Members FitchFY Posted June 26, 2012 Members Share Posted June 26, 2012 Have you noticed that people seem to be the most upset about the Eagles and Stones comments? I don't really see too many people jumping up to defend Axl Rose or Courtney Love... Well, of course. No one seems to disagree that those three are charlatans, but the concern is on "you're old, so stop." Which is a viable discussion. In the meantime, W. Axl Rose is a poop head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kmart Posted June 26, 2012 Members Share Posted June 26, 2012 ...the concern is on "you're old, so stop." Which is a viable discussion. Hmmm...for the record, I don't think it IS a viable discussion, and I certainly hope that nobody took it that i was advocating as such. Age isn't the issue. Quality of output is, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted June 26, 2012 Members Share Posted June 26, 2012 Hmmm...for the record, I don't think it IS a viable discussion, and I certainly hope that nobody took it that i was advocating as such. Age isn't the issue. Quality of output is, IMO. Actually, not even that. As long as people are willing to pay to see somebody, even if I personally think they're the worst dreck in the world, who the hell am I or anybody to tell them to quit? I don't want to see Axl Rose, and frankly I didn't want to see him when I was 25 either, so I won't buy a ticket. I still think the Stones are putting on great shows, so I'll go see them. I'll also go down to the local bar and see a a new twenty-something band and if I like them, I'll go see them again. If not, I won't. I mean... what's the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tlbonehead Posted June 27, 2012 Members Share Posted June 27, 2012 Actually, not even that. As long as people are willing to pay to see somebody, even if I personally think they're the worst dreck in the world, who the hell am I or anybody to tell them to quit? I don't want to see Axl Rose, and frankly I didn't want to see him when I was 25 either, so I won't buy a ticket. I still think the Stones are putting on great shows, so I'll go see them. I'll also go down to the local bar and see a a new twenty-something band and if I like them, I'll go see them again. If not, I won't. I mean... what's the problem? makes perfect sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vitalijus42 Posted June 27, 2012 Members Share Posted June 27, 2012 I agree with you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted June 27, 2012 Moderators Share Posted June 27, 2012 I've changed my mind!!!! I think we should move to a system of artistic genocide. Screw this "they should just stop right now" crap. We should just kill them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kmart Posted June 27, 2012 Members Share Posted June 27, 2012 I've changed my mind!!!! I think we should move to a system of artistic genocide. Screw this "they should just stop right now" crap. We should just kill them. I guarantee you it would sell tickets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted June 27, 2012 Moderators Share Posted June 27, 2012 I guarantee you it would sell tickets. I didn't think of that!!!! Like the old Colosseum idea of bread and circuses. Do a Pay per View of Lady Gage beheading Jagger!!!! Beiber in leather cod peice taking down Don Henley with a triton and net!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members FitchFY Posted June 27, 2012 Members Share Posted June 27, 2012 Beiber in leather cod peice taking down Don Henley with a triton and net!!! Whoa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted June 27, 2012 Moderators Share Posted June 27, 2012 ^^^ see!! ^^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rvschulz Posted June 27, 2012 Members Share Posted June 27, 2012 I agree if you've got one member left from a band or zero you should retire the name. Paul can't hire three guys tomorrow and call his new band the Beatles. To me there are some teams that make the band no matter who is behind them; Becker and Fagen, Mick and Keith, Axl and Slash, Pete and Roger. It's not Starship without Grace, GNR without Slash, or Floyd without Waters. Of course Santana is Santana no matter who Carlos is paired with, lol. i agree EXCEPT it is Floyd without Waters ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kmart Posted June 27, 2012 Members Share Posted June 27, 2012 i agree EXCEPT it is Floyd without Waters ... In name alone, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 3shiftgtr Posted June 27, 2012 Members Share Posted June 27, 2012 The only thing that isn't being discussed is the concept of "band owner". Courtney Love, while being a hot mess, is very smart and her quote that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Yer Blues Posted June 27, 2012 Members Share Posted June 27, 2012 Axl actually told the other band members if they didn't sign over their rights of the name to him he would walk during one of the early 90s tours. Realistically, the guy is probably has enough conviction, or craziness, that he probably would have walked. It didn't have anything to do with Slash or Duff hurting for money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted June 27, 2012 Author Members Share Posted June 27, 2012 The only thing that isn't being discussed is the concept of "band owner". Actually, that's the only thing that IS being discussed if you think about. It's the whole point of the 'list'---when it becomes more about just selling a name and it being a business and a brand than it is anything else or more than what any of these bands "used to be". Declaring that they "stop right now" is just a hyperbole. Nobody expects them to, nobody believes they have any actual authority to ask them to, and likely nobody even really wants them to. It's just a hyperbole to draw attention to the fact that these (mostly) formerly all-about-the-music acts aren't so much anymore. And who doesn't, upon hearing that the Stones are embarking on yet another tour, think "what? really? Are you guys sure that's a good thing any longer"? Even if it's just for long enough to decide "great! I'm there!"? But the fact that the thought even pops into people's heads makes it a valid topic for discussion, I would think. For a bunch of guys who play COVER tunes, making snark at dudes who play covers OF THEIR OWN STUFF (making new albums is just a reason to go out on the road and play the hits) seems a bit.....what's the word i'm looking for?.....gee.....lame, or self righteous or one of those. Only if one isn't able to understand that most cover band dudes are legitmate fans of music and observers of the industry as well. Not every comment I make about music comes from the fact that I presently play in a cover band. Nor should it. OK. Sure. That's all most people in a forum like this would know about me. That makes sense. But, like everybody else here, I've lived a long life and done a lot of things during it. Musical and non-musical. Really. To make snarky comments that "you're only in a cover band so you really don't have the right to even SAY anything about what the Stones do or don't do" is at least as pretentious and arrogant as the comments the cover band dudes make in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted June 27, 2012 Moderators Share Posted June 27, 2012 Only if one isn't able to understand that most cover band dudes are legitmate fans of music and observers of the industry as well. Not every comment I make about music comes from the fact that I presently play in a cover band. Nor should it. OK. Sure. That's all most people in a forum like this would know about me. That makes sense. But, like everybody else here, I've lived a long life and done a lot of things during it. Musical and non-musical. Really. To make snarky comments that "you're only in a cover band so you really don't have the right to even SAY anything about what the Stones do or don't do" is at least as pretentious and arrogant as the comments the cover band dudes make in the first place. Oh boy. David, my mention of your cover band status was only to point out the irony of the situation. To say you are too close to that is an understatement. If the irony is lost on you, then I guess its lost on you. Cover Bands are people too. Of course. And they have valid opinions. Of course. And they have a right to that opinion damn it! Of course. But to ignore the irony is a real big stretch. Of course your point is valid, but that ice is pretty thin from where you're standing. Because you're pointing your finger at someone doing the same thing as you. I like and accept what you do. And I accept what those artists do. They're very similar. I'm perplexed in how you can point the finger at someone doing what you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted June 27, 2012 Members Share Posted June 27, 2012 And who doesn't, upon hearing that the Stones are embarking on yet another tour, think "what? really? Are you guys sure that's a good thing any longer"? Even if it's just for long enough to decide "great! I'm there!"? But the fact that the thought even pops into people's heads makes it a valid topic for discussion, I would think. No it doesn't. I don't understand why that thought pops into anybody's head. It doesn't pop into mine. Then again, I grew up listening to blues, folk, jazz, etc. and not just rock and pop... stuff where people kept playing till they dropped dead and nobody thought anything of it. The Stones, Dylan et al were influenced by those people so it makes no sense to them (or me) why anyone would think it's strange to keep playing when you're old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted June 27, 2012 Moderators Share Posted June 27, 2012 No it doesn't. I don't understand why that thought pops into anybody's head. It doesn't pop into mine.Then again, I grew up listening to blues, folk, jazz, etc. and not just rock an pop... stuff where people kept playing till they dropped dead and nobody thought anything of it. The Stones, Dylan et al were influenced by those people so it makes no sense to them (or me) why anyone would think it's strange to keep playing when you're old. Exactly. and if it makes someone in the audience uncomfortable, they shouldn't be in the audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vermoulian Posted June 27, 2012 Members Share Posted June 27, 2012 Really. To make snarky comments that "you're only in a cover band so you really don't have the right to even SAY anything about what the Stones do or don't do" is at least as pretentious and arrogant as the comments the cover band dudes make in the first place. Even more so. If you take a step back it's glaringly obvious that comments like that are really just veiled butt-hurt attacks on people that the commenter perceives as dissing a performer they like, but I think it's important to keep the following in mind: I am the audience. That means that somebody (or -bodies) out there want me to give them my money in exchange for watching them play/sing or to get a copy of their record. And that means that I am supremely qualified to judge whether they are doing anything worthwhile or not. Now if I play in a cover band (which I do), actually I am probably making that determination with more knowledge and a higher level of sophistication than the great unwashed, but, that has nothing to do with my qualification to make it, because that comes from me being the mother{censored}ing AUDIENCE. It doesn't matter if they are better than me, because they're not getting paid to be better than me---they're getting paid to be entertaining. And as far as I'm concerned, I can judge that better than anybody. Humans being humans and the internet being the internet, at some point I may well share that judgment with the rest of the world. You can disagree with that judgment, but not my qualification to make it. (Well, not logically, anyway.) Ultimately the music marketplace is very democratic: people vote with their dollars, but even if I am outvoted (and I often am) that doesn't mean I don't get the same vote as everybody else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted June 27, 2012 Author Members Share Posted June 27, 2012 Because you're pointing your finger at someone doing the same thing as you. I like and accept what you do. And I accept what those artists do. They're very similar. I'm perplexed in how you can point the finger at someone doing what you do? Because, as I've said already, in my view it's all good and it's all valid. I don't have a thin skin about this stuff. If I did, I'd be in the wrong business. I'm pretty damned sure Mick and Keith and Don and Glen and Axl don't either. If they even bother to read the snarky comments, then they do so while laughing all the way to the bank. And I feel the same way when I see somebody slagging on what I do. Grain of salt and all that. I can point the finger at them because I have no problem pointing the finger at myself. Is my cover band cheezy? ABSO-{censored}ING-LUTELY! All day every day and twice on Sunday. We call ourselves "JumpStart" for chrissakes. We posing in our promo shot HOLDING PLASTIC BLOW UP GUITARS!!! If you think for minute that I think it's anything more than what it is or that I'm not laughing at what we do to a certain degree, you're dead wrong. But at the same time, there IS a validity to all those snarky comments. If there wasn't they wouldn't cut so deep with people here. You don't think those guys KNOW they're just cashing in on their names to a certain degree? Of course they do. Just like I KNOW I'm out there selling cheeseburger party songs to the highest bidder. I also KNOW I'm pretty good at it. Just like those guys know they're still pretty good at what they do. They don't need defending. Their actions speak for themselves. The good AND the bad of it. As musicians we all put ourselves out there every day. And that means we take the snark along with the accolades. And this is a "what have you done for me lately?" business for sure. Certainly the Stones know that for everyone who will forever see them as if it was still 1969 there will be people who see them only as old men who are starting to look a bit embarrassing at this point. And people who take the whole of their careers into account and can both love them AND wince a bit at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kmart Posted June 27, 2012 Members Share Posted June 27, 2012 I no longer can concentrate enough on this thread to make any comments because I'm too distracted by someone saying Courtney Love is very smart... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SeniorBlues Posted June 27, 2012 Members Share Posted June 27, 2012 It's dangerous to say this, but here's a point that I don't think has been raised. It never occurred to me that pop/rock musicians would want to perform music geared towards your typical 14-year-old girl much beyond twenty-five. My thinking was based on the observation that in the early 70s when I was 25, all the performers appeared to be - young. If you were much older, you didn't relate to pop/rock and were playing a completely different style of music. So there's something kind of odd about remaining in a perpetual state of adolescence. If the audience wants to collectively revisit their own adolescent years, I guess paying to see the Stones et al are as good a way to do that as any, but the whole thing seems . . . bizarre. So what am I doing playing in a band!? Ummm . . . trying to avoid teeny bopper songs. Not always successfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted June 27, 2012 Author Members Share Posted June 27, 2012 No it doesn't. I don't understand why that thought pops into anybody's head. It doesn't pop into mine. Then again, I grew up listening to blues, folk, jazz, etc. and not just rock and pop... stuff where people kept playing till they dropped dead and nobody thought anything of it. The Stones, Dylan et al were influenced by those people so it makes no sense to them (or me) why anyone would think it's strange to keep playing when you're old. It made sense to Mick when he was much younger and made that now infamous comment about not being able to see himself doing it when he was 30. But if it that thought NEVER pops into your head? OK. I believe you. No reason not to. But I really don't think I'd be going out on a big limb here to say that would put you in a pretty small minority of people. The Stones have been doing it so long now that I can barely even remember a time where their name gets mentioned --- especially as it regards their latest tour -- without virtually everyone commenting about their age, about how bad Keith looks, how it's amazing he's still alive, etc etc. I love the Stones. And I might even go see them if they tour again. But I'd probably also be wincing a bit in addition to rocking out. And let's be honest here: they LONG AGO became the poster boys for Bands That Have Maybe Been Doing It Too Long. They've become a parody of themselves to a certain degree. Keith Richards is both a legend AND a punchline. And has been for years. I dunno. Maybe you can't both love AND laugh at your heroes at the same time? I can. Maybe that's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted June 27, 2012 Author Members Share Posted June 27, 2012 I no longer can concentrate enough on this thread to make any comments because I'm too distracted by someone saying Courtney Love is very smart... I dunno. I can't say much about Courtney Love one way or the other. Is she smart or not? I have no idea. She's so Courtney Love that she's become a parody of herself as well. But regardless of all of that and all of her and everything that has ever surrounded her, "Live Through This" was a kick ass album. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted June 27, 2012 Author Members Share Posted June 27, 2012 So what am I doing playing in a band!? Ummm . . . trying to avoid teeny bopper songs. Not always successfully. Except that, like the Stones, isn't a lot of what you're trying to play stuff that takes you back to your youth? The Stones go out and play "Satisfaction" to people who were teeny boppers when they first heard it so they can all relive their youth a bit. Is that at least part of your attraction to late 60s R&B tunes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.