Ronnie wood his Girlfriend and Mick Jagger? (1 Viewer)

[Rob]

Ronnie wood has just been cautioned by Police for assaulting his girlfriend.I read somewhere that Mick Jagger was thinking of throwing him out of the band because of this,have any of you guys heard this?.

Rob

 

[jazzeum]

RS should retire; guys are way past their prime.

 

[Rob]

RS should retire; guys are way past their prime.

Yes you're right Brad.I just thought it funny how things have gone full circle.Here we have a band that in the 60's frightened the establishment and made mothers want to lock up their daughters,and now they are considering throwing out their guitarist because he's been cautioned by Police and has given them a bad image.

Rob

 

[jazzeum]

Hadn't thought about that aspect Rob. Now, that's ironic isn't it. When I was growing up, there were two groups you had to listen to: the Beatles and the Stones and the Stones were always trying to cultivate that bad boy image. They caused quite a ruckus when they issued "Let's Spend the Night Together," which is rather tame for today's standards. However, they did toss out Brian Jones because of his drug use and missed appearances.

I frankly stopped listening to them after the mid 70s; just didn't like their stuff that much anymore. However, until then, their recordings are just great. My favorite, if I had to choose one, would be Aftermath and if I had to choose one song, it would be Paint it Black.

 

[theBaron]

I thought those Jurassic Rockers died years ago.

 

[Rob]

Hadn't thought about that aspect Rob. Now, that's ironic isn't it. When I was growing up, there were two groups you had to listen to: the Beatles and the Stones and the Stones were always trying to cultivate that bad boy image. They caused quite a ruckus when they issued "Let's Spend the Night Together," which is rather tame for today's standards. However, they did toss out Brian Jones because of his drug use and missed appearances.

I frankly stopped listening to them after the mid 70s; just didn't like their stuff that much anymore. However, until then, their recordings are just great. My favorite, if I had to choose one, would be Aftermath and if I had to choose one song, it would be Paint it Black.

Yes the Beatles were much more clean cut sort of image weren't they.Mothers would be happy for their daughters to bring home Lennon or McCartney,but Jagger and Richards filled them with Horror!.I agree Paint it Black is a great record,I do like Brown Sugar too.

Rob

 

[jazzeum]

They certainly had different images. I think with the Beatles until Revolver that was due to Brian Epstein's influence. Things did change with his untimely death. Did you know that in response to Let It Be (and who was to know at the time it was their last released album although actually recorded before Abbey Road), the Stones called their disc Let it Bleed?

 

[Rob]

They certainly had different images. I think with the Beatles until Revolver that was due to Brian Epstein's influence. Things did change with his untimely death. Did you know that in response to Let It Be (and who was to know at the time it was their last released album although actually recorded before Abbey Road), the Stones called their disc Let it Bleed?

No I didn't know that Brad,very interesting.

Rob

 

[mikemiller1955]

Hadn't thought about that aspect Rob. Now, that's ironic isn't it. When I was growing up, there were two groups you had to listen to: the Beatles and the Stones and the Stones were always trying to cultivate that bad boy image. They caused quite a ruckus when they issued "Let's Spend the Night Together," which is rather tame for today's standards. However, they did toss out Brian Jones because of his drug use and missed appearances.

I frankly stopped listening to them after the mid 70s; just didn't like their stuff that much anymore. However, until then, their recordings are just great. My favorite, if I had to choose one, would be Aftermath and if I had to choose one song, it would be Paint it Black.

I don't think Brian Jones was replaced just because of his drug habits...if that were the case...Ron Wood would have been replaced before him...personally...I still love them...Mick Jagger is in incredible shape for his age...his concert performances are like a full cardio workout...he still has the voice and he still has the style...definitely still has the style...

watch the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame concert on HBO this week...

The old joke was...

"If we had a nuclear holocust...the only things to survive would be cockroaches...Burger King and Ron Wood"........

 

[jazzeum]

His drug habit made him unreliable and was causing the group problems. He was also beginning to resent the leadership of Jagger and Richards. The situation had become untenable.

I was at that concert and have watched it several times on tv; he's a caricature of himself. All show biz.

I hoped you saw Jeff Beck. That was a real performance, from the heart.

 

[Combat]

Musical tastes are subjective, but I always thought of the Beatles as the Beach Boys from England. The three minute ditties and such. Or as the Clash said "phoney Beatle mania has bitten the dust." The Stones were the real deal for many years. Fame and old age took some of their bite, but those guys were the real deal in the 60's and 70's. Lennon and those guys never came close. Just fancy boys making money.

 

[marco55]

I always loved Honky Tonk Woman by them.Turned against them when they went disco.
Mark

 

[jazzeum]

Musical tastes are subjective, but I always thought of the Beatles as the Beach Boys from England. The three minute ditties and such. Or as the Clash said "phoney Beatle mania has bitten the dust." The Stones were the real deal for many years. Fame and old age took some of their bite, but those guys were the real deal in the 60's and 70's. Lennon and those guys never came close. Just fancy boys making money.

Although music is subjective, this is such an incredible statement. First, two of the seminal groups of our time are ridiculed in the same sentence. The Beach Boys' Pet Sounds was a highly influential album, very complicated in its structures, influencing even the Beatles. The Beach Boys were not just a surfing group but incredible musicians.

Without the Beatles there would not be rock and roll as we know it. Some observers felt that at the time the Beatles burst upon the scene in 1962, rock was dying out. They influenced so many musicians that their effect is still felt today. What they did was copied. Another of their important contributions was the rock album. Up until that time, albums were not considered the province for rock and roll but for "serious minded" work such as classical. With their first two albums, they changed all that. In addition, they pioneered how albums were made in studios. This is just two of their contributions. If you take some time to listen to their catalogue you will see how compact and well written the songs are that they deliver the message in three minutes. Brevity does not mean you have nothing to say nor does length mean the opposite. Some of the early music might be called ditties (and what glorious songs they are) but starting around with Rubber Soul they are anything but; Sgt Peppers is probably one of the more important albums ever written.

Nice try Doug but you might want to do a little reading. I'd recommend some of Nik Cohn's books.

 

[marco55]

I didn't realize that about albums.Thanks for enlighting me.
Mark

 

[King & Country]

Hi Guys,

Just had to jump in on this one… After all the 60’s were my coming of age!!!

Have to strongly disagree with “Combat” about the Stones being “the real deal” and the Beatles not even “coming close”.

Actually I loved ‘em both and still do…. Both groups explored and expanded the boundaries of rock ‘n’ roll to the absolute limit… and they were British too!

Albums (we called them LP’s) like “REVOLVER”… “AFTERMATH”… “SGT. PEPPER”… “LET IT BLEED”—to name but a few. And singles such as “PAPERBACK WRITER”… “IT’S ALL OVER NOW”… “STRAWBERRY FIELDS”… “HONKY TONK WOMEN”… “HEY JUDE”… “ANGIE”… and the list goes on and on defined the 1960’s and early 70’s. At least as far as popular music was concerned.

And what a time to be young!!! Long hair… short skirts and then hot pants… and the birds looked great too! Oh well such are the memories… I used to think it was just “the day before yesterday”… Now it’s “the day before the day before yesterday”!!!

Peace, love, a pint of lager and lime and a packet of crisps to one and all!
Andy C.

 

[jazzeum]

I just finished reading a very interesting book called "How the Beatles Destroyed Rock and Roll," which despite its title is not just focused on the Beatles; in fact only chapter is devoted post 1960s music. It's a general survey of popular music from 1900 through 1970.

The author's basic premises is as follows: From 1900 on musicians played a variety of styles and white musicians and african americans borrowed from each other, generally the white musicians borrowing more and getting the credit, such as in jazz. What they had in common, however, was that to eat you to play at dances and entertain people, who generally didn't go to a venue to sit down and watch music but to dance to music. Musicians had to know a variety of styles from jazz to foxtrots, etc. because that's what the public demanded. They wanted to dance to it. That is how musicians earned their living.

This generally held true, more or less, until the mid 50s because even though rock was developing (Bill Haley, etc.) it had to be danceable. However, the way people danced was changing, from dancing to one another arm in arm to the twist, etc. Music was still being developed jointly, with borrowing back and forth, african american musicians and white musicians influencing each other. It was a very symbiotic relationship. For example, Elvis was a toned down version of what was called "race" music where people like to listen to all kinds of music.

The advent of the Beatles and folk rock changed things. Where before you had to play for the people to earn your living, the white rockers who developed in the 60s, particularly from 1965-66 on decided they were going to play for themselves and not the audience, figuring they would still have an audience, plus they spurned the relationship that had developed with black musicians, who couldn't afford or have the luxury to play or write things they wanted to do. A good example of this is the Beatles decision in 1966 to stop playing before audiences and to just make records for themselves.

The end resul of this was that african american music and rock went their separate ways (e.g., development and growth of soul), probably to the detriment of white rock and roll. If you look at rock and roll in the late 60s on, you don't see a lot of african american musicians, the most notable exceptions being Hendrix and Sly and the Family Stone. This split led to the development of disco (i.e., it was danceable) and ultimately to rap, etc.

It's a small book (250 pages) and I recommend it.

 

[Combat]

I doubt the Beatles either saved or destroyed R&R. They were a populist band who peaked at the right time in history to hit it big. The main problem with the Beatles is that when all was said and done they really had nothing important to say. Beatlemania was just a spoof on the screaming fans. I think the Beatles even recognized that at some point, but they couldn't allow themselves to believe they were anything less than musical geniuses. Toward the end they seemed to be searching for a meaningful message that eluded them because it was never there. They were just popular. It reminds me a bit of the Seinfeld show when in the end it was simply "about nothing." Lots of nice songs that will be enjoyed forever, but nothing more.

 

[Spitfrnd]

....." Lots of nice songs that will be enjoyed forever, but nothing more.

Maybe but reduced to the essence, what more do you want from your musicians? I love many Beatle and Stones songs but I never thought either offerred any insights to the meaning of life or the secrets of the cosmos. Many nice songs is just fine with me; there are so many that offer so much less. Don't get me started on disco or rap, YO.

 

[jazzeum]

From my perspective they were a great band, at the forefront of many breakthroughs, actually making the breakthroughs. It also helped if you lived then. Of course now they may not seem all that great compared to how music has developed. For example, prior to George Harrison, the concept of lead guitarist wasn't significant. That has all changed thanks to him.

In albums like Revolver and Sgt Pepper they had a lot to say. Try listening to Taxman, She Said, Eleanor Rigby, With a Little Help and A Day in the Life. I could go and on. I agree with Bill though; we're not going to find the secrets of the universe through their music or anybody's music.
They and the Stones were very instrumental in introducing kids like me to blues and black music, particularly the early Stones.

Another great group while we're at it are the Animals (pre 1967).