Rock and Roll Circus

[The Iron Muffin]

Hey now, my freaky darlings.

A friend of mine works at the record company that owns the Rolling Stones'
catalog, and he sent me a promo copy of this DVD. While I am one of those
who subscribes to the belief that the Rolling Stones are one of (if not THE)
most overrated acts in rock and roll, I have to say that this is a fantastic
release. Mick and Keith both look so young...

Jethro Tull's performance (with Tony Iommi on guitar), while short, is
extremely good.

More after I finish watching it...

[volkfolk]

Post by The Iron Muffin
Hey now, my freaky darlings.
A friend of mine works at the record company that owns the Rolling Stones'
catalog, and he sent me a promo copy of this DVD. While I am one of those
who subscribes to the belief that the Rolling Stones are one of (if not THE)
most overrated acts in rock and roll, I have to say that this is a fantastic
release. Mick and Keith both look so young...
Jethro Tull's performance (with Tony Iommi on guitar), while short, is
extremely good.
More after I finish watching it...
--
The Iron Muffin
DEAD FREAKS UNITE
Who are you? Where are you?
How are you?

The only thing that mars the whole film is Yoko's screeching when she
"performs" with John.

Scot

[Mike Z. Helm]

Post by volkfolk
The only thing that mars the whole film is Yoko's screeching when she
"performs" with John.

So, compared to Yoko, would everyone here admit that Donna's allright?
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday

[Jperdue4]

Post by volkfolk
The only thing that mars the whole film is Yoko's screeching when she
"performs" with John.

I like Yoko's stuff...She was punk before punk was kool...
JonP

[BZLRBI]

Post by Jperdue4

Post by volkfolk
The only thing that mars the whole film is Yoko's screeching when she
"performs" with John.

I like Yoko's stuff...She was punk before punk was kool...
JonP

She *is* considered a huge influence on punk/techno/disco in certain circles.
Maybe Donna Jean will get similar recognition some day. Huh?

[unknown]

Post by BZLRBI

Post by Jperdue4

Post by volkfolk
The only thing that mars the whole film is Yoko's screeching when she
"performs" with John.

I like Yoko's stuff...She was punk before punk was kool...

She *is* considered a huge influence on punk/techno/disco in certain circles.
Maybe Donna Jean will get similar recognition some day. Huh?

I think I read somewhere long ago that "Double Fantasy" came about
when, after being away from recording for so long, Lennon checked out
what was happening in the punk clubs and told Yoko, "They're finally
ready for us" or something to that effect.

[LP]

Post by Mike Z. Helm

Post by volkfolk
The only thing that mars the whole film is Yoko's screeching when she
"performs" with John.

So, compared to Yoko, would everyone here admit that Donna's allright?

It's a draw - Donna/Yoko - screeching and howling.......

LP

[DGDevin]

Post by volkfolk
The only thing that mars the whole film is Yoko's screeching when she
"performs" with John.

Oh Lordy, you can even see some of the other performers looking at her with
half-amused, half-horrified expressions. What a noise, sounds like like a
cat in a washing machine.

[Olompali4]

Post by The Iron Muffin
Jethro Tull's performance (with Tony Iommi on guitar), while short, is
extremely good.
More after I finish watching it...
--
The Iron Muffin<<<

Other than Ian Anderson, the Tull performance is dubbed.

[Dan K]

and I can buy it at Best Buy...it has been out for a couple of weeks...it is
an excellent show...the Who dominates...

Post by The Iron Muffin
Hey now, my freaky darlings.
A friend of mine works at the record company that owns the Rolling Stones'
catalog, and he sent me a promo copy of this DVD. While I am one of those
who subscribes to the belief that the Rolling Stones are one of (if not THE)
most overrated acts in rock and roll, I have to say that this is a fantastic
release. Mick and Keith both look so young...
Jethro Tull's performance (with Tony Iommi on guitar), while short, is
extremely good.
More after I finish watching it...
--
The Iron Muffin
DEAD FREAKS UNITE
Who are you? Where are you?
How are you?

[Olompali4]

From: "Dan K"
.it is
an excellent show...the Who dominates...<

The Who and their "mini opera" is sooo quaint and silly...and to think The
Stones thought they were terrible by comparison. Must have been the drugs.
The Rolling Stones dominate this video.
Imho.

[Cozmik Charlie T]

Post by Olompali4

From: "Dan K"
.it is
an excellent show...the Who dominates...<

The Who and their "mini opera" is sooo quaint and silly...and to think The
Stones thought they were terrible by comparison. Must have been the drugs.
The Rolling Stones dominate this video.
Imho.

Absolutely one of the most ridiculous things I have read in 10 years of
reading this NG. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but there is
absolutely NO QUESTION that The Who is the star of the RSR&RC.

Amazing performance. Rock at its pinnacle.

[Olompali4]

From: "Cozmik Charlie T"

Amazing performance. Rock at its pinnacle.<<

Pinnacle!!!!
Riiight...Pete's literary pretensions are the no 1 failing of The Who.
A Quick One is inane, dated prog pop.
Hard to believe this is the group that made Live at Leeds.
Towser was so influenced by the great Ray Davies. For great English pop, he
only veers close to The Kinksman.

[Cozmik Charlie T]

Post by Olompali4
From: "Cozmik Charlie T"

Amazing performance. Rock at its pinnacle.<<

Pinnacle!!!!
Riiight...Pete's literary pretensions are the no 1 failing of The Who.
A Quick One is inane, dated prog pop.
Hard to believe this is the group that made Live at Leeds.
Towser was so influenced by the great Ray Davies. For great English pop, he
only veers close to The Kinksman.

Ridiculous. Preposterous.

Sure, Pete is pretentious. Focus, instead, on the music and that particular
performance and look past the lyrical content. That performance is insanely
good.

[Chairman of the Bored]

Post by Cozmik Charlie T
Sure, Pete is pretentious. Focus, instead, on the music and that particular
performance and look past the lyrical content. That performance is insanely
good.

I watched The Kids Are Alright the other night, and I was struck by how good
the Who were at the Rock and Roll Circus. Looking forward to getting this
one.

[DGDevin]

Post by Chairman of the Bored
I watched The Kids Are Alright the other night, and I was struck by how good
the Who were at the Rock and Roll Circus. Looking forward to getting this
one.

Did you get the newly remastered and restored version on DVD? It's amazing,
showing what can be done when someone takes the care to do it right, the
audio and video improvements over the old VHS version are stunning.

[DGDevin]

Post by Cozmik Charlie T
Ridiculous. Preposterous.
Sure, Pete is pretentious. Focus, instead, on the music and that particular
performance and look past the lyrical content. That performance is insanely
good.

It's the very fact that Townshend took chances and pushed himself as a
writer (sometimes falling short) that helped make the Who so good. But the
energy and passion of their live show is unquestioned, except to those who
are determined to dislike it regardless.

[Brad Greer]

Post by Olompali4
From: "Cozmik Charlie T"

Amazing performance. Rock at its pinnacle.<<

Pinnacle!!!!
Riiight...Pete's literary pretensions are the no 1 failing of The Who.
A Quick One is inane, dated prog pop.
Hard to believe this is the group that made Live at Leeds.

I've paid no attention to the lyrics of A Quick One whenever I've
listened to it. What little I've caught of them do sound cheesy, but
so what? The reason many of us think the Who stole the show at the
R&RC is because of the power of the music. They are as tight as any
band could ever want to be, they are in complete control of the music
at all times with tons of rage and fury just busting to get out. The
Stones, on the other hand, were somewhat flat for several songs, IMO.

Post by Olompali4
Towser was so influenced by the great Ray Davies. For great English pop, he
only veers close to The Kinksman.

[Olompali4]

From: Brad Greer

Post by Brad Greer
I've paid no attention to the lyrics of A Quick One whenever I've
listened to it.<

Well, I guess that would make the piece work.
Seems quite naff but whatever helps.

[Brad Greer]

Post by Olompali4
From: Brad Greer

Post by Brad Greer
I've paid no attention to the lyrics of A Quick One whenever I've
listened to it

Well, I guess that would make the piece work.
Seems quite naff but whatever helps.

I'm not a big lyric guy, what can I say?

[Bill Moore]

Post by Brad Greer

Post by Olompali4
From: Brad Greer

Post by Brad Greer
I've paid no attention to the lyrics of A Quick One whenever I've
listened to it

Well, I guess that would make the piece work.
Seems quite naff but whatever helps.

I'm not a big lyric guy, what can I say?

The lyrics to A Quick One are fun.

[Brad Greer]

Post by Bill Moore

Post by Brad Greer

Post by Olompali4
From: Brad Greer

Post by Brad Greer
I've paid no attention to the lyrics of A Quick One whenever I've
listened to it

Well, I guess that would make the piece work.
Seems quite naff but whatever helps.

I'm not a big lyric guy, what can I say?

The lyrics to A Quick One are fun.

They seem fairly silly and non-consequential. I have a problem with
someone dismissing the song because of the lyrics. It's necessary to
dismiss a hell of a lot of lyrics from the late '60s when judging
songs from then. I like the song, I've never bothered to give the
lyrics any real thought because to me the Who are all about the
energy, rage and anger they project on stage (especially in the late
60s). One could easliy dismiss China Cat Sunflower as being lame,
dated acid-rock lyrics as well, but nobody around here does that.

[Olompali4]

Post by Olompali4
From: Brad Greer
They seem fairly silly and non-consequential. I have a problem with
someone dismissing the song because of the lyrics.

Please. The tune is completely about the lyrics. It is one of Pete's attempts
at humorous social commentary. It's not as if there is a massive, raging guitar
solo. It's a character driven story told in 3 parts more than it is anything
else. It's Pete's big thing to tell stories with a HUGE lyrical drive.
Tommy
Quadrophenia
Lifehouse
Psychderelict
Iron Man
In fact, someone who isn't much of a lyrics person is really missing much of
Townshend's muse.

Post by Olompali4
I've never bothered to give the
lyrics any real thought because to me the Who are all about the
energy, rage and anger they project on stage (especially in the late
60s).

I agree. But I surely do not get those elements from the flowery bufoonery that
is A Quick One.
The film clip of Young Man's Blues from Woodstock absolutely kills the RnR
Circus performance.
Witness that The Who dropped AQO a long, long time ago but have retained much
of their long standing repertoire.

Post by Olompali4

Post by Brad Greer
It's necessary to

dismiss a hell of a lot of lyrics from the late '60s when judging
songs from then. <,

That's why, in a previous post, I specifically compared the tune to those of
Ray Davies.
Much more apt and viable.
And AQO comes up lacking.

Post by Olompali4
One could easliy dismiss China Cat Sunflower as being lame,
dated acid-rock lyrics as well, but nobody around here does that.

That argument of "around here" doesn't hold water. On a Who board I'm sure it
is considered that every lyric Pete has penned is comparable to the poetry of
Lord Byron.

[volkfolk]

Post by Olompali4

Post by Olompali4
From: Brad Greer
They seem fairly silly and non-consequential. I have a problem with
someone dismissing the song because of the lyrics.

Please. The tune is completely about the lyrics. It is one of Pete's attempts
at humorous social commentary. It's not as if there is a massive, raging guitar
solo. It's a character driven story told in 3 parts more than it is anything
else. It's Pete's big thing to tell stories with a HUGE lyrical drive.
Tommy
Quadrophenia
Lifehouse
Psychderelict
Iron Man
In fact, someone who isn't much of a lyrics person is really missing much of
Townshend's muse.

Post by Olompali4
I've never bothered to give the
lyrics any real thought because to me the Who are all about the
energy, rage and anger they project on stage (especially in the late
60s).

I agree. But I surely do not get those elements from the flowery bufoonery that
is A Quick One.
The film clip of Young Man's Blues from Woodstock absolutely kills the RnR
Circus performance.
Witness that The Who dropped AQO a long, long time ago but have retained much
of their long standing repertoire.

Post by Olompali4

Post by Brad Greer
It's necessary to

dismiss a hell of a lot of lyrics from the late '60s when judging
songs from then. <,
That's why, in a previous post, I specifically compared the tune to those of
Ray Davies.
Much more apt and viable.
And AQO comes up lacking.

Post by Olompali4
One could easliy dismiss China Cat Sunflower as being lame,
dated acid-rock lyrics as well, but nobody around here does that.

That argument of "around here" doesn't hold water. On a Who board I'm sure it
is considered that every lyric Pete has penned is comparable to the poetry of
Lord Byron.

The thing about AQO is that it was Pete's first attempt at writing a
mini-opera. He wrote it before Tommy and Quadrophenia, and was the genesis
for both peices.(form wise, not story wise) At the time, I don't beleive
that Ray Davies had started writing narrative style pieces. Pete was the
first RnR guy to tell stories by grouping songs together.

Scot

[Olompali4]

Post by volkfolk
At the time, I don't beleive

From: "volkfolk"

Post by volkfolk
that Ray Davies had started writing narrative style pieces. Pete was the
first RnR guy to tell stories by grouping songs together.<<

My comparison is more with the lyrical content rather than the form.
When it comes to character driven pathos in RnR/Pop, Ray Davies may be the very
best.
Kinda' forgotten nowadays.

[Cozmik Charlie T]

Post by Olompali4

Post by Olompali4
From: Brad Greer
They seem fairly silly and non-consequential. I have a problem with
someone dismissing the song because of the lyrics.

Please. The tune is completely about the lyrics. It is one of Pete's attempts
at humorous social commentary. It's not as if there is a massive, raging guitar
solo. It's a character driven story told in 3 parts more than it is anything
else. It's Pete's big thing to tell stories with a HUGE lyrical drive.
Tommy
Quadrophenia
Lifehouse
Psychderelict
Iron Man
In fact, someone who isn't much of a lyrics person is really missing much of
Townshend's muse.

Post by Olompali4
I've never bothered to give the
lyrics any real thought because to me the Who are all about the
energy, rage and anger they project on stage (especially in the late
60s).

I agree. But I surely do not get those elements from the flowery bufoonery that
is A Quick One.
The film clip of Young Man's Blues from Woodstock absolutely kills the RnR
Circus performance.
Witness that The Who dropped AQO a long, long time ago but have retained much
of their long standing repertoire.

Post by Olompali4

Post by Brad Greer
It's necessary to

dismiss a hell of a lot of lyrics from the late '60s when judging
songs from then. <,
That's why, in a previous post, I specifically compared the tune to those of
Ray Davies.
Much more apt and viable.
And AQO comes up lacking.

Post by Olompali4
One could easliy dismiss China Cat Sunflower as being lame,
dated acid-rock lyrics as well, but nobody around here does that.

That argument of "around here" doesn't hold water. On a Who board I'm sure it
is considered that every lyric Pete has penned is comparable to the poetry of
Lord Byron.

Of course, Pete's lyrics are wonderful on many of his songs. However, we're
speaking particularly of a fairly disgusting tale in AQO and, more
speficically, about the performance on AQO on the RS R&RC which is SUPERB.

[DGDevin]

Post by Cozmik Charlie T
Absolutely one of the most ridiculous things I have read in 10 years of
reading this NG. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but there is
absolutely NO QUESTION that The Who is the star of the RSR&RC.
Amazing performance. Rock at its pinnacle.

Yup, it's been widely accepted even by hardcore Stones fans that being
upstaged by the Who is one of the reasons the Stones never released this
project for so many years. The Who had just come off the road and were at
full power, while the Stones were in trouble, with Brian Jones on his last
legs. Which is not to say the Stones did a bad job on this show, but they
just didn't have the crackling energy the Who did at that time.

[mjd]

Post by Olompali4

From: "Dan K"
.it is
an excellent show...the Who dominates...<

The Who and their "mini opera" is sooo quaint and silly...and to think The
Stones thought they were terrible by comparison. Must have been the drugs.
The Rolling Stones dominate this video.
Imho.

'quaint and silly'??? what did you do, only watch the Ivar the Engine
Driver part??? for chrissakes you can actually see the sweat flying
off Keith's head while he wails the traps on Forgiven! ..truly
spectacular. I put it on JUST to watch the Who - friggin awesome -
they rock their balls off.

[Cozmik Charlie T]

Post by mjd

Post by Olompali4

From: "Dan K"
.it is
an excellent show...the Who dominates...<

The Who and their "mini opera" is sooo quaint and silly...and to think The
Stones thought they were terrible by comparison. Must have been the drugs.
The Rolling Stones dominate this video.
Imho.

'quaint and silly'??? what did you do, only watch the Ivar the Engine
Driver part??? for chrissakes you can actually see the sweat flying
off Keith's head while he wails the traps on Forgiven! ..truly
spectacular. I put it on JUST to watch the Who - friggin awesome -
they rock their balls off.

HR, YK.

[katrinka]

Post by Olompali4
The Who and their "mini opera" is sooo quaint and silly...and to think The
Stones thought they were terrible by comparison. Must have been the drugs.
The Rolling Stones dominate this video.
Imho.

As I recall, just about every British band of that era had several of these
"quaint and silly" songs.

I think it was a nod to a form of British popular music (novelty songs?) from
their childhoods, music that was performed in Music Halls and singalongs at
local pubs.

All the bands seemed to be trying to include a novelty song on their first LP,
or to write one of their own.

Didn't Cream have one titled "My Baby Has Rolled Down the Gutter?"

Of the Who songs, I always liked "Boris the Spider." And I think "Happy Jack"
(used for the Hummer commercial) is of the same genre.

"A Quick One" was pioneering, in a way, in that it strung several "novelty
songs" together to create a short story. And was probably the seed of the idea
to write "Tommy."



@}~~ Ktrnka

(lose dabluez to respond)

[RossMcGibbon]

Post by katrinka

Post by Olompali4
The Who and their "mini opera" is sooo quaint and silly...

As I recall, just about every British band of that era had several of these
"quaint and silly" songs.

Take a listen to 'A Quick one (While He's Away)' - the Ivor the dirty
old engine driver bit and place it in context of Townsend's later
disclosure of abuse as a child.
Always sounded pretty dodgy to me but later events helped me understand.

[DGDevin]

Post by katrinka
Didn't Cream have one titled "My Baby Has Rolled Down the Gutter?"

"A Mother's Lament," I can still sing it from memory over thirty years
later....

[band beyond description]

Post by The Iron Muffin
Hey now, my freaky darlings.
A friend of mine works at the record company that owns the Rolling Stones'
catalog, and he sent me a promo copy of this DVD. While I am one of those
who subscribes to the belief that the Rolling Stones are one of (if not THE)
most overrated acts in rock and roll, I have to say that this is a fantastic
release. Mick and Keith both look so young...
Jethro Tull's performance (with Tony Iommi on guitar), while short, is
extremely good.
More after I finish watching it...

you've sold me with this much; i just ordered it!

[zenarus]

Post by The Iron Muffin
Hey now, my freaky darlings.
A friend of mine works at the record company that owns the Rolling Stones'
catalog, and he sent me a promo copy of this DVD.

...Ask yer friend if there are any plans to release "Ladies and
Gentlemen The Rolling Stones"? Great concert film of their '72 tour.
Alot of shitty boot-legs
out there.

[brew ziggins]

Post by zenarus

Post by The Iron Muffin
Hey now, my freaky darlings.
A friend of mine works at the record company that owns the Rolling Stones'
catalog, and he sent me a promo copy of this DVD.

...Ask yer friend if there are any plans to release "Ladies and
Gentlemen The Rolling Stones"? Great concert film of their '72 tour.
Alot of shitty boot-legs out there.

A 'remastered' DVD-R of L&G hit circulation not too long
ago; it looks about as good as I remember the actual film
looking. Tremendous stuff.

[Olompali4]

Post by brew ziggins
A 'remastered' DVD-R of L&G hit circulation not too long
ago; it looks about as good as I remember the actual film
looking. Tremendous stuff.

At the initial showings of Ladies and Gents, the film had an "overture" of an 8
minute all-black screen with an electronic sound montage created by John and
Yoko. Is this on any boots?
Does anyone remember this?

[The Iron Muffin]

Post by zenarus

Post by The Iron Muffin
Hey now, my freaky darlings.
A friend of mine works at the record company that owns
the Rolling Stones' catalog, and he sent me a promo copy
of this DVD.

...Ask yer friend if there are any plans to release "Ladies and
Gentlemen The Rolling Stones"? Great concert film of their
'72 tour. Alot of shitty boot-legs out there.

OK, shall do.

[DGDevin]

Post by zenarus
...Ask yer friend if there are any plans to release "Ladies and
Gentlemen The Rolling Stones"? Great concert film of their '72 tour.
Alot of shitty boot-legs
out there.

The Stones really have a lot to answer for in terms of how they have let so
much fantastic film and tape gather dust in the vaults, partly for legal
reasons and partly because Jagger has an aversion to revisiting the Stones'
past, he seems to think it will age him or something. On the other hand,
The Who have seen their Isle of Wight film and the superb The Kids Are
Alright remastered and released recently, and since 2000 their live show has
been performed with more enthusiasm than for many years, even after the
stunning loss of John Entwistle they are still playing with passion live.
There are strong rumors they will tour again in 2005, if so, don't miss
them, they are confirming all over again that they are considered one of
rock's greatest bands for a very good reason.

[Olompali4]

From: "DGDevin"
The Stones really have a lot to answer for in terms of how they have let so
much fantastic film and tape gather dust in the vaults, partly for legal
reasons and partly because Jagger has an aversion to revisiting the Stones'
past, he seems to think it will age him or something. On the other hand,
The Who have seen their Isle of Wight film and the superb The Kids Are
Alright remastered and released recently, and since 2000 their live show has
been performed with more enthusiasm than for many years, even after the
stunning loss of John Entwistle they are still playing with passion live.
There are strong rumors they will tour again in 2005, if so, don't miss
them, they are confirming all over again that they are considered one of
rock's greatest bands for a very good reason.

[Olompali4]

Try that again...

From: "DGDevin"
The Stones really have a lot to answer for in terms of how they have let so
much fantastic film and tape gather dust in the vaults, partly for legal
reasons and partly because Jagger has an aversion to revisiting the Stones'
past, he seems to think it will age him or something. On the other hand,
The Who have seen their Isle of Wight film and the superb The Kids Are
Alright remastered and released recently, and since 2000 their live show has
been performed with more enthusiasm than for many years, even after the
stunning loss of John Entwistle they are still playing with passion live.
There are strong rumors they will tour again in 2005, if so, don't miss
them, they are confirming all over again that they are considered one of
rock's greatest bands for a very good reason.

The four dvd set from the last Stones tour, Four Flicks, was fantastic. Huge
amount of different songs from every era of their career played electric and
acoustic and with great power and affection.
The Rolling Stones keep the upswing and momentum going that began with Steel
Wheels 15 years ago.
They are simply amazing.
Btw, Jagger was great in the film "The Man From Elysian Fields" He plays the
part of an aged gigolo. I doubt he is afraid of his youth haunting hi,.
In fact The Rolling Stones have always seemed quite fearless. Like pirates.

[DGDevin]

Post by Olompali4
The four dvd set from the last Stones tour, Four Flicks, was fantastic. Huge
amount of different songs from every era of their career played electric and
acoustic and with great power and affection.

It's a good video set, and they mixed-up the setlist more than they have for
years, especially earlier in the tour, but over time they tended to revert
to the well-worn standards. But Keith spends too much time striking silly
poses and playing as few notes as possible, Ronnie was in better shape than
in many years due to kicking the booze for awhile, but overall it's a
thinner sound than I associate with the Stones, they really seem to need
their backing crew these days.

Post by Olompali4
Btw, Jagger was great in the film "The Man From Elysian Fields" He plays the
part of an aged gigolo. I doubt he is afraid of his youth haunting hi,.
In fact The Rolling Stones have always seemed quite fearless. Like pirates.

I think Jagger is terrified of aging, parading around with an endless string
of actresses and models a third his age doesn't seem like the behavior of
someone who is comfortable with his age. But I was referring more to the
statements he has made over the years where he comes right out and says he
doesn't care much about their old work and doesn't want to re-examine it.
Hell, sometimes when introducing songs he can't remember which album they
are from, no wonder he can't be bothered to see something like Ladies and
Gentlemen The Rolling Stones remastered and re-released.

[Olompali4]

Post by DGDevin
I think Jagger is terrified of aging, parading around with an endless string
of actresses and models a third his age doesn't seem like the behavior of
someone who is comfortable with his age.<

LOL! Maybe he just digs hot chicks and what their hard young bodies feel
like!!

Post by DGDevin
But I was referring more to the
statements he has made over the years where he comes right out and says he
doesn't care much about their old work and doesn't want to re-examine it.<

He probably thinks that he still has much to offer as a living breathing
active songwriter and performer and will leave much the recordings and film
archives for when he truly retires.

Post by DGDevin
Hell, sometimes when introducing songs he can't remember which album they
are from<

Ah.. the laizze-faire attitudes of the eccentric genius.
Lennon was the same and at a much younger age.
In the words of Towser:
"It's a put on"

[DGDevin]

Post by Olompali4
LOL! Maybe he just digs hot chicks and what their hard young bodies feel
like!!

Even to the point of flushing away his marriage to a women he apparently
really did love? Sacrificing his family for some cheap thrills? Case
closed.

Post by Olompali4
He probably thinks that he still has much to offer as a living breathing
active songwriter and performer and will leave much the recordings and film
archives for when he truly retires.

As a performer he remains astonishing, watching him work a crowd is really
something, he is without question the best frontman in the history of rock
music. But as a songwriter, well, he plays it safe now, he seems to write
what he thinks the public wants to hear rather than forcing the public to
follow his lead as he did in the 60s and 70s. When you have to use the word
"rock" in the title of song after song so the public knows what they're
buying, the music is falling short.

Post by Olompali4
Ah.. the laizze-faire attitudes of the eccentric genius.
Lennon was the same and at a much younger age.

There is nothing eccentric about Jagger, he is one of the most calculating
people in the history of showbiz, he learned the hard way to leave nothing
to chance when Allen Klein hijacked ownership of the Stones music over
thirty years ago.

[Olompali4]

From: "DGDevin"
Even to the point of flushing away his marriage to a women he apparently
really did love? Sacrificing his family for some cheap thrills? Case
closed.

Happens to the best of us..young and old, rich and poor.

But as a songwriter, well, he plays it safe now<

Ain't that the truth.

There is nothing eccentric about Jagger, he is one of the most calculating
people in the history of showbiz, he learned the hard way to leave nothing
to chance when Allen Klein hijacked ownership of the Stones music over
thirty years ago. <

So you still think he doesn't know what song came from which LP? Like I wrote,
It's a put on.

[DGDevin]

Post by Olompali4
So you still think he doesn't know what song came from which LP? Like I wrote,
It's a put on.

You could be right, he might actually pretend he doesn't remember just to
look casual, just like when he pretends not to know which song they're doing
next when it's on a TV monitor set into the stage right in front of him.
However, the part about him saying in interviews that he doesn't care to
look back at their older material stands by itself, expecially considering
that the band's actions match his words, all that glorious music trapped in
the vaults. If not for bootleggers, most of the Stones' best live
recordings would never he heard....

[Jperdue4]

Post by DGDevin

Post by Olompali4
LOL! Maybe he just digs hot chicks and what their hard young bodies feel
like!!

Even to the point of flushing away his marriage to a women he apparently
really did love? Sacrificing his family for some cheap thrills? Case
closed.

My god...Do you shave your vagina?...
dOOd....your a total pussy....

Jonp

[brew ziggins]

Post by DGDevin

Post by zenarus
...Ask yer friend if there are any plans to release "Ladies and
Gentlemen The Rolling Stones"? Great concert film of their '72 tour.
Alot of shitty boot-legs
out there.

The Stones really have a lot to answer for in terms of how they have let so
much fantastic film and tape gather dust in the vaults, partly for legal
reasons and partly because Jagger has an aversion to revisiting the Stones'
past, he seems to think it will age him or something.

You have to wonder why they never released the '73
Brussells KBFH show - bootleg copies are so widespread,
they might as well have been released. At this point, the
state of the art 'Brussells Affair' is a 2CD re-re-mastered
Pre-FM definitive edition' with bonus tracks from other
stops on the tour.

This is the Rock 'n Roll Shit!

[DGDevin]

Post by brew ziggins
You have to wonder why they never released the '73
Brussells KBFH show - bootleg copies are so widespread,
they might as well have been released. At this point, the
state of the art 'Brussells Affair' is a 2CD re-re-mastered
Pre-FM definitive edition' with bonus tracks from other
stops on the tour.
This is the Rock 'n Roll Shit!

While KBFH would no doubt love to be able to release that material, they
would need the Stones' permission. And after the shitstorm resulting from
some KBFH employee "borrowing" the tapes that eventually appeared as
Handsome Girls, I doubt the Stones are interested in working with that
company. Too bad, those '73 shows were about the hottest live work the
Stones ever did, the interplay between Richards and Taylor is mind-boggling.

[mjd]

Post by The Iron Muffin
Hey now, my freaky darlings.
A friend of mine works at the record company that owns the Rolling Stones'
catalog, and he sent me a promo copy of this DVD. While I am one of those
who subscribes to the belief that the Rolling Stones are one of (if not THE)
most overrated acts in rock and roll, I have to say that this is a fantastic
release. Mick and Keith both look so young...

Oh, yes - they're so overrated... not like they ever produced any
incredible music or anything, just those lame efforts like Beggars
Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, or Exile on Main St, nothing
great, really...

true they were pretty flat on R&RC but who wouldn't be after partying
for 2 solid days. i don't care if they sat on the loo for the rest of
their careers - they at least deserve props for an unmatched stream of
music in late 60's/early 70's.

[The Iron Muffin]

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin
Hey now, my freaky darlings.
A friend of mine works at the record company that owns
the Rolling Stones' catalog, and he sent me a promo copy
of this DVD. While I am one of those who subscribes to
the belief that the Rolling Stones are one of (if not THE)
most overrated acts in rock and roll, I have to say that
this is a fantastic release. Mick and Keith both look so
young...

Oh, yes - they're so overrated...

I am glad that you agree with my assessment.

Post by mjd
not like they ever produced any incredible music or anything,
just those lame efforts like Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed,
Sticky Fingers, or Exile on Main St,

None of which are on my list of 10 "desert island" albums.

Post by mjd
nothing great, really...

Exactly.

Post by mjd
true they were pretty flat on R&RC but who wouldn't be
after partying for 2 solid days. i don't care if they sat on
the loo for the rest of their careers - they at least deserve
props for an unmatched stream of music in late 60's/early 70's.

Yeah, they wrote some good tunes back in the day. That doesn't mean that
they're not overrated.

[brew ziggins]

"The Iron Muffin" <You must ask me for my email address.>

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
not like they ever produced any incredible music or anything,
just those lame efforts like Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed,
Sticky Fingers, or Exile on Main St,

None of which are on my list of 10 "desert island" albums.

A desert island without either Beggars Banquet or Let It
Bleed would be a sorry island indeed.

"I hear the clip clop of yo-ah feet on the stay-ahs..."

[Sneakerface]

This movie (like Festival Express) was in the can for a couple
decades, and having read so much about it, I was so pumped up to see
it when it was finally released 5 or 10 years ago on vhs. But when I
actually watched it I was mostly disappointed, watched it once or
twice and sold it to a friend. The Lennon/Clapton/Mitch Mitchell/ and
Keith Richards (I'm still trying to repress the Yoko parts..) jam was
a historical get together , though not particularly memorable
musically. The Who's "A Quick One" was clearly the highlight of the
film. And I also read that the Jethro Tull performance, which, as
mentioned was overdubbed, was also a different guitarist on the actual
audio that you hear than the one you see playing . I forget if it was
Tommy Iommi in the video in someone else playing guitar on the audio,
or vice versa. I think it says on the liner notes.

I don't particularl recommend this film, though it has its moments.

[DGDevin]

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
not like they ever produced any incredible music or anything,
just those lame efforts like Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed,
Sticky Fingers, or Exile on Main St,

None of which are on my list of 10 "desert island" albums.

While everybody is entitled to their opinion etc., if *none* of those albums
is on your short list, then your opinions on music now rank right up there
with John Ashcroft's.

Post by The Iron Muffin
Yeah, they wrote some good tunes back in the day. That doesn't mean that
they're not overrated.

Some "good tunes," sure, like the Archies or Herman's Hermits, just a few
not so bad tunes. Good grief, what a space case.

[Dave]

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin
Hey now, my freaky darlings.
A friend of mine works at the record company that owns
the Rolling Stones' catalog, and he sent me a promo copy
of this DVD. While I am one of those who subscribes to
the belief that the Rolling Stones are one of (if not THE)
most overrated acts in rock and roll, I have to say that
this is a fantastic release. Mick and Keith both look so
young...

Oh, yes - they're so overrated...

I am glad that you agree with my assessment.

Post by mjd
not like they ever produced any incredible music or anything,
just those lame efforts like Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed,
Sticky Fingers, or Exile on Main St,

None of which are on my list of 10 "desert island" albums.

OK, you are forever banned from writing about rock and roll music on
this newsgroup. You obviously know nothing about it. Are the Stones
the best band ever? No. Are those 4 of the best rock and roll albums
ever made? Without a doubt! And they made them all in a row. Besides
the Beatles 66-69, that is definitely the best creative spurt by any
rock band ever.
dave

[The Iron Muffin]

(re: the Rolling Stones)

Post by Dave

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
not like they ever produced any incredible music or anything,
just those lame efforts like Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed,
Sticky Fingers, or Exile on Main St,

None of which are on my list of 10 "desert island" albums.

OK, you are forever banned from writing about rock and roll music on
this newsgroup. You obviously know nothing about it.

With all due respect, go fuck yourself. Just try and stop me.

Post by Dave
Are the Stones the best band ever? No.

On this, at least, we agree.

Post by Dave
Are those 4 of the best rock and roll albums ever made?

No.

HTH,

[brew ziggins]

Post by The Iron Muffin
(re: the Rolling Stones)

Post by Dave

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
not like they ever produced any incredible music or anything,
just those lame efforts like Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed,
Sticky Fingers, or Exile on Main St,

None of which are on my list of 10 "desert island" albums.

OK, you are forever banned from writing about rock and roll music on
this newsgroup. You obviously know nothing about it.

With all due respect, go fuck yourself. Just try and stop me.

Post by Dave
Are those 4 of the best rock and roll albums ever made?

No.
HTH

Muffin, man, you are losing some serious street cred here.

[The Iron Muffin]

Post by brew ziggins

Post by The Iron Muffin
(re: the Rolling Stones)

Post by Dave

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
not like they ever produced any incredible music or anything,
just those lame efforts like Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed,
Sticky Fingers, or Exile on Main St,

None of which are on my list of 10 "desert island" albums.

OK, you are forever banned from writing about rock and roll
music on this newsgroup. You obviously know nothing about it.

With all due respect, go fuck yourself. Just try and stop me.

Post by Dave
Are those 4 of the best rock and roll albums ever made?

No.
HTH

Muffin, man, you are losing some serious street cred here.

Why? Because I don't much care for the Rolling Stones? I was under the
impression that musical taste was subjective, and that we could all have our
own opinions on various bands...

[Brad Greer]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:10:04 -0500, "The Iron Muffin" <You must ask me

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by brew ziggins

Post by The Iron Muffin
(re: the Rolling Stones)

Post by Dave

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
not like they ever produced any incredible music or anything,
just those lame efforts like Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed,
Sticky Fingers, or Exile on Main St,

None of which are on my list of 10 "desert island" albums.

OK, you are forever banned from writing about rock and roll
music on this newsgroup. You obviously know nothing about it.

With all due respect, go fuck yourself. Just try and stop me.

Post by Dave
Are those 4 of the best rock and roll albums ever made?

No.
HTH

Muffin, man, you are losing some serious street cred here.

Why? Because I don't much care for the Rolling Stones? I was under the
impression that musical taste was subjective, and that we could all have our
own opinions on various bands...

Considering the guy accusing you of losing street cred doesn't like
the Beatles much and considers them over-rated you're probably okay.

Hey, I like the Stones, most people I know do. But it's okay to say
you don't, or to say you think they are over-rated. As you said,
music is subjective.

[LP]

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by brew ziggins

Post by The Iron Muffin
(re: the Rolling Stones)

Post by Dave

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
not like they ever produced any incredible music or anything,
just those lame efforts like Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed,
Sticky Fingers, or Exile on Main St,

None of which are on my list of 10 "desert island" albums.

OK, you are forever banned from writing about rock and roll
music on this newsgroup. You obviously know nothing about it.

With all due respect, go fuck yourself. Just try and stop me.

Post by Dave
Are those 4 of the best rock and roll albums ever made?

No.
HTH

Muffin, man, you are losing some serious street cred here.

Why? Because I don't much care for the Rolling Stones? I was under the
impression that musical taste was subjective, and that we could all have our
own opinions on various bands...

I like Phish.
I don't like anything the Rolling Stones did after about 1974.
Am I not human?

LP

[brew ziggins]

Post by LP
I like Phish.
I don't like anything the Rolling Stones did after about 1974.
Am I not human?

Depends...what do you think of Phish's cover of Loving
Cup???

[LP]

Post by brew ziggins

Post by LP
I like Phish.
I don't like anything the Rolling Stones did after about 1974.
Am I not human?

Depends...what do you think of Phish's cover of Loving
Cup???

I've heard 'em do it VERY well. Gorge '97 comes to mind.

LP

[Dave]

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by brew ziggins

Post by The Iron Muffin
(re: the Rolling Stones)

Post by Dave

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
not like they ever produced any incredible music or anything,
just those lame efforts like Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed,
Sticky Fingers, or Exile on Main St,

None of which are on my list of 10 "desert island" albums.

OK, you are forever banned from writing about rock and roll
music on this newsgroup. You obviously know nothing about it.

With all due respect, go fuck yourself. Just try and stop me.

Post by Dave
Are those 4 of the best rock and roll albums ever made?

No.
HTH

Muffin, man, you are losing some serious street cred here.

Why? Because I don't much care for the Rolling Stones? I was under the
impression that musical taste was subjective, and that we could all have our
own opinions on various bands...

No, because you are too ignorant to hear that those are 4 of the best
rock and roll albums ever made. No one is saying you have to like the
Rolling Stones. But to comment on music, you just need to have some
musical intelligence to realize great music when you hear it. I hate
Eminem, but I know that he is a great rap artist. I actually don't
like the Beach Boys, but I would admit that Pet Sounds is one of the
best albums ever made. Are you starting to get it yet?? And telling me
to go fuck myself was very mature of you. You sounded like a dumb
teenager with that response. I guess I can see why you don't
appreciate the Stones.

dave

[The Iron Muffin]

Post by Dave

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by brew ziggins

Post by The Iron Muffin
(re: the Rolling Stones)

Post by Dave

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
not like they ever produced any incredible music or anything,
just those lame efforts like Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed,
Sticky Fingers, or Exile on Main St,

None of which are on my list of 10 "desert island" albums.

OK, you are forever banned from writing about rock and roll
music on this newsgroup. You obviously know nothing about it.

With all due respect, go fuck yourself. Just try and stop me.

Post by Dave
Are those 4 of the best rock and roll albums ever made?

No.
HTH

Muffin, man, you are losing some serious street cred here.

Why? Because I don't much care for the Rolling Stones? I was
under the impression that musical taste was subjective, and that we
could all have our own opinions on various bands...

No, because you are too ignorant to hear that those are 4 of the best
rock and roll albums ever made.

In the opinion of some fuckwit on Usenet. It's incredibly ironic for you to
call me "ignorant", though I doubt that irony was your intention.

Post by Dave
No one is saying you have to like the Rolling Stones.

Actually, that's *exactly* what you're saying: Either I like the Rolling
Stones or I'm ignorant.

Post by Dave
But to comment on music, you just need to have some musical
intelligence to realize great music when you hear it.

Which I have in abundance. The Rolling Stones, to me, are not "great
music".

Post by Dave
I hate Eminem, but I know that he is a great rap artist.

How do you know this? From what MTV tells you?

Post by Dave
I actually don't like the Beach Boys, but I would admit that
Pet Sounds is one of the best albums ever made.

What kind of drugs are you on, and where can I get some?

Post by Dave
Are you starting to get it yet??

I "got it" long before you came around to tell me how ignorant I am.

Post by Dave
And telling me to go fuck myself was very mature of you.

Thanks. It certainly was a lot more mature than you telling me that I don't
like rock and roll because I'm not a Stones fan.

Post by Dave
You sounded like a dumb teenager with that response.

I put little stock in your aural perceptions.

Post by Dave
I guess I can see why you don't appreciate the Stones.

Because I'm not a dumb teenager. Hey, I have an idea for you, Dave: Why
don't you just enjoy the music that you enjoy, and allow others to do the
same? This "ultimate arbiter of what is good music" act is lame.

Oh yeah, and go fuck yourself.

[JimK]

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:24:19 -0500, "The Iron Muffin" <You must ask me

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by Dave

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by brew ziggins

Post by The Iron Muffin
(re: the Rolling Stones)

Post by Dave

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
not like they ever produced any incredible music or anything,
just those lame efforts like Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed,
Sticky Fingers, or Exile on Main St,

None of which are on my list of 10 "desert island" albums.

OK, you are forever banned from writing about rock and roll
music on this newsgroup. You obviously know nothing about it.

With all due respect, go fuck yourself. Just try and stop me.

Post by Dave
Are those 4 of the best rock and roll albums ever made?

No.
HTH

Muffin, man, you are losing some serious street cred here.

Why? Because I don't much care for the Rolling Stones? I was
under the impression that musical taste was subjective, and that we
could all have our own opinions on various bands...

No, because you are too ignorant to hear that those are 4 of the best
rock and roll albums ever made.

In the opinion of some fuckwit on Usenet. It's incredibly ironic for you to
call me "ignorant", though I doubt that irony was your intention.

Post by Dave
No one is saying you have to like the Rolling Stones.

Actually, that's *exactly* what you're saying: Either I like the Rolling
Stones or I'm ignorant.

Post by Dave
But to comment on music, you just need to have some musical
intelligence to realize great music when you hear it.

Which I have in abundance. The Rolling Stones, to me, are not "great
music".

Post by Dave
I hate Eminem, but I know that he is a great rap artist.

How do you know this? From what MTV tells you?

Post by Dave
I actually don't like the Beach Boys, but I would admit that
Pet Sounds is one of the best albums ever made.

What kind of drugs are you on, and where can I get some?

Post by Dave
Are you starting to get it yet??

I "got it" long before you came around to tell me how ignorant I am.

Post by Dave
And telling me to go fuck myself was very mature of you.

Thanks. It certainly was a lot more mature than you telling me that I don't
like rock and roll because I'm not a Stones fan.

Post by Dave
You sounded like a dumb teenager with that response.

I put little stock in your aural perceptions.

Post by Dave
I guess I can see why you don't appreciate the Stones.

Because I'm not a dumb teenager. Hey, I have an idea for you, Dave: Why
don't you just enjoy the music that you enjoy, and allow others to do the
same? This "ultimate arbiter of what is good music" act is lame.
Oh yeah, and go fuck yourself.

This thread seems to have once again raised the eternal argument over
personal taste v. objective quality. I think any reasonable person
would agree that the mere fact that someone loves a certain album or
artist doesn't make them great per se, and vice versa. On the other
hand, I do believe that there are some recordings, performers,
composers, etc. that are so universally acclaimed that one would have
to accept their greatness, even if you don't personally care for them.
For instance, it would be pretty difficult to argue that Beethoven
wasn't great even if you don't like classical music. The same for
Miles Davis and jazz. Whether the Stones warrant being considered in
that light is arguable, although I personally think their body of work
would place them among the greats of rock and roll.

YMMV,
JimK

[mjd]

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by Dave

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by brew ziggins

Post by The Iron Muffin
(re: the Rolling Stones)

Post by Dave

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
not like they ever produced any incredible music or anything,
just those lame efforts like Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed,
Sticky Fingers, or Exile on Main St,

None of which are on my list of 10 "desert island" albums.

OK, you are forever banned from writing about rock and roll
music on this newsgroup. You obviously know nothing about it.

With all due respect, go fuck yourself. Just try and stop me.

Post by Dave
Are those 4 of the best rock and roll albums ever made?

No.
HTH

Muffin, man, you are losing some serious street cred here.

Why? Because I don't much care for the Rolling Stones? I was
under the impression that musical taste was subjective, and that we
could all have our own opinions on various bands...

No, because you are too ignorant to hear that those are 4 of the best
rock and roll albums ever made.

In the opinion of some fuckwit on Usenet. It's incredibly ironic for you to
call me "ignorant", though I doubt that irony was your intention.

Post by Dave
No one is saying you have to like the Rolling Stones.

Actually, that's *exactly* what you're saying: Either I like the Rolling
Stones or I'm ignorant.

Post by Dave
But to comment on music, you just need to have some musical
intelligence to realize great music when you hear it.

Which I have in abundance. The Rolling Stones, to me, are not "great
music".

Post by Dave
I hate Eminem, but I know that he is a great rap artist.

How do you know this? From what MTV tells you?

Post by Dave
I actually don't like the Beach Boys, but I would admit that
Pet Sounds is one of the best albums ever made.

What kind of drugs are you on, and where can I get some?

Post by Dave
Are you starting to get it yet??

I "got it" long before you came around to tell me how ignorant I am.

Post by Dave
And telling me to go fuck myself was very mature of you.

Thanks. It certainly was a lot more mature than you telling me that I don't
like rock and roll because I'm not a Stones fan.

Post by Dave
You sounded like a dumb teenager with that response.

I put little stock in your aural perceptions.

Post by Dave
I guess I can see why you don't appreciate the Stones.

Because I'm not a dumb teenager. Hey, I have an idea for you, Dave: Why
don't you just enjoy the music that you enjoy, and allow others to do the
same? This "ultimate arbiter of what is good music" act is lame.
Oh yeah, and go fuck yourself.

Muffin, we get it already. You are entitled to your opinion. I just
have one more question, though: if you're "not a Stones fan" why the
fuck did you even watch R&RC (you could've at least skipped their
parts and just watched Yoko)??? Why did you say "I have to say that
this is a fantastic release. Mick and Keith both look so young..."

It's clear from your rants that you don't like their music, but you DO
seem interested in how Mick and Keith look... not that there's
anything WRONG with that, of course...

[The Iron Muffin]

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by Dave
I guess I can see why you don't appreciate the Stones.

Why

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin
don't you just enjoy the music that you enjoy, and allow others to do the
same? This "ultimate arbiter of what is good music" act is lame.
Oh yeah, and go fuck yourself.

Muffin, we get it already. You are entitled to your opinion. I just
have one more question, though: if you're "not a Stones fan" why the
fuck did you even watch R&RC (you could've at least skipped their
parts and just watched Yoko)??? Why did you say "I have to say that
this is a fantastic release. Mick and Keith both look so young..."

Because I enjoyed the DVD, and because Mick and Keith look quite young.

Post by mjd
It's clear from your rants

Disagreeing with you is not tantamount to ranting, though I'm not surprised
that you view it as such. You seem very closed-minded.

Post by mjd
that you don't like their music,

It's OK, but nothing great.

Post by mjd
but you DO seem interested in how Mick and Keith look...
not that there's anything WRONG with that, of course...

Ah, so now that you've exhausted your repertoire of "you're not into rock
and roll" insults, you only have the "you noted something about the band
members' physical appearance, you must be gay" card to play. Well, I hope
you enjoy playing with yourself, because I'm done with you.

[Toad The Dead Vegan]

Post by Dave
No, because you are too ignorant to hear that those are 4 of the best
rock and roll albums ever made. No one is saying you have to like the
Rolling Stones. But to comment on music, you just need to have some
musical intelligence to realize great music when you hear it. I hate
Eminem, but I know that he is a great rap artist.

That makes no sense to me. Not the part where you hate M & M, but the part
where you say he's a "great rap artist".

There are no great rap artists, and if there were, he wouldn't be one of
them.

Rap sucks.

Post by Dave
I actually don't
like the Beach Boys, but I would admit that Pet Sounds is one of the
best albums ever made.

This makes less sense. You don't like a band, but one of their albums is
one of the best ever made. If their album is so great, how come you don't
like the band that made it? What's wrong with you?

Only bands I like can have great albums. Bands I don't like have lousy
albums; otherwise I would like them.

Post by Dave
Are you starting to get it yet??

I don't think I am.

Post by Dave
And telling me
to go fuck myself was very mature of you. You sounded like a dumb
teenager with that response. I guess I can see why you don't
appreciate the Stones.

Yeah, everyone knows all rude people love the Stones. He's going against
the grain!!!

Here's the deal (for me anyway): If you like a band, they are a great band.
If you don't, they suck.

I used to really, really like the Stones, but these days I have little to no
interest in listening to much of their body of work. They used to be
great, now they suck. See? Its pretty easy.

Aftermath was their best album, followed closely by Some Girls. Beggar's
Banquest trails Buttons, Tattoo You, and Love You Live in album goodness.
Let It Bleed is in there between Buttons and Tattoo You.

Never did much like Exile,even during my big Stones days.

Its all just taste, man.......

Toad



_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Dave]

Post by Toad The Dead Vegan

Post by Dave
No, because you are too ignorant to hear that those are 4 of the best
rock and roll albums ever made. No one is saying you have to like the
Rolling Stones. But to comment on music, you just need to have some
musical intelligence to realize great music when you hear it. I hate
Eminem, but I know that he is a great rap artist.

That makes no sense to me. Not the part where you hate M & M, but the part
where you say he's a "great rap artist".
There are no great rap artists, and if there were, he wouldn't be one of
them.
Rap sucks.

This is the point I was trying to make with the Muffin man. Just
because you don't like it, doesn't mean it sucks. There is a way you
can appreciate all kinds of music but not necessarily like that music
yourself. I don't like Eminem, but I've listened to enough rap to know
he a talented lyricist and rapper. Get the difference yet?

Post by Toad The Dead Vegan

Post by Dave
I actually don't
like the Beach Boys, but I would admit that Pet Sounds is one of the
best albums ever made.

This makes less sense. You don't like a band, but one of their albums is
one of the best ever made. If their album is so great, how come you don't
like the band that made it? What's wrong with you?

There is nothing wrong with me. I don't like many things about the
Beach Boys so I don't listen to them. I am wise enough to know when I
hear a great work of art, like Pet Sounds. The production, the vocals,
the music are wonderfully put together. Again, I just don't like the
Beach Boys sound but I can appreciate the art of it. What is so weird
about that?? I hated the movie Schindler's List, but of course I can
appreciate that it is a briliant work of film.

Post by Toad The Dead Vegan
Only bands I like can have great albums. Bands I don't like have lousy
albums; otherwise I would like them.

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. So by this explanation,
because the Iron Muffin doesn't like the Stones, then Let it Bleed
must be a bad album. Sorry, that just doesn't work in the realm of
art.

Post by Toad The Dead Vegan

Post by Dave
Are you starting to get it yet??

I don't think I am.

Post by Dave
And telling me
to go fuck myself was very mature of you. You sounded like a dumb
teenager with that response. I guess I can see why you don't
appreciate the Stones.

Yeah, everyone knows all rude people love the Stones. He's going against
the grain!!!
Here's the deal (for me anyway): If you like a band, they are a great band.
If you don't, they suck.

That is so dumb. If you don't like a band, that doesn't mean they
suck. That would mean that the Beach Boys suck because I don't like
them. Of course that is not true.

dave

[Toad The Dead Vegan]

Post by Dave

Post by Toad The Dead Vegan

Post by Dave
No, because you are too ignorant to hear that those are 4 of the best
rock and roll albums ever made. No one is saying you have to like the
Rolling Stones. But to comment on music, you just need to have some
musical intelligence to realize great music when you hear it. I hate
Eminem, but I know that he is a great rap artist.

That makes no sense to me. Not the part where you hate M & M, but the part
where you say he's a "great rap artist".
There are no great rap artists, and if there were, he wouldn't be one of
them.
Rap sucks.

This is the point I was trying to make with the Muffin man. Just
because you don't like it, doesn't mean it sucks. There is a way you
can appreciate all kinds of music but not necessarily like that music
yourself. I don't like Eminem, but I've listened to enough rap to know
he a talented lyricist and rapper. Get the difference yet?

No, I don't. All rap sucks and there are no great rap artists. M & M is a
very lucky young man; bamboozling the world with his absurd babblings.

Post by Dave

Post by Toad The Dead Vegan

Post by Dave
I actually don't
like the Beach Boys, but I would admit that Pet Sounds is one of the
best albums ever made.

This makes less sense. You don't like a band, but one of their albums is
one of the best ever made. If their album is so great, how come you don't
like the band that made it? What's wrong with you?

There is nothing wrong with me. I don't like many things about the
Beach Boys so I don't listen to them. I am wise enough to know when I
hear a great work of art, like Pet Sounds. The production, the vocals,
the music are wonderfully put together. Again, I just don't like the
Beach Boys sound but I can appreciate the art of it. What is so weird
about that?? I hated the movie Schindler's List, but of course I can
appreciate that it is a briliant work of film.

That makes no sense to me. If I hate a movie, it sucks. It isn't great if
I don't like it, because "great" depends on the listener or the viewer.

Not to mention I love the Beach Boys, and Schindlers List was pretty good,
but not great.

Post by Dave

Post by Toad The Dead Vegan
Only bands I like can have great albums. Bands I don't like have lousy
albums; otherwise I would like them.

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. So by this explanation,
because the Iron Muffin doesn't like the Stones, then Let it Bleed
must be a bad album. Sorry, that just doesn't work in the realm of
art.

It works for him. He doesn't think its great, therefore it isn't. You do
think its great, therefore it is.

There are no answers to these questions; there are only opinions. There is
no objective measurement of the greatness of music. There are no
standards, only a myriad of individual opinions. Its a chaotic and
unexplainable phenomenon, but there it is.

Post by Dave

Post by Toad The Dead Vegan

Post by Dave
Are you starting to get it yet??

I don't think I am.

Post by Dave
And telling me
to go fuck myself was very mature of you. You sounded like a dumb
teenager with that response. I guess I can see why you don't
appreciate the Stones.

Yeah, everyone knows all rude people love the Stones. He's going against
the grain!!!
Here's the deal (for me anyway): If you like a band, they are a great band.
If you don't, they suck.

That is so dumb. If you don't like a band, that doesn't mean they
suck.

Yes, it means they suck if I don't like them. You saying they are great
isn't going to change my opinion. A band may be great in your mind, but
that's only your mind or maybe the minds of millions of others as well.
That doesn't mean its true, because there is no truth in these discussions.

Post by Dave
That would mean that the Beach Boys suck because I don't like
them. Of course that is not true.

It should be for you.

You remind me of some employees I have who always ask for a black and white
answer for every situation. I have to tell them there are no black and
white answers; there are gray areas. There are individual situations that
require individual decisions.

Music is similar; there are no objective criteria for determining greatness.
Record sales? We all know that isn't a valid measure. Critics' reviews?
Just one man's opinion. Conventional wisdom? No thanks, my opinion is as
valid as anyone else's.

Toad



_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[JimK]

On 22 Nov 2004 13:13:52 GMT, "Toad The Dead Vegan"

Post by Toad The Dead Vegan

Post by Dave

Post by Toad The Dead Vegan

Post by Dave
No, because you are too ignorant to hear that those are 4 of the best
rock and roll albums ever made. No one is saying you have to like the
Rolling Stones. But to comment on music, you just need to have some
musical intelligence to realize great music when you hear it. I hate
Eminem, but I know that he is a great rap artist.

That makes no sense to me. Not the part where you hate M & M, but the part
where you say he's a "great rap artist".
There are no great rap artists, and if there were, he wouldn't be one of
them.
Rap sucks.

This is the point I was trying to make with the Muffin man. Just
because you don't like it, doesn't mean it sucks. There is a way you
can appreciate all kinds of music but not necessarily like that music
yourself. I don't like Eminem, but I've listened to enough rap to know
he a talented lyricist and rapper. Get the difference yet?

No, I don't. All rap sucks and there are no great rap artists. M & M is a
very lucky young man; bamboozling the world with his absurd babblings.

Post by Dave

Post by Toad The Dead Vegan

Post by Dave
I actually don't
like the Beach Boys, but I would admit that Pet Sounds is one of the
best albums ever made.

This makes less sense. You don't like a band, but one of their albums is
one of the best ever made. If their album is so great, how come you don't
like the band that made it? What's wrong with you?

There is nothing wrong with me. I don't like many things about the
Beach Boys so I don't listen to them. I am wise enough to know when I
hear a great work of art, like Pet Sounds. The production, the vocals,
the music are wonderfully put together. Again, I just don't like the
Beach Boys sound but I can appreciate the art of it. What is so weird
about that?? I hated the movie Schindler's List, but of course I can
appreciate that it is a briliant work of film.

That makes no sense to me. If I hate a movie, it sucks. It isn't great if
I don't like it, because "great" depends on the listener or the viewer.
Not to mention I love the Beach Boys, and Schindlers List was pretty good,
but not great.

Post by Dave

Post by Toad The Dead Vegan
Only bands I like can have great albums. Bands I don't like have lousy
albums; otherwise I would like them.

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. So by this explanation,
because the Iron Muffin doesn't like the Stones, then Let it Bleed
must be a bad album. Sorry, that just doesn't work in the realm of
art.

It works for him. He doesn't think its great, therefore it isn't. You do
think its great, therefore it is.
There are no answers to these questions; there are only opinions. There is
no objective measurement of the greatness of music. There are no
standards, only a myriad of individual opinions. Its a chaotic and
unexplainable phenomenon, but there it is.

Post by Dave

Post by Toad The Dead Vegan

Post by Dave
Are you starting to get it yet??

I don't think I am.

Post by Dave
And telling me
to go fuck myself was very mature of you. You sounded like a dumb
teenager with that response. I guess I can see why you don't
appreciate the Stones.

Yeah, everyone knows all rude people love the Stones. He's going against
the grain!!!
Here's the deal (for me anyway): If you like a band, they are a great band.
If you don't, they suck.

That is so dumb. If you don't like a band, that doesn't mean they
suck.

Yes, it means they suck if I don't like them. You saying they are great
isn't going to change my opinion. A band may be great in your mind, but
that's only your mind or maybe the minds of millions of others as well.
That doesn't mean its true, because there is no truth in these discussions.

Post by Dave
That would mean that the Beach Boys suck because I don't like
them. Of course that is not true.

It should be for you.
You remind me of some employees I have who always ask for a black and white
answer for every situation. I have to tell them there are no black and
white answers; there are gray areas. There are individual situations that
require individual decisions.
Music is similar; there are no objective criteria for determining greatness.
Record sales? We all know that isn't a valid measure. Critics' reviews?
Just one man's opinion. Conventional wisdom? No thanks, my opinion is as
valid as anyone else's.
Toad

I addressed this in another post in the thread, and I again have to
disagree, at least in part. First, there are criteria for determining
greatness in some areas. For example, when a baseball player during
his career hits over 700 home runs, averages over .330, and wins a
bunch of championships (Babe Ruth), those stats are pretty good
evidence of greatness. It's much more difficult, I'll admit, to
present objective criteria of greatness in art. But that doesn't mean
it can't be done, and greatness in art isnt' always solely in the eyes
of the beholder.

I know you've dismissed critical opinion in your post, and I agree
that no individual opinion is sufficient to establish greatness. On
the other hand, if a large number of respected critics over a long
period of time widely judge an artist or a work of art to be great,
then it probably is. Likewise , the price of a work of art or the
number of copies that are sold aren't alone sufficient proof of
greatness. But mass opinion shouldn't be dismissed out of hand,
either. If you've got a critically acclaimed musical recording that
millions of people buy, I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that
it's not great music. Another factor that can be considered in
determining greatness in art is whether it stands the test of time. If
people are still watching, listening to, talking about and purchasing
a work of art many years after it was produced, I would feel confident
in calling it great art. I'm sure there are other factors I haven't
thought of that could be considered in establishing the greatness of
art or an artist (for instance, someone would probably have to have a
body of great work to be judged a great artist).

Using these standards, it then becomes pretty easy to arrive at the
conclusion that Beethoven, Coltrane, Miles Davis, Sinatra,
Shakespeare, Van Gogh, etc, were great artists who produced great
works of art. So there is some black and white even in a world
dominated by gray. Now, all this is not to say that everybody has to
LIKE every great artist or work of art, or that there's something
wrong with you if you don't appreciate or enjoy a particular piece of
great art,. But, in my opinion at least, you also don't have to like
it in order to recognize its greatness. Saying that because I don't
like it, it can't be great is something of a copout. Sometimes the
majority does have to rule.

JimK

[Dr. Gobstopper]

Post by The Iron Muffin
Why? Because I don't much care for the Rolling Stones? I was under the
impression that musical taste was subjective, and that we could all have our
own opinions on various bands...

Bill O'Leilly doesn't much care for the Rolling Stones either. But Bill Bennet
does. O'Leilly does like to have loofah assisted phone sex though. Bennet likes
to gamble. Maybe they ought to be stranded on a desert island together.

Hmm, wouldn't O'Leilly have gotten off much cheaper by just dialing
1-800-loofahsex (too many numerals)?

[DGDevin]

Post by The Iron Muffin
Why? Because I don't much care for the Rolling Stones? I was under the
impression that musical taste was subjective, and that we could all have our
own opinions on various bands...

It's one thing to say they aren't to your tastes, everyone is entitled etc.,
it's something very different to claim they were always an over-rated band
and the albums listed in this thread aren't four of rock's greatest just
because *you* don't like them. That's like saying you've decided Ali was
over-rated as a boxer or you were never much impressed with the Yankees as a
ball club or chocolate is a lousy flavor of ice cream the proof being that
you prefer vanilla.

[mjd]

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by brew ziggins

Post by The Iron Muffin
(re: the Rolling Stones)

Post by Dave

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
not like they ever produced any incredible music or anything,
just those lame efforts like Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed,
Sticky Fingers, or Exile on Main St,

None of which are on my list of 10 "desert island" albums.

OK, you are forever banned from writing about rock and roll
music on this newsgroup. You obviously know nothing about it.

With all due respect, go fuck yourself. Just try and stop me.

Post by Dave
Are those 4 of the best rock and roll albums ever made?

No.
HTH

Muffin, man, you are losing some serious street cred here.

Why? Because I don't much care for the Rolling Stones? I was under the
impression that musical taste was subjective, and that we could all have our
own opinions on various bands...

... as long as said opinion doesn't differ from that of the Iron
Muffin (whatever the fuck that is), in which case you're told to go
fuck yourself.

For cryin out load, we agree that people are entitled to their
opinions, but sometimes an opinion leaves some of us so dumbfounded
that we feel compelled to dig a little deeper, maybe find out
something about where it came from. In the pantheon of rock n roll,
much of the Stones work is just the epitome of the form - especially
the work on the four albums I listed. So get over it - you're tilting
at windmills trying say there's no great rock n roll there, because
there just is. It's like a swing fan saying Benny Goodman never made
any great swing, or a jazz aficionado insisting Charlie Parker never
played any great jazz. Yes - you're entitled to your opinion, but so
am I. If I don't agree with yours, I may comment on it in an attempt
to convice you of how strongly I feel about mine, but I'll never tell
you to go fuck yourself. And I can't speak for 'Dave' but I think he
was being facetious with the 'forever banned' part (good effect,
though, Dave).

Talk about arrogant...

[The Iron Muffin]

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by brew ziggins
Muffin, man, you are losing some serious street cred here.

Why? Because I don't much care for the Rolling Stones?
I was under the impression that musical taste was subjective,
and that we could all have our own opinions on various bands...

... as long as said opinion doesn't differ from that of the Iron
Muffin (whatever the fuck that is),

It's a screen name, and the words in it are common words, very easy to
understand. Why the sudden comprehension problem?

Post by mjd
in which case you're told to go fuck yourself.

I didn't tell you to go fuck yourself because our musical tastes differ. I
told you to go fuck yourself because you are an arrogant prick who seems to
think that those who do not share your musical taste are not into rock and
roll.

Post by mjd
For cryin out load, we agree that people are entitled to their
opinions, but sometimes an opinion leaves some of us so dumbfounded
that we feel compelled to dig a little deeper, maybe find out
something about where it came from. In the pantheon of rock n roll,
much of the Stones work is just the epitome of the form - especially
the work on the four albums I listed. So get over it - you're tilting
at windmills trying say there's no great rock n roll there, because
there just is.

You can repeat that as many times as you like, but repetition does not make
it true. Nor does it change my take on the Stones: Nothing all that great.

Post by mjd
It's like a swing fan saying Benny Goodman never made any great
swing, or a jazz aficionado insisting Charlie Parker never played any
great jazz. Yes - you're entitled to your opinion, but so am I. If I
don't agree with yours, I may comment on it in an attempt to convice
you of how strongly I feel about mine, but I'll never tell you to go fuck
yourself.

No, instead you'll question whether they're into rock and roll.

Post by mjd
And I can't speak for 'Dave' but I think he was being facetious with
the 'forever banned' part (good effect, though, Dave).
Talk about arrogant...

OK. Arrogant is some Stones fan telling people that he questions whether
they're into rock and roll when they say they don't like the Stones.

HTH.

[volkfolk]

Post by mjd
Talk about arrogant...

Perhaps you should look at the way you come across before you start pointing
fingers at anybody else.......

HTH,

Scot

[mjd]

Post by volkfolk

Post by mjd
Talk about arrogant...

Perhaps you should look at the way you come across before you start pointing
fingers at anybody else.......
HTH,
Scot

ok, Scot, I get it - I express shock that someone said there's no great rock
n roll on 4 great rock n roll albums (and if you paid attention, I wasn't
exactly alone in that assessment); I subsequently get called an arrogant
idiot asshole and to go fuck myself (based on, it turned out, some degree of
mistaken identity anyway), and YOU have the fuckin BALLS to question how I
come across? Did I say to Muffin "you do not like the Stones therefore you
know nothing and cannot be allowed to exist in the universe for one minute
longer" - NO!!! I never told him anything he could or couldn't do. The
point is - anyone can have an opinion; anyone can question or challenge an
opinion; when it breaks down into s**t slinging, that ends any possibility
of idea exchange. Who slung the s**t in this case??? Why don't you ask how
THEY come across???

[DGDevin]

Post by Dave
Are those 4 of the best rock and roll albums ever made?

No.

While you are free to hold any opinion you like, virtually everyone else on
the planet disagrees with you on this issue, from the public to the critics
to historians, pretty much everyone ranks those four albums as being among
the best that any rock band every made. It might be different if you
offered convincing reasons *why* you think these albums aren't so good, on
the other hand maybe you know you can't do that so it's better you don't
try.

[Andrew Murawa]

Post by Dave

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin
Hey now, my freaky darlings.
A friend of mine works at the record company that owns
the Rolling Stones' catalog, and he sent me a promo copy
of this DVD. While I am one of those who subscribes to
the belief that the Rolling Stones are one of (if not THE)
most overrated acts in rock and roll, I have to say that
this is a fantastic release. Mick and Keith both look so
young...

Oh, yes - they're so overrated...

I am glad that you agree with my assessment.

Post by mjd
not like they ever produced any incredible music or anything,
just those lame efforts like Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed,
Sticky Fingers, or Exile on Main St,

None of which are on my list of 10 "desert island" albums.

OK, you are forever banned from writing about rock and roll music on
this newsgroup. You obviously know nothing about it. Are the Stones
the best band ever? No. Are those 4 of the best rock and roll albums
ever made? Without a doubt! And they made them all in a row. Besides
the Beatles 66-69, that is definitely the best creative spurt by any
rock band ever.

Well, that's straight bullshit... It is all a matter of taste... I have no
interest in the Stones or the Beatles, so if I'm gonna pick 10 desert island
discs, you can bet there will not be a single Stones or Beatles disc among
them...

[LP]

Post by Dave

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin
Hey now, my freaky darlings.
A friend of mine works at the record company that owns
the Rolling Stones' catalog, and he sent me a promo copy
of this DVD. While I am one of those who subscribes to
the belief that the Rolling Stones are one of (if not THE)
most overrated acts in rock and roll, I have to say that
this is a fantastic release. Mick and Keith both look so
young...

Oh, yes - they're so overrated...

I am glad that you agree with my assessment.

Post by mjd
not like they ever produced any incredible music or anything,
just those lame efforts like Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed,
Sticky Fingers, or Exile on Main St,

None of which are on my list of 10 "desert island" albums.

OK, you are forever banned from writing about rock and roll music on
this newsgroup. You obviously know nothing about it. Are the Stones
the best band ever? No. Are those 4 of the best rock and roll albums
ever made? Without a doubt! And they made them all in a row. Besides
the Beatles 66-69, that is definitely the best creative spurt by any
rock band ever.

Well, that's straight bullsh... It is all a matter of taste... I have no
interest in the Stones or the Beatles, so if I'm gonna pick 10 desert island
discs, you can bet there will not be a single Stones or Beatles disc among
them...

I CAST THEE OUT !!!! HEATHEN!!!! YOU HAVE NO MORE RIGHT TO POST HERE!!!!
YOUR OPINIONS ARE INVALID!!!!
NOW GO!!!!! GET OUT!!!!!!!



###################
###################
###################

LP

[JimK]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:40:09 -0800, "Andrew Murawa"

Post by Andrew Murawa

Post by Dave

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin
Hey now, my freaky darlings.
A friend of mine works at the record company that owns
the Rolling Stones' catalog, and he sent me a promo copy
of this DVD. While I am one of those who subscribes to
the belief that the Rolling Stones are one of (if not THE)
most overrated acts in rock and roll, I have to say that
this is a fantastic release. Mick and Keith both look so
young...

Oh, yes - they're so overrated...

I am glad that you agree with my assessment.

Post by mjd
not like they ever produced any incredible music or anything,
just those lame efforts like Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed,
Sticky Fingers, or Exile on Main St,

None of which are on my list of 10 "desert island" albums.

OK, you are forever banned from writing about rock and roll music on
this newsgroup. You obviously know nothing about it. Are the Stones
the best band ever? No. Are those 4 of the best rock and roll albums
ever made? Without a doubt! And they made them all in a row. Besides
the Beatles 66-69, that is definitely the best creative spurt by any
rock band ever.

Well, that's straight bullshit... It is all a matter of taste... I have no
interest in the Stones or the Beatles, so if I'm gonna pick 10 desert island
discs, you can bet there will not be a single Stones or Beatles disc among
them...

The problem is that after the five or six Dylan albums you'd have to
take to the island, you wouldn't have many picks left. That said, I
think I might have to make Beggar's Banquet one of the remaining
picks.

JimK

[Andrew Murawa]

Post by JimK
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:40:09 -0800, "Andrew Murawa"

Post by Andrew Murawa

"The Iron Muffin" <You must ask me for my email address.> wrote in

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin
Hey now, my freaky darlings.
A friend of mine works at the record company that owns
the Rolling Stones' catalog, and he sent me a promo copy
of this DVD. While I am one of those who subscribes to
the belief that the Rolling Stones are one of (if not THE)
most overrated acts in rock and roll, I have to say that
this is a fantastic release. Mick and Keith both look so
young...

Oh, yes - they're so overrated...

I am glad that you agree with my assessment.

Post by mjd
not like they ever produced any incredible music or anything,
just those lame efforts like Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed,
Sticky Fingers, or Exile on Main St,

None of which are on my list of 10 "desert island" albums.

OK, you are forever banned from writing about rock and roll music on
this newsgroup. You obviously know nothing about it. Are the Stones
the best band ever? No. Are those 4 of the best rock and roll albums
ever made? Without a doubt! And they made them all in a row. Besides
the Beatles 66-69, that is definitely the best creative spurt by any
rock band ever.

Well, that's straight bullshit... It is all a matter of taste... I have no
interest in the Stones or the Beatles, so if I'm gonna pick 10 desert island
discs, you can bet there will not be a single Stones or Beatles disc among
them...

The problem is that after the five or six Dylan albums you'd have to
take to the island, you wouldn't have many picks left.

No shit... After a handful of Dead albums and Dylan albums, we're down to
about 2 remaining...

And I'll be damned if I'm-a gonna waste one of those on Jagger! Hehe...

[mjd]

Post by Andrew Murawa
Well, that's straight bullshit... It is all a matter of taste... I have no
interest in the Stones or the Beatles, so if I'm gonna pick 10 desert island
discs, you can bet there will not be a single Stones or Beatles disc among
them...

true, it's all a matter of taste. when you say you have no interest,
though, that makes me suspect you might have missed a few things as a
result of lack of interest. Now, if you've given for example, Exile,
a good listening over the years and remain uninterested in the Stones,
I can accept that. If you haven't, though, then give it a try. Put
on say, Let it Loose, Rocks Off, Sweet Virginia, crank it up way loud.
If after that you're unmoved, well at least I tried. ...How about
Let it Bleed? Really? oh never mind - I give up.

[Andrew Murawa]

Post by mjd

Post by Andrew Murawa
Well, that's straight bullshit... It is all a matter of taste... I have no
interest in the Stones or the Beatles, so if I'm gonna pick 10 desert island
discs, you can bet there will not be a single Stones or Beatles disc among
them...

true, it's all a matter of taste. when you say you have no interest,
though, that makes me suspect you might have missed a few things as a
result of lack of interest. Now, if you've given for example, Exile,
a good listening over the years and remain uninterested in the Stones,
I can accept that. If you haven't, though, then give it a try. Put
on say, Let it Loose, Rocks Off, Sweet Virginia, crank it up way loud.
If after that you're unmoved, well at least I tried. ...How about
Let it Bleed? Really? oh never mind - I give up.

I've listened to it, I still have it in my collection, along with a half
dozen or more other Stones album that get played about once a year (usually
when a guest requests it)... I have nothing against the album (or Sticky
Fingers or Let Ir Bleed or Beggar's Banquet or...) it just ain't really my
cup of tea... There are dozens upon dozens upon dozens of other albums (and
other artists) that interest me far more...

[mjd]

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin
Hey now, my freaky darlings.
A friend of mine works at the record company that owns
the Rolling Stones' catalog, and he sent me a promo copy
of this DVD. While I am one of those who subscribes to
the belief that the Rolling Stones are one of (if not THE)
most overrated acts in rock and roll, I have to say that
this is a fantastic release. Mick and Keith both look so
young...

Oh, yes - they're so overrated...

I am glad that you agree with my assessment.

Post by mjd
not like they ever produced any incredible music or anything,
just those lame efforts like Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed,
Sticky Fingers, or Exile on Main St,

None of which are on my list of 10 "desert island" albums.

no offense, but, here's hoping we wind up on separate islands - I
could make a good case for taking Exile all by itself and forget the
other 9...

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
nothing great, really...

Exactly.

to each his own, but if you really don't think there's anything great
on those 4 albums, I have to question whether you're even into
rock-n-roll at all..

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
true they were pretty flat on R&RC but who wouldn't be
after partying for 2 solid days. i don't care if they sat on
the loo for the rest of their careers - they at least deserve
props for an unmatched stream of music in late 60's/early 70's.

Yeah, they wrote some good tunes back in the day. That doesn't mean that
they're not overrated.

Let's just say that YOU THINK they're overrated, which is fine. I'm
probably not going to be objective anyway, since I've been a huge
Stones fan for about 35 years, but IMHO they are not overrated.

[The Iron Muffin]

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin
Hey now, my freaky darlings.
A friend of mine works at the record company that owns
the Rolling Stones' catalog, and he sent me a promo copy
of this DVD. While I am one of those who subscribes to
the belief that the Rolling Stones are one of (if not THE)
most overrated acts in rock and roll, I have to say that
this is a fantastic release. Mick and Keith both look so
young...

Oh, yes - they're so overrated...

I am glad that you agree with my assessment.

Post by mjd
not like they ever produced any incredible music or anything,
just those lame efforts like Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed,
Sticky Fingers, or Exile on Main St,

None of which are on my list of 10 "desert island" albums.

no offense, but, here's hoping we wind up on separate islands -

None taken. I hope the same thing. I couldn't stand being stuck on an
island with some arrogant asshole who thinks that the Rolling Stones are the
pinnacle of rock and roll, and would probably take my chances swimming for
the mainland.

Post by mjd
I could make a good case for taking Exile all by itself and forget
the other 9...

Not to me, you couldn't.

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
nothing great, really...

Exactly.

to each his own, but if you really don't think there's anything great
on those 4 albums, I have to question whether you're even into
rock-n-roll at all..

Why don't you instead question why you feel that you are the ultimate
arbiter of what is good music? I am as into rock and roll as anybody on
this board.

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
true they were pretty flat on R&RC but who wouldn't be
after partying for 2 solid days. i don't care if they sat on
the loo for the rest of their careers - they at least deserve
props for an unmatched stream of music in late 60's/early
70's.

Yeah, they wrote some good tunes back in the day. That
doesn't mean that they're not overrated.

Let's just say that YOU THINK they're overrated, which is fine.

No, let's rather say that YOU THINK that they are *not* overrated, which is
fine.

Post by mjd
I'm probably not going to be objective anyway,

That much was clear from the very first post that you made to this thread.

Post by mjd
since I've been a huge Stones fan for about 35 years,
but IMHO they are not overrated.

Your opinion is anything but humble. Go fuck yourself. I don't need some
idiot telling me that I'm not into rock and roll because I don't like the
Stones.

[LP]

Your opinion is anything but humble. Go f*** yourself. I don't need some
idiot telling me that I'm not into rock and roll because I don't like the
Stones.

DANG! Muffin man's fired up!

##You must get yourself a list of rmgd approved and forbidden bands##

I've been called a "kidzz" and all sorts of insulting crap because I dig
Phish (the good ol' stuff - before their slide into the ... um....mud...
hehe...) Some dork (name deleted) on this group insulted me up & down
about my "favorite band" and told me to go back to "my newsgroup" as if
there's no way I could possibly be a Deadhead (never mind that I was
hitting the road for GD shows a decade before he ever went to one).
It's a drag, because the guy and I both play music, are into air-cooled
VWs, and the Grateful Dead. If we had met up somewhere in the real
world we may have been friends. But I was instantly a leper to the guy
because I liked a band that was on the "bad" list. If I had instead
praised the cheese it would have been approved.

It is the way of usenet that someone will always come along to tell you
that your opinions are wrong.

LP

[The Iron Muffin]

Post by LP

Post by The Iron Muffin
Your opinion is anything but humble. Go fuck yourself. I don't need some
idiot telling me that I'm not into rock and roll because I don't like the
Stones.

DANG! Muffin man's fired up!
##You must get yourself a list of rmgd approved and forbidden bands##

Heh. The funniest thing about it is that I could not possibly care less
what *anybody* on this newsgroup (or for that matter, anyone at all) thinks
about my musical taste. Believe it if you need it, if you don't just pass
it on...

Post by LP
I've been called a "kidzz" and all sorts of insulting crap because I dig
Phish (the good ol' stuff - before their slide into the ... um....mud...
hehe...) Some dork (name deleted) on this group insulted me up & down
about my "favorite band" and told me to go back to "my newsgroup" as if
there's no way I could possibly be a Deadhead (never mind that I was
hitting the road for GD shows a decade before he ever went to one).
It's a drag, because the guy and I both play music, are into air-cooled
VWs, and the Grateful Dead. If we had met up somewhere in the real
world we may have been friends. But I was instantly a leper to the guy
because I liked a band that was on the "bad" list. If I had instead
praised the cheese it would have been approved.
It is the way of usenet that someone will always come along to tell you
that your opinions are wrong.

Yup. And it is good to remember that their declarations of your "wrongness"
are also just opinions.

[mjd]

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by LP

Post by The Iron Muffin
Your opinion is anything but humble. Go fuck yourself. I don't need

some

Post by LP

Post by The Iron Muffin
idiot telling me that I'm not into rock and roll because I don't like

the

Post by LP

Post by The Iron Muffin
Stones.

DANG! Muffin man's fired up!
##You must get yourself a list of rmgd approved and forbidden bands##

Heh. The funniest thing about it is that I could not possibly care less
what *anybody* on this newsgroup (or for that matter, anyone at all) thinks
about my musical taste. Believe it if you need it, if you don't just pass
it on...

You get awfully hot under the collar for someone that couldn't
possibly care less what anyone thinks...

"Dead Freaks Unite - Who are you? Where are you? Go Fuck
Yourselves!!!"

believe THAT if you need it.

[The Iron Muffin]

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin
Heh. The funniest thing about it is that I could not possibly
care less what *anybody* on this newsgroup (or for that
matter, anyone at all) thinks about my musical taste. Believe
it if you need it, if you don't just pass it on...

You get awfully hot under the collar for someone that couldn't
possibly care less what anyone thinks...

I'm laughing at you right now. Is me thinking that you're a vaguely amusing
idiot the same as me getting "hot under the collar"? I sure hope it is,
because that's the only way that your characterization of my emotional state
is accurate.

Post by mjd
"Dead Freaks Unite - Who are you? Where are you?
Go Fuck Yourselves!!!"
believe THAT if you need it.

I believe that you're an asshole.

[mjd]

Post by LP

Your opinion is anything but humble. Go f*** yourself. I don't need some
idiot telling me that I'm not into rock and roll because I don't like the
Stones.

DANG! Muffin man's fired up!
##You must get yourself a list of rmgd approved and forbidden bands##
I've been called a "kidzz" and all sorts of insulting crap because I dig
Phish (the good ol' stuff - before their slide into the ... um....mud...
hehe...) Some dork (name deleted) on this group insulted me up & down
about my "favorite band" and told me to go back to "my newsgroup" as if
there's no way I could possibly be a Deadhead (never mind that I was
hitting the road for GD shows a decade before he ever went to one).
It's a drag, because the guy and I both play music, are into air-cooled
VWs, and the Grateful Dead. If we had met up somewhere in the real
world we may have been friends. But I was instantly a leper to the guy
because I liked a band that was on the "bad" list. If I had instead
praised the cheese it would have been approved.
It is the way of usenet that someone will always come along to tell you
that your opinions are wrong.
LP

Hey LP, spare me the comparison. The worst think I was guilty of in
this thread, and I'll cop to it, was being a bit heavy-handed with the
sarcasm in my reply to Iron Muffin's comment that he believes the
Stones are one of (if not THE) most overrated bands in rock n roll.
Was it 'insulting' to ask if he was into rock n roll at all? Maybe it
seemed that way, but it was an honest legitimate question. Maybe he's
into techno-tribal and rightly so doesn't think the Stones ever made
great rock n roll. I was just curious. Never called anyone a leper,
never told anyone they weren't 'allowed' to have any opinion, never
told anyone to go fuck themselves. As for you last point, I would
counter that if you're going to post an opinion, be prepared to have
it challenged, and guess what? - that challenge might not always come
in an objective wrapper. To hide behind this crybaby self-righteous
'he said my opinion is wrong, boo hoo' refrain is just too easy. Have
an opinion - it's your right. But once you put it out there, it's
open to anything.

[mjd]

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin
Hey now, my freaky darlings.
A friend of mine works at the record company that owns
the Rolling Stones' catalog, and he sent me a promo copy
of this DVD. While I am one of those who subscribes to
the belief that the Rolling Stones are one of (if not THE)
most overrated acts in rock and roll, I have to say that
this is a fantastic release. Mick and Keith both look so
young...

Oh, yes - they're so overrated...

I am glad that you agree with my assessment.

Post by mjd
not like they ever produced any incredible music or anything,
just those lame efforts like Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed,
Sticky Fingers, or Exile on Main St,

None of which are on my list of 10 "desert island" albums.

no offense, but, here's hoping we wind up on separate islands -

None taken. I hope the same thing. I couldn't stand being stuck on an
island with some arrogant asshole who thinks that the Rolling Stones are the
pinnacle of rock and roll, and would probably take my chances swimming for
the mainland.

Ok, I deserved that - I could've skipped the sarcasm in my first post.

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
I could make a good case for taking Exile all by itself and forget
the other 9...

Not to me, you couldn't.

I could still make a good case in general, without having your
agreement in particular.

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
nothing great, really...

Exactly.

to each his own, but if you really don't think there's anything great
on those 4 albums, I have to question whether you're even into
rock-n-roll at all..

Why don't you instead question why you feel that you are the ultimate
arbiter of what is good music? I am as into rock and roll as anybody on
this board.

I hardly claim to be the arbiter of anything. Once in awhile, though,
I'll admit to having a gut reaction, as in this case. To say there's
nothing great on those four albums just made me wonder - what do you
think is great?

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
true they were pretty flat on R&RC but who wouldn't be
after partying for 2 solid days. i don't care if they sat on
the loo for the rest of their careers - they at least deserve
props for an unmatched stream of music in late 60's/early 70's.

Yeah, they wrote some good tunes back in the day. That
doesn't mean that they're not overrated.

Let's just say that YOU THINK they're overrated, which is fine.

No, let's rather say that YOU THINK that they are *not* overrated, which is
fine.

Post by mjd
I'm probably not going to be objective anyway,

That much was clear from the very first post that you made to this thread.

Post by mjd
since I've been a huge Stones fan for about 35 years,
but IMHO they are not overrated.

Your opinion is anything but humble. Go fuck yourself. I don't need some
idiot telling me that I'm not into rock and roll because I don't like the
Stones.

Guess I really touched a nerve there. That kind of reaction indicates
true arrogance to me. You say you don't like the Stones, so why do
you think R&RC is a 'fantastic release'? There's enough Stones
content on there so that even if you only like the Who and John Lennon
and you truly don't like the Stones, would you still call the whole
thing is fantastic???

Bottom line - I think Gimme Shelter is just a friggin great rock n
roll song - same with Brown Sugar, Midnight Rambler, Monkey Man, Rocks
Off, the list goes on. The difference with me is, people can disagree
with me all they want, question me about whatever, and I'll never tell
them to go fuck themselves. But, I'll take the blame for starting
things off on with a bad-attitude response to your original post.
Next time we talk let's try talking some Dead stuff instead of Stones.
How about the Hard to Handle from 8/6/71? I think it's better than
the 4/29/71...

[The Iron Muffin]

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin
Hey now, my freaky darlings.
A friend of mine works at the record company that owns
the Rolling Stones' catalog, and he sent me a promo copy
of this DVD. While I am one of those who subscribes to
the belief that the Rolling Stones are one of (if not THE)
most overrated acts in rock and roll, I have to say that
this is a fantastic release. Mick and Keith both look so
young...

Oh, yes - they're so overrated...

I am glad that you agree with my assessment.

Post by mjd
not like they ever produced any incredible music or anything,
just those lame efforts like Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed,
Sticky Fingers, or Exile on Main St,

None of which are on my list of 10 "desert island" albums.

no offense, but, here's hoping we wind up on separate islands -

None taken. I hope the same thing. I couldn't stand being stuck on an
island with some arrogant asshole who thinks that the Rolling Stones are the
pinnacle of rock and roll, and would probably take my chances swimming for
the mainland.

Ok, I deserved that - I could've skipped the sarcasm in my first post.

Apology accepted.

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
I could make a good case for taking Exile all by itself and forget
the other 9...

Not to me, you couldn't.

I could still make a good case in general, without having your
agreement in particular.

*shrug* That is possible, but hardly certain.

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
nothing great, really...

Exactly.

to each his own, but if you really don't think there's anything great
on those 4 albums, I have to question whether you're even into
rock-n-roll at all..

Why don't you instead question why you feel that you are the ultimate
arbiter of what is good music? I am as into rock and roll as anybody on
this board.

I hardly claim to be the arbiter of anything. Once in awhile, though,
I'll admit to having a gut reaction, as in this case. To say there's
nothing great on those four albums just made me wonder - what do
you think is great?

Live/Dead, Freak Out!, Axis: Bold As Love, Small Change, Highway 61
Revisited, Rastaman Vibration, Rubber Soul...to name just a very few.

Still think I'm not into rock and roll?

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
true they were pretty flat on R&RC but who wouldn't be
after partying for 2 solid days. i don't care if they sat on
the loo for the rest of their careers - they at least deserve
props for an unmatched stream of music in late 60's/early 70's.

Yeah, they wrote some good tunes back in the day. That
doesn't mean that they're not overrated.

Let's just say that YOU THINK they're overrated, which is fine.

No, let's rather say that YOU THINK that they are *not* overrated,
which is fine.

Post by mjd
I'm probably not going to be objective anyway,

That much was clear from the very first post that you made to this thread.

Post by mjd
since I've been a huge Stones fan for about 35 years,
but IMHO they are not overrated.

Your opinion is anything but humble. Go fuck yourself. I don't need some
idiot telling me that I'm not into rock and roll because I don't like the
Stones.

Guess I really touched a nerve there.

No, I just don't need you telling me that I'm ignorant or not into rock and
roll, simply because I don't like the Stones. Are you getting it yet?

Post by mjd
That kind of reaction indicates true arrogance to me.

No, true arrogance is telling someone that they're ignorant or not into rock
and roll because they don't like the same music that you do.

Post by mjd
You say you don't like the Stones, so why do you think R&RC
is a 'fantastic release'?

Because it's an historic DVD of some good bands in pristine quality.

Post by mjd
There's enough Stones content on there so that even if you only like
the Who and John Lennon and you truly don't like the Stones, would
you still call the whole thing is fantastic???

Uhm, obviously. I already did, in the post that started this thread.

Post by mjd
Bottom line - I think Gimme Shelter is just a friggin great rock n
roll song - same with Brown Sugar, Midnight Rambler, Monkey Man,
Rocks Off, the list goes on. The difference with me is, people can
disagree with me all they want, question me about whatever, and I'll
never tell them to go fuck themselves.

No, instead you'll tell them that they're ignorant or that they aren't into
rock and roll.

Post by mjd
But, I'll take the blame for starting things off on with a bad-attitude
response to your original post.

Apology accepted.

Post by mjd
Next time we talk let's try talking some Dead stuff instead of Stones.

OK, but if you tell me that I'm ignorant or not into rock and roll because
our tastes differ, you can expect me to tell you to go fuck yourself again.

Post by mjd
How about the Hard to Handle from 8/6/71? I think it's better than
the 4/29/71...

I find the vocal flubs in the first section of the 8/6 HTH to be a bit
distracting, but hardly ruinous. It's a good rendition with a *very*
exciting and powerful jam, but I don't know that I would say that it's
better than the version that they played on 4/29. Equally good, perhaps.
Quite enjoyable, certainly.

[mjd]

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin
Hey now, my freaky darlings.
A friend of mine works at the record company that owns
the Rolling Stones' catalog, and he sent me a promo copy
of this DVD. While I am one of those who subscribes to
the belief that the Rolling Stones are one of (if not THE)
most overrated acts in rock and roll, I have to say that
this is a fantastic release. Mick and Keith both look so
young...

Oh, yes - they're so overrated...

I am glad that you agree with my assessment.

Post by mjd
not like they ever produced any incredible music or anything,
just those lame efforts like Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed,
Sticky Fingers, or Exile on Main St,

None of which are on my list of 10 "desert island" albums.

no offense, but, here's hoping we wind up on separate islands -

None taken. I hope the same thing. I couldn't stand being stuck on an
island with some arrogant asshole who thinks that the Rolling Stones

are

Post by The Iron Muffin
the

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin
pinnacle of rock and roll, and would probably take my chances swimming

for

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin
the mainland.

Ok, I deserved that - I could've skipped the sarcasm in my first post.

Apology accepted.

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
I could make a good case for taking Exile all by itself and forget
the other 9...

Not to me, you couldn't.

I could still make a good case in general, without having your
agreement in particular.

*shrug* That is possible, but hardly certain.

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
nothing great, really...

Exactly.

to each his own, but if you really don't think there's anything great
on those 4 albums, I have to question whether you're even into
rock-n-roll at all..

Why don't you instead question why you feel that you are the ultimate
arbiter of what is good music? I am as into rock and roll as anybody on
this board.

I hardly claim to be the arbiter of anything. Once in awhile, though,
I'll admit to having a gut reaction, as in this case. To say there's
nothing great on those four albums just made me wonder - what do
you think is great?

Live/Dead, Freak Out!, Axis: Bold As Love, Small Change, Highway 61
Revisited, Rastaman Vibration, Rubber Soul...to name just a very few.
Still think I'm not into rock and roll?

Now you're talking... no argument on those.

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
true they were pretty flat on R&RC but who wouldn't be
after partying for 2 solid days. i don't care if they sat on
the loo for the rest of their careers - they at least deserve
props for an unmatched stream of music in late 60's/early 70's.

Yeah, they wrote some good tunes back in the day. That
doesn't mean that they're not overrated.

Let's just say that YOU THINK they're overrated, which is fine.

No, let's rather say that YOU THINK that they are *not* overrated,
which is fine.

Post by mjd
I'm probably not going to be objective anyway,

That much was clear from the very first post that you made to this

thread.

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
since I've been a huge Stones fan for about 35 years,
but IMHO they are not overrated.

Your opinion is anything but humble. Go fuck yourself. I don't need

some

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin
idiot telling me that I'm not into rock and roll because I don't like

the

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin
Stones.

Guess I really touched a nerve there.

No, I just don't need you telling me that I'm ignorant or not into rock and
roll, simply because I don't like the Stones. Are you getting it yet?

I know it's a long thread, but it was not I that called you ignorant - check
the posts.

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
That kind of reaction indicates true arrogance to me.

No, true arrogance is telling someone that they're ignorant or not into rock
and roll because they don't like the same music that you do.

Again, read the threads - someone else called you ignorant, not me. And, to
pull a Clinton, I really didn't tell you you weren't into rock n roll, I
questioned whether or not you were. As in, "Muffin - do you dig rock n
roll? It's ok if you don't, man, but I'm shocked because I think the Stones
rock balls. If you're not, that's cool; if you are, then what in
particular?" You finally answered satisfactorily just above.

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
You say you don't like the Stones, so why do you think R&RC
is a 'fantastic release'?

Because it's an historic DVD of some good bands in pristine quality.

Post by mjd
There's enough Stones content on there so that even if you only like
the Who and John Lennon and you truly don't like the Stones, would
you still call the whole thing is fantastic???

Uhm, obviously. I already did, in the post that started this thread.

Post by mjd
Bottom line - I think Gimme Shelter is just a friggin great rock n
roll song - same with Brown Sugar, Midnight Rambler, Monkey Man,
Rocks Off, the list goes on. The difference with me is, people can
disagree with me all they want, question me about whatever, and I'll
never tell them to go fuck themselves.

No, instead you'll tell them that they're ignorant or that they aren't into
rock and roll.

3rd time's a charm - the ignorant thing was not me.

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
But, I'll take the blame for starting things off on with a bad-attitude
response to your original post.

Apology accepted.

Post by mjd
Next time we talk let's try talking some Dead stuff instead of Stones.

OK, but if you tell me that I'm ignorant or not into rock and roll because
our tastes differ, you can expect me to tell you to go fuck yourself again.

re: ignorant; see above. same for 'tell' - I simply asked.

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
How about the Hard to Handle from 8/6/71? I think it's better than
the 4/29/71...

I find the vocal flubs in the first section of the 8/6 HTH to be a bit
distracting, but hardly ruinous. It's a good rendition with a *very*
exciting and powerful jam, but I don't know that I would say that it's
better than the version that they played on 4/29. Equally good, perhaps.
Quite enjoyable, certainly.

Cool - well stated. It's morning in America.

Post by The Iron Muffin
--
The Iron Muffin
DEAD FREAKS UNITE
Who are you? Where are you?
How are you?

go f*... oh, nevermind.

[The Iron Muffin]

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin
Your opinion is anything but humble. Go fuck yourself.
I don't need some idiot telling me that I'm not into rock
and roll because I don't like the Stones.

Guess I really touched a nerve there.

No, I just don't need you telling me that I'm ignorant or not
into rock and roll, simply because I don't like the Stones.
Are you getting it yet?

I know it's a long thread, but it was not I that called you
ignorant - check the posts.

Yeah, you're right. It was some other arrogant jerk. That being said, I
note that you make no admission that it *was* you who questioned whether I'm
into rock and roll, simply because I don't have the appreciation of the
Stones that everyone under the mjd regime must profess.

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
That kind of reaction indicates true arrogance to me.

No, true arrogance is telling someone that they're ignorant
or not into rock and roll because they don't like the same
music that you do.

Again, read the threads - someone else called you ignorant, not me.

Yeah, you're right. It was some other arrogant jerk. That being said, I
note that you make no admission that it *was* you who questioned whether I'm
into rock and roll, simply because I don't have the appreciation of the
Stones that everyone under the mjd regime must profess.

Post by mjd
And, to pull a Clinton, I really didn't tell you you weren't
into rock n roll, I questioned whether or not you were.

OK, so you're an OBFUSCATING arrogant jerk.

Post by mjd
As in, "Muffin - do you dig rock n roll? It's ok if you don't, man,

Oh gee, thanks for your permission...but my musical taste is doing just fine
without the official approval of the mjd regime, thanks.

Post by mjd
but I'm shocked because I think the Stones rock balls.

Of course you're shocked. You obviously can't handle it when the opinions
of others differ from yours.

Post by mjd
If you're not, that's cool; if you are, then what in particular?"

I like plenty of music that falls under the "rock and roll" umbrella. I'm
sorry that you can't handle the fact that the Stones are not among the bands
that I enjoy most.

Post by mjd
You finally answered satisfactorily just above.

#I'm so glad that I finally answered you satisfactorily! I can't imagine
what I'd do if your curiosity was left unsatisfied!#

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
Bottom line - I think Gimme Shelter is just a friggin great rock n
roll song - same with Brown Sugar, Midnight Rambler, Monkey Man,
Rocks Off, the list goes on. The difference with me is, people can
disagree with me all they want, question me about whatever, and I'll
never tell them to go fuck themselves.

No, instead you'll tell them that they're ignorant or that they aren't
into rock and roll.

3rd time's a charm - the ignorant thing was not me.

Yeah, you're right. It was some other arrogant jerk. That being said, I
note that you make no admission that it *was* you who questioned whether I'm
into rock and roll, simply because I don't have the appreciation of the
Stones that everyone under the mjd regime must profess.

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin
OK, but if you tell me that I'm ignorant or not into rock
and roll because our tastes differ, you can expect me to
tell you to go fuck yourself again.

re: ignorant; see above. same for 'tell' - I simply asked.

Yeah, you're right. It was some other arrogant jerk. That being said, I
note that you make no admission that it *was* you who questioned whether I'm
into rock and roll, simply because I don't have the appreciation of the
Stones that everyone under the mjd regime must profess.

[mjd]

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin
Your opinion is anything but humble. Go fuck yourself.
I don't need some idiot telling me that I'm not into rock
and roll because I don't like the Stones.

Guess I really touched a nerve there.

No, I just don't need you telling me that I'm ignorant or not
into rock and roll, simply because I don't like the Stones.
Are you getting it yet?

I know it's a long thread, but it was not I that called you
ignorant - check the posts.

Yeah, you're right. It was some other arrogant jerk. That being said, I
note that you make no admission that it *was* you who questioned whether I'm
into rock and roll, simply because I don't have the appreciation of the
Stones that everyone under the mjd regime must profess.

No need to admit anything - it's all there in black and white. I don't deny
anything.
Oh yeah - some regime I have. Spare me the hyperbole.

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
That kind of reaction indicates true arrogance to me.

No, true arrogance is telling someone that they're ignorant
or not into rock and roll because they don't like the same
music that you do.

Again, read the threads - someone else called you ignorant, not me.

Yeah, you're right. It was some other arrogant jerk. That being said, I
note that you make no admission that it *was* you who questioned whether I'm
into rock and roll, simply because I don't have the appreciation of the
Stones that everyone under the mjd regime must profess.

No need to admit anything - it's all there in black and white.

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
And, to pull a Clinton, I really didn't tell you you weren't
into rock n roll, I questioned whether or not you were.

OK, so you're an OBFUSCATING arrogant jerk.

"OBFUSCATING arrogant jerk" = anyone who questions the almighty Muffin

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
As in, "Muffin - do you dig rock n roll? It's ok if you don't, man,

Oh gee, thanks for your permission...but my musical taste is doing just fine
without the official approval of the mjd regime, thanks.

Post by mjd
but I'm shocked because I think the Stones rock balls.

Of course you're shocked. You obviously can't handle it when the opinions
of others differ from yours.

It's obvious your the one who can't handle anything - the second someone
disagrees with YOUR opinion, it's "GO FUCK YOURSELF".

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
If you're not, that's cool; if you are, then what in particular?"

I like plenty of music that falls under the "rock and roll" umbrella. I'm
sorry that you can't handle the fact that the Stones are not among the bands
that I enjoy most.

I can handle all sorts of shit - least of which is being told to go fuck
myself. Didn't bother me much; in fact after all that I was still
interested to hear the albums you listed, and I agree they are all great
releases. I might even take a few to my island.

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
You finally answered satisfactorily just above.

#I'm so glad that I finally answered you satisfactorily! I can't imagine
what I'd do if your curiosity was left unsatisfied!#

you'd tell me to go fuck myself?

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd
Bottom line - I think Gimme Shelter is just a friggin great rock n
roll song - same with Brown Sugar, Midnight Rambler, Monkey Man,
Rocks Off, the list goes on. The difference with me is, people can
disagree with me all they want, question me about whatever, and I'll
never tell them to go fuck themselves.

No, instead you'll tell them that they're ignorant or that they aren't
into rock and roll.

3rd time's a charm - the ignorant thing was not me.

Yeah, you're right. It was some other arrogant jerk. That being said, I
note that you make no admission that it *was* you who questioned whether I'm
into rock and roll, simply because I don't have the appreciation of the
Stones that everyone under the mjd regime must profess.

No need to admit anything - it's all there in black and white.

Post by The Iron Muffin

Post by mjd

Post by The Iron Muffin
OK, but if you tell me that I'm ignorant or not into rock
and roll because our tastes differ, you can expect me to
tell you to go fuck yourself again.

re: ignorant; see above. same for 'tell' - I simply asked.

Yeah, you're right. It was some other arrogant jerk. That being said, I
note that you make no admission that it *was* you who questioned whether I'm
into rock and roll, simply because I don't have the appreciation of the
Stones that everyone under the mjd regime must profess.
--
The Iron Muffin
DEAD FREAKS UNITE
Who are you? Where are you?
How are you?

Arrogant jerks UNITE.

[Bill]

Post by mjd
Bottom line - I think Gimme Shelter is just a friggin great rock n
roll song - same with Brown Sugar, Midnight Rambler, Monkey Man, Rocks
Off, the list goes on. The difference with me is, people can disagree
with me all they want, question me about whatever, and I'll never tell
them to go fuck themselves. But, I'll take the blame for starting
things off on with a bad-attitude response to your original post.
Next time we talk let's try talking some Dead stuff instead of Stones.
How about the Hard to Handle from 8/6/71? I think it's better than
the 4/29/71...

OH GO FUCK YOURSELF! Everybody with a BRAIN knows the 4-29-71 HTH is the
greatest version!

:^) (sorry - couldn't resist)

Bill

[LP]

Post by mjd
Next time we talk let's try talking some Dead stuff instead of Stones.
How about the Hard to Handle from 8/6/71? I think it's better than
the 4/29/71...

4/27/71 HTH puts both of those to bed.

LP

[Bill]

Post by LP

Post by mjd
Next time we talk let's try talking some Dead stuff instead of Stones.
How about the Hard to Handle from 8/6/71? I think it's better than
the 4/29/71...

4/27/71 HTH puts both of those to bed.
LP

The 4-27-71 HTH is excellent but 4-29-71 still kicks its ass (it's true -
I've worked out the mathematical proof). The construction of the 4-29-71
jam and the unbelievable climax of it is just plain unadulterated certified
genius material!

This assumes, of course, we're talking about the mix found on the
circulating versions of 4-29-71 and NOT on the officially released Ladies
and Gent version (where Phil's bass gets criminally shortchanged).

Bill

[LP]

Post by Bill

Post by LP

Post by mjd
Next time we talk let's try talking some Dead stuff instead of Stones.
How about the Hard to Handle from 8/6/71? I think it's better than
the 4/29/71...

4/27/71 HTH puts both of those to bed.
LP

The 4-27-71 HTH is excellent but 4-29-71 still kicks its ass (it's true -
I've worked out the mathematical proof). The construction of the 4-29-71
jam and the unbelievable climax of it is just plain unadulterated certified
genius material!

So go and listen again to the unbelievable climax of 4/27. I've
compared the 2 and 4/27 gets my vote every time.

LP

[Bill]

Post by LP

Post by Bill

Post by LP

Post by mjd
How about the Hard to Handle from 8/6/71? I think it's better than
the 4/29/71...

4/27/71 HTH puts both of those to bed.
LP

The 4-27-71 HTH is excellent but 4-29-71 still kicks its ass (it's true -
I've worked out the mathematical proof). The construction of the 4-29-71
jam and the unbelievable climax of it is just plain unadulterated certified
genius material!

So go and listen again to the unbelievable climax of 4/27. I've
compared the 2 and 4/27 gets my vote every time.

Okay I'll do it and report back. Was the source of the 4-29-71 HTH that you
used in the comparison the Ladies and Gents release? If so, that explains
everything.

Bill

Post by LP
LP