here is a sidetrack hijack...ever tried to argue why Led Zeppelin is a good band to a bunch of garage rock meathead snobs? Mind you I like a little garage rock, but when you get around garage rock snobs who think it is the only original rocknroll ever, it is like yelling a brick wall...I gave up pretty quickly though, it was a waste of time...I am "Vinyl Ritchie" on this board.... [url=http://www.goner-records.com/board/index.php?acti
Any garage rock snob who doesn't fucking WORSHIP Jimmy Page or Ritchie Blackmore is probably just a trend-hopper with no brains or musical knowledge of rock and roll whatsoever. Now , you can argue about what Zep, Stones, Deep Purple, the Who,Rod Stewart, Jeff beck etc BECAME, but all of these cats form one half of the foundation of what any good garage rock is based on(the other half being the American equivalent, Love,Sonics, Little Richard blah blah). But for most garage rock 'fans', the music is completely peripheral to retro fashions, making the scene, etc. We used to refer to these folks as follows:
same folks, lots of rules and too much fucking time on their hands.
Prime underrated Stones: the self-titled first album. Sloppy garage-rock at its' finest. (And for the record: I'm a big garage fan, and I also dig Led Zeppelin, but I fail to see what the two have to do with each other, except that Jimmy Page was a Yardbird.)
Prime underrated Stones: the self-titled first album. Sloppy garage-rock at its' finest. (And for the record: I'm a big garage fan, and I also dig Led Zeppelin, but I fail to see what the two have to do with each other, except that Jimmy Page was a Yardbird.)
I think it is the fact that since ALL rocknroll is basically stolen from somewhere else, and since there are a thousands of garage bands, but only really maybe a hundred garage tunes with thousands of variations, you would think that garage rcokers would worship the most brilliant riff thief of all time, Jimmy Page and his band.
Prime underrated Stones: the self-titled first album. Sloppy garage-rock at its' finest. (And for the record: I'm a big garage fan, and I also dig Led Zeppelin, but I fail to see what the two have to do with each other, except that Jimmy Page was a Yardbird.)
Exactly my point. He was a Yardbird, and a heavily recorded studio musician on many Freakbeat-style singles, as was Blackmore. What evolved into hard rock started as Beat in the UK, and garage rock in the US, basically the same essential music with the same roots. Led Zepplin and Deep Purple and Pink Floyd are all logical extensions of that same music. THAT'S why I tend to disdain garage and freakbeat snobs who poo poo Zep. Most of them are simply in love with the fey, weaksauce shit that has no nads to it anyway, and is as sexless as possible. [/rant]
...and dirtbag rockers like myself who could care less about frat dudes bumpin' "Goin to California" after they listened to "Redemption Song"...I will never, ever tire of hearing Bonzo's drums, they make my heart happy.
a kinda related yardbird side note, yesterday at the $1 record swap we had yesterday(edit..that last phrase was written like a true Zep fan...heh, the swap was Sunday), I mentioned to someone that there was a "Blow Up" OST somehwere in the mounds of records about 3 minutes before we were shutting it down, it was funny to see someone scramble and dig like a panicky chiuauha...shit made me laugh.
(And for the record: I'm a big garage fan, and I also dig Led Zeppelin, but I fail to see what the two have to do with each other, except that Jimmy Page was a Yardbird.)
Exactly my point. He was a Yardbird, and a heavily recorded studio musician on many Freakbeat-style singles, as was Blackmore. What evolved into hard rock started as Beat in the UK, and garage rock in the US, basically the same essential music with the same roots. Led Zepplin and Deep Purple and Pink Floyd are all logical extensions of that same music.
I guess we'll agree to disagree. I have no prob with Zep or (early) Pink Floyd, but I don't see the garage connecting line. There are a few hard-rock bands who extended garage into the 70's (Brownsville Station, thank you very much), but I wouldn't put the artists you mentioned in that line.
(And for the record: I'm a big garage fan, and I also dig Led Zeppelin, but I fail to see what the two have to do with each other, except that Jimmy Page was a Yardbird.)
Exactly my point. He was a Yardbird, and a heavily recorded studio musician on many Freakbeat-style singles, as was Blackmore. What evolved into hard rock started as Beat in the UK, and garage rock in the US, basically the same essential music with the same roots. Led Zepplin and Deep Purple and Pink Floyd are all logical extensions of that same music.
I guess we'll agree to disagree. I have no prob with Zep or (early) Pink Floyd, but I don't see the garage connecting line. There are a few hard-rock bands who extended garage into the 70's (Brownsville Station, thank you very much), but I wouldn't put the artists you mentioned in that line.
I gotcha. I guess it all depends on how you define 'garage rock', as it's such a catch-all for everything from low-rent Beatles/Stones copying to revved-up rockabilly and frat rock, or just critic shorthand for 'spirited-band-who-can't-play-their-instruments'. In my experience, I just see it as having the same common ground as most hard rock in the 70s. Amboy Dukes morphing into Ted Nugent solo...all the same seeds growing in different directions.
Maaaaan, early Zep and late Yardbirds are the same thing... not only were they doing the SAME DAMN SONGS but Zep was originally called "The New Yardbirds"... very cut and dried: Zep is the logical extension of the Yardbirds...
This is true...I need that...still had some sleazy life in that track.
I just heard the 12" version for the first time last month. Man, the drums sound HUGE. Capital City had one for while. I should have got it. Doubles of that are good.
Maaaaan, early Zep and late Yardbirds are the same thing...
The Yardbirds were a little more concise. They weren't as drawn-out and jammy as Zep.
Yeah, to say it's the same isn't quite accuarate, but I see what you are saying. Keith Relf was a much more utilitarian singer than Plant, more subdued and concise, Plant had far more emotional dynamic range. I think that's the big evolutionary jump, Zep infused so much more open emotion into their craft than the Yardbirds did, Page just opened up as the sole guitarist, and Bonham cranked the levels up so much from McCarty. McCarty is a great drummer, but Bonham was
naw, i just REALLY cant see how people hate on the beatles, STILL!!!
It's easy, it's fun, and it pisses people off. And don't get me wrong, I'd take The Pretty Things over The Rolling Stones in a heartbeat.
I missed this earlier! Me too, but as much for sentimental reasons as musical! Without Dick Taylor providing early guitar lessons and musical influence, the Stones story might have been quite different.
i still like led zeppelin, since before i liked girls or drugs (last month). the whole point of this thread was that if you had money to burn on SIX stones CD's ($18.99ea), which would you buy? for about $122.77, you could buy a ton of other stuff.
if i can quote mc paul barman (to piss off some of you even more)
"i think canibus and ll cool j are both fantastic"
i have all the beatles studio and love their early AND late period (their early period more so cause thats what my dad used to play a lot of when i was a kid, thats the shit i grew up with, yes their later stuff is more complex, layered, more studio wizardry, phuck it, sometimes minimalism is better, when i hear "i wann hold your hand, or "saw her standing there" i scream like the girl groupies they used to have)
but phuck most of you, i was asking about the stones anyway thats like me asking about nas pre ilmatic sessions and you telling me to kill that noise cause Jay Z is the king of new york. Yes the beatles are way more of a massive influence, the infinite covers of their music is proof of that alone (the reggae covers are the best, susan cadogan's cover of "imagine" and harry j allstars "hey jude") but yeah, why waste your time arguing that, do you talk about how much sushi rocks when there's a discussion of favorite toppings on pizza?
anyhow in terms of the stones, like i said i never really thought about it, i just assumed they had like 3 albums and all their big songs came from it...while checking sheit online for muddy watters, i saw some album called muddy waters w/ the rolling stones and wondered what the phuck? then upon further reading i found they were admirers of him, which to be honest i never would have known based on the songs i've heard by them, hence my curiousity.
ps: that song the verve(band not label) got phucked over for sampling the violins off...what rolling stones song is that? is it a bside?
while checking sheit online for muddy watters, i saw some album called muddy waters w/ the rolling stones and wondered what the phuck?
I'm wondering "what the phuck" too, 'cause as an admirer of both artists ive never heard of this album. Muddy Waters With The Rolling Stones, huh? Either you made that up or you were perusing a catalog of bootlegs???
Yeah, musta been a bootleg - I have seen video of the Stones backing Muddy from the early 70's, so I'm sure it's been booted. It's great watching Mick pound a tambourine and look useless
while checking sheit online for muddy watters, i saw some album called muddy waters w/ the rolling stones and wondered what the phuck?
I'm wondering "what the phuck" too, 'cause as an admirer of both artists ive never heard of this album. Muddy Waters With The Rolling Stones, huh? Either you made that up or you were perusing a catalog of bootlegs???
Probably a bootleg of one of the partys they hired him to play. Maybe Mick plays harp on one cut or something. They also had him open for them. There is no famous; the Stones backing Muddy Water session or live gig.
Or maybe you saw, Muddy Water - Rolling Stone, an album named after the song that inspired Keith and Mick to name their band; the Rolling Stones.
Yeah, musta been a bootleg - I have seen video of the Stones backing Muddy from the early 70's, so I'm sure it's been booted. It's great watching Mick pound a tambourine and look useless
Yeah, musta been a bootleg - I have seen video of the Stones backing Muddy from the early 70's, so I'm sure it's been booted. It's great watching Mick pound a tambourine and look useless
Ok then, guess I was wrong.
Dan
No, not really, cause the video I saw was from a small club and seemed like one of their impromptu club parties, pretty much like you were saying. Not an actual studio session or anything. This is the link to where I saw the video, but it doesn't seem to be working anymore. Note that the video was from 1981, not the "early 70's" as my addled brain remembered it...I pretty much forgot Muddy was still kicking around that late in the day.
Comments
Any garage rock snob who doesn't fucking WORSHIP Jimmy Page or Ritchie Blackmore is probably just a trend-hopper with no brains or musical knowledge of rock and roll whatsoever. Now , you can argue about what Zep, Stones, Deep Purple, the Who,Rod Stewart, Jeff beck etc BECAME, but all of these cats form one half of the foundation of what any good garage rock is based on(the other half being the American equivalent, Love,Sonics, Little Richard blah blah). But for most garage rock 'fans', the music is completely peripheral to retro fashions, making the scene, etc. We used to refer to these folks as follows:
same folks, lots of rules and too much fucking time on their hands.
Some Girls was from 1978.
Prime underrated Stones: the self-titled first album. Sloppy garage-rock at its' finest. (And for the record: I'm a big garage fan, and I also dig Led Zeppelin, but I fail to see what the two have to do with each other, except that Jimmy Page was a Yardbird.)
I think it is the fact that since ALL rocknroll is basically stolen from somewhere else, and since there are a thousands of garage bands, but only really maybe a hundred garage tunes with thousands of variations, you would think that garage rcokers would worship the most brilliant riff thief of all time, Jimmy Page and his band.
Exactly my point. He was a Yardbird, and a heavily recorded studio musician on many Freakbeat-style singles, as was Blackmore. What evolved into hard rock started as Beat in the UK, and garage rock in the US, basically the same essential music with the same roots. Led Zepplin and Deep Purple and Pink Floyd are all logical extensions of that same music. THAT'S why I tend to disdain garage and freakbeat snobs who poo poo Zep. Most of them are simply in love with the fey, weaksauce shit that has no nads to it anyway, and is as sexless as possible. [/rant]
I doubt it. I was laughing the entire time.
...and Led Zeppelin is for frat boys.
...and dirtbag rockers like myself who could care less about frat dudes bumpin' "Goin to California" after they listened to "Redemption Song"...I will never, ever tire of hearing Bonzo's drums, they make my heart happy.
a kinda related yardbird side note, yesterday at the $1 record swap we had yesterday(edit..that last phrase was written like a true Zep fan...heh, the swap was Sunday), I mentioned to someone that there was a "Blow Up" OST somehwere in the mounds of records about 3 minutes before we were shutting it down, it was funny to see someone scramble and dig like a panicky chiuauha...shit made me laugh.
I guess we'll agree to disagree. I have no prob with Zep or (early) Pink Floyd, but I don't see the garage connecting line. There are a few hard-rock bands who extended garage into the 70's (Brownsville Station, thank you very much), but I wouldn't put the artists you mentioned in that line.
Beggar's Banquet
Exile
Sticky Fingers
Let it Bleed
the first s/t two
Some Girls
Aftermath
I'm not really into saying which is better, but I've always liked the Stones a little more than the Beatles - more soul, more dirt, better hair.
But I really wish they had stopped with Undercover.
This is true...I need that...still had some sleazy life in that track.
I gotcha. I guess it all depends on how you define 'garage rock', as it's such a catch-all for everything from low-rent Beatles/Stones copying to revved-up rockabilly and frat rock, or just critic shorthand for 'spirited-band-who-can't-play-their-instruments'. In my experience, I just see it as having the same common ground as most hard rock in the 70s. Amboy Dukes morphing into Ted Nugent solo...all the same seeds growing in different directions.
I just heard the 12" version for the first time last month. Man, the drums sound HUGE. Capital City had one for while. I should have got it. Doubles of that are good.
The Yardbirds were a little more concise. They weren't as drawn-out and jammy as Zep.
Lot of shit talk in this thread, son.
Yeah, to say it's the same isn't quite accuarate, but I see what you are saying. Keith Relf was a much more utilitarian singer than Plant, more subdued and concise, Plant had far more emotional dynamic range. I think that's the big evolutionary jump, Zep infused so much more open emotion into their craft than the Yardbirds did, Page just opened up as the sole guitarist, and Bonham cranked the levels up so much from McCarty. McCarty is a great drummer, but Bonham was
I missed this earlier! Me too, but as much for sentimental reasons as musical!
Without Dick Taylor providing early guitar lessons and musical influence, the Stones story might have been quite different.
a helluva nice guy too.
the whole point of this thread was that if you had money to burn on SIX stones CD's ($18.99ea), which would you buy? for about $122.77, you could buy a ton of other stuff.
"i think canibus and ll cool j are both fantastic"
i have all the beatles studio and love their early AND late period (their early period more so cause thats what my dad used to play a lot of when i was a kid, thats the shit i grew up with, yes their later stuff is more complex, layered, more studio wizardry, phuck it, sometimes minimalism is better, when i hear "i wann hold your hand, or "saw her standing there" i scream like the girl groupies they used to have)
but phuck most of you, i was asking about the stones anyway
anyhow in terms of the stones, like i said i never really thought about it, i just assumed they had like 3 albums and all their big songs came from it...while checking sheit online for muddy watters, i saw some album called muddy waters w/ the rolling stones and wondered what the phuck? then upon further reading i found they were admirers of him, which to be honest i never would have known based on the songs i've heard by them, hence my curiousity.
ps: that song the verve(band not label) got phucked over for sampling the violins off...what rolling stones song is that? is it a bside?
but for real, thanks to the few, i'l check exile and backwards
Not a Stones record, it's Andrew Loog Oldham doing a Stones song.
I'm wondering "what the phuck" too, 'cause as an admirer of both artists ive never heard of this album. Muddy Waters With The Rolling Stones, huh? Either you made that up or you were perusing a catalog of bootlegs???
Probably a bootleg of one of the partys they hired him to play. Maybe Mick plays harp on one cut or something. They also had him open for them. There is no famous; the Stones backing Muddy Water session or live gig.
Or maybe you saw, Muddy Water - Rolling Stone, an album named after the song that inspired Keith and Mick to name their band; the Rolling Stones.
Dan
Ok then, guess I was wrong.
Dan
No, not really, cause the video I saw was from a small club and seemed like one of their impromptu club parties, pretty much like you were saying. Not an actual studio session or anything.
This is the link to where I saw the video, but it doesn't seem to be working anymore. Note that the video was from 1981, not the "early 70's" as my addled brain remembered it...I pretty much forgot Muddy was still kicking around that late in the day.
its on some library record as well...cant remember which one though...wow I am helpful