'm not going to shut up about the R'N'R Circus, either, because, like many things surrounding bands like the Rolling Stones, there are myths, and then there are facts. And there's context & backstories. There are folks whose knowledge blows mine away, not to mention plenty who were there and aren't afraid to talk about it, either. Doesn't mean I should feel that I have to refrain from voicing an opinion because someone's concerned about putting politics over music. In theory that's great, and I try to live by it as much as I can. But the truth is that, at least in the world of internet message boards, bringing up the politics as they existed--not necessarily as they revolve around currently-held opinions--is something that people who care about music tend to engage in. Sometimes music journalists do it too. Most have better things to do with their time.
I'll make no apologies for bringing up One Plus One and drawing the contrast I see in the two performances, or noting my observations. Do with that what you wish.
Bernd
04-22-2007, 11:56 PM
Hi,
I enjoy reading about the facts and details. I just thought that in this thread it was about the enjoyment of a weekend for RL and his better half. Maybe I got that wrong.Maybe not.
There is lots to learn here from the historic musical facts that are posted and sometimes I wish I had more time to dive into it further.
I still think that in order to enjoy some tunes and get an emotional response the history is not important. It is however of interest for the wider picture and for exploring other branches of that genre, and sometimes the record (no pun intended) needs to be put straight.
Have a good week
Peace
:16:
Resident Loser
04-23-2007, 06:57 AM
...please do check the archives, particularly the "50 influential albums"...I said what I said, and there isn't one thing I would change...pardon me for having an opinion...Didn't realize there was a MOP for web posting...
It all began to go wrong due to the fact that I didn't like Lou Reed and VU...Oh! Lamentations...sin of all sins...Most folks I worked with or played for at the time really didn't give a rat's @$$ about the album and IME the only reason it get's any following now is via that good old 20/20 hindsight...Much like Clapton et al "discovered" the blues, the current group of listeners has "discovered" the VU album..."it's so raw and extreme"...yeah, well nowadays so is peanut butter...this aint yer father's Skippy...this ain't yer fathers music...Well actually it is, but this daddy dismissed it then and still does now (although I still like Reed's Walk On The Wild Side)...And of course the dealiest of sins: Why the Ramones?...But, before I go too far afield re: why most current music, WMLP of course, s*cks, (were you paying attention?) let me shift gears a tad...
Bernd took Thor's hammer and whacked the nail squarely on the noggin...I recounted a weekend of viewing/listening...and in doing so it reinforced my opinion of current "product"...
So MGH views "Circus" as an "...interesting watch..." Well, bully for him...I don't think that I particularly represented it as the second coming, best thing since sliced bread or more fun than fu...oh well you get the idea...simply that since I and my wife happen to have been alive at time, and having been fans of the performers, bought their records and thus were returned to our touchstone, we both enjoyed it and neither one of us could understand why MJ decided not to release the show. It does IMO and WMLP, stand head and shoulders above most of what is currently filmed, taped or otherwise digitally stored and is represented as contemporary "music"...More on this will follow...
So if you want to get out your R'n'R encyclopedia, and the microscope, have at it...twist it, tear it tie it in a knot...dissect it...reflect upon it, do what you will, but realize there are some of us who couldn't give a flyin' frog's phart...cuz we had a nice weekend...although, can anyone tell me what brand and gauge of strings Brian Jones was using on his Firebird? Now that's info I'd be interested in...
And if you're ever interested in nit-picky facts re: the ACW and the events leading up to it, woodworking, the history and construction of the guitar, changing a waterpump in a Jeep Cherokee or a myriad of bits of arcana, I promise I can bore you as well...WMLP
jimHJJ(...and BradH, back atcha...)
P.S. MGH...provide some titles and artists, I'll listen and report back...but I don't think Dylan and Cash really count...
Rich-n-Texas
07-05-2007, 11:44 AM
So what special do you think is going to be on my local PBS station this Saturday? And what CD do you suppose I just purchased at Amazon.com? :rolleyes:
Rich-n-Texas
07-09-2007, 10:47 AM
Well, I saw the Circus on PBS Saturday night. Most importantly I was able to watch the whole show uninterrupted. Watching Jethro Tull do Song for Jeffrey simply gave me goose bumps. The only time I'd seen the band in concert was live after the Warchild album, so to see that performance from what, almost forty years ago was a real treat. They all looked so young that I didn't even recognize Tony Iommi was onstage. Ian Anderson sure did have some strange ways about him didn't he? He's in the "crane" position on the cover of Living in the Past, my favorite album which I recently picked up on CD.
I really don't think The Who upstaged the Stones, but their performance was nevertheless outstanding. And Keith Moon was actually behaving himself for a change... sorta.
I wouldn't say I idolize John Lennon, but everytime the camera was on him my brain zoomed right in. And wouldn't ya know it, Yer Blues is one of my fav's on the White Album.
Dirty Mac: EC was another one I had a hard time recognizing but it only took one lick to realize where he was on the stage. Don't know who that was playing the fiddle during their performance, in fact I don't even remember the name of the song they did but, I think that's because I had the urge to drain my bladder at about the same time Yoko started squeeling into the mike. She contributed absolutely nothing to song, but that's just John I guess.
It seemed to me that when Mick & the boys started their set the sound quality improved. Maybe Mick's condition for release of the video? Or maybe it was just my mind setting up the expectations. And whether the songs they did were a preemptive strike or not, every one was classic Stones in my mind.
I just wish the show was two hours long and more stuff from Jethro Tull, but in any event, can't wait to add that great piece of Rock history to my collection. :thumbsup:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.