The Rolling Stones vs. David Bowie
- take5_d_shorterer
- Posts: 5753
- Joined: 22 Sep 2003, 23:09
- Location: photo. by Andor Kertesz, Hung.
- Foxhound
- Posts: 2415
- Joined: 04 Sep 2010, 17:52
- Location: By the back fence near the tracks.
Re: The Rolling Stones vs. David Bowie
kath wrote:i still maintain that run from beggars thru exile is unbeatable, by anybody.
The only problem being that your starting and ending points for their great album run are simply incorrect.
It wasn't until the internet age when I joined the original Classicrockforums that I started to hear that all too often expressed opinion, and it's been exasperating me ever since. To start their great album run with Beggars Banquet leaves out Between the Buttons which was the last Stones' album with multiple great singles as well as the fascinating and eminently listenable Their Satanic Majesties Request which represented the Stones at their most adventuresome. And I count Exile on Main Street as the album in which the Stones output took a big step downward and began a gradual decline. Two #^&*$@< whole discs and I can't even find as many tracks as I like from it as in any of their previous five albums. So yes, I absolutely prefer any of Between the Buttons, Flowers or Their Satanic Majesties Request to Exile on Main Street.
Last edited by Foxhound on 23 Feb 2016, 19:16, edited 2 times in total.
Brits out of the Falklands!
Evangeline - living on in our hearts though long removed from our shores.
Evangeline - living on in our hearts though long removed from our shores.
Beebsy wrote:Fuck off. Wanker.
- Foxhound
- Posts: 2415
- Joined: 04 Sep 2010, 17:52
- Location: By the back fence near the tracks.
Re: The Rolling Stones vs. David Bowie
The Modernist wrote:The last time they sounded vaguely relevant was Some Girls.
"Relevant" is another word I can do without hearing ever again in the context of pop music or culture in general. What the bloody hell does it mean, other than something is popular with the masses or with the speaker in particular? (Twould therefore seem that Kanye West and Beyoncé are "relevant" these days.) It's a fuzzy, ill-defined and trite expression used by the unwashed masses to say absolutely nothing. Very much like "meaningful" which was another word beaten to death by the hippie generation.
Last edited by Foxhound on 23 Feb 2016, 19:14, edited 2 times in total.
Brits out of the Falklands!
Evangeline - living on in our hearts though long removed from our shores.
Evangeline - living on in our hearts though long removed from our shores.
Beebsy wrote:Fuck off. Wanker.
- Foxhound
- Posts: 2415
- Joined: 04 Sep 2010, 17:52
- Location: By the back fence near the tracks.
Re: The Rolling Stones vs. David Bowie
Matt Wilson wrote:Kath brings up a good point though, namely, that there's little difference between his faux Southern twang and his fake African Americanisms. We accept one and not the other simply because we like a certain type of music better.
I agree. In general though I don't mind Mick's faux Southern twang because two of the songs in which he uses it, Dear Doctor and Faraway Eyes, make me grin every time. I can do without the gratuitous obscenity in Sweet Virginia though.
With respect to Mick's fake African-Americanism, I really wish he'd never gone there. He destroyed many a song beginning with Prodigal Son and a whole bunch in Exile on Main Street trying hard to sound like something he's not. I wish he'd just stuck to singing the songs straight the way he did in 1963-65 when the Stones were covering a lot of r&b numbers.
Last edited by Foxhound on 23 Feb 2016, 19:13, edited 1 time in total.
Brits out of the Falklands!
Evangeline - living on in our hearts though long removed from our shores.
Evangeline - living on in our hearts though long removed from our shores.
Beebsy wrote:Fuck off. Wanker.
- naughty boy
- hounds people off the board
- Posts: 20266
- Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 23:21
Re: The Rolling Stones vs. David Bowie
Keep trying, Foxo! One of these days you might write something that isn't totally idiotic!
Matt 'interesting' Wilson wrote:So I went from looking at the "I'm a Man" riff, to showing how the rave up was popular for awhile.
- Foxhound
- Posts: 2415
- Joined: 04 Sep 2010, 17:52
- Location: By the back fence near the tracks.
Re: The Rolling Stones vs. David Bowie
Loki wrote:Moleskin wrote:The Stones eh?
There really isn't much I care for from the last 45 years of their music.
Sounds like a good thread idea. But I'm sure it's been done.
Yes. I did their last 35 years here:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=126982&hilit=Emotions&start=60
Brits out of the Falklands!
Evangeline - living on in our hearts though long removed from our shores.
Evangeline - living on in our hearts though long removed from our shores.
Beebsy wrote:Fuck off. Wanker.
- Foxhound
- Posts: 2415
- Joined: 04 Sep 2010, 17:52
- Location: By the back fence near the tracks.
Re: The Rolling Stones vs. David Bowie
GLORIA X wrote:Keep trying, Foxo! One of these days you might write something that isn't totally idiotic!
Fuck you Coan. The day you have a coherent thought will be the first.
Brits out of the Falklands!
Evangeline - living on in our hearts though long removed from our shores.
Evangeline - living on in our hearts though long removed from our shores.
Beebsy wrote:Fuck off. Wanker.
- naughty boy
- hounds people off the board
- Posts: 20266
- Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 23:21
Re: The Rolling Stones vs. David Bowie
Incorrect!
Matt 'interesting' Wilson wrote:So I went from looking at the "I'm a Man" riff, to showing how the rave up was popular for awhile.
- Nolamike
- Posts: 13988
- Joined: 05 Dec 2005, 21:31
- Location: Heaven, Hell, or Houston
- Contact:
Re: The Rolling Stones vs. David Bowie
toomanyhatz wrote:the masked man wrote: who are we to say that this is any less valid than what we bang on about all the time?
We are BCBers! We walk tall!
Yes, in the "real world" it might be a bit arrogant to claim we know better than the Celine Dion fans out there- though I'd claim Celine Dion fans are by and large bigger fans of celebrity than music- but this isn't the real world. There is a certain level of intelligence, thoughtfulness, and interest in and knowledge of the creative process that is rightly assumed of most people here. And yes, certain bands are appreciated by 99% of such people. But there are always naysayers- for anybody. As it should be. Certain folks are fond of saying that negativity is spurned here, and I have never found that to be true. If anything it's embraced in a kneejerk way that has nothing to do with how thoughtful the argument is.
Has anyone else read the 33 1/3 book on Celine Dion ("Let's Talk About Love: A Journey to the Ends of Taste")? It's one of the best music books I've ever read, and gets right to this very question - how can Celine Dion be so obsessively loved by so many people, yet so many others find her music to be some of the worst stuff ever recorded? A fascinating read, and it delves into differences between various world cultures.
Sir John Coan wrote:Nolamike is speaking nothing but sense here.
Loki wrote:Mike is Hookfinger's shill.
- The Modernist
- 2018 BCB Cup Champ!
- Posts: 13843
- Joined: 13 Apr 2014, 20:42
Re: The Rolling Stones vs. David Bowie
Quaco wrote:Mr. Dante Fontana wrote:See what I mean?
"They just are good and you're stupid if you don't think so"
It's true, people do say that kind of thing about them. But I think that has always been the case, not just here. Same with Elvis Presley. You can point to Beatles songs which "prove" they have some quality, but it's a lot harder with somebody like Elvis.
And yet, I'm not saying they weren't great. But, as I said before, I think what was great about them was kind of intangible. I suspect that they knew that as well, which is why they (much more so than their peers, The Beatles, The Who, etc.) are loathe to discuss who exactly did what, how they write their songs, what their lyrics mean, and so on. They have always known it was a "feel" thing.
The problem with this, then, is that it's hard to point to just what it is that "works" about them, you just know it or feel it. Which leads to people saying the vague kind of praise that they're just great and if you cant see that, then you're blind.
Pop music is largely intangible anyway. This is probably behind the tendency, especially in magazines like Mojo and with people like us who have been around it a long time, to look at albums and try to find something significant there. It's just hard, day after day, to defend your choices to others or yourself by just saying "Hey well I like it". You start to look for something of tangible quality -- some lyrics that read well, some example of the artist's integrity, some YouTube video that shows them at their best -- because you think there needs to be something there you can point to.
One of Jimmy Q's great posts. There's a lot of wisdom here.
I wonder how people feel now over this thread generally. The Stones are leading, but would they be now? I feel, that with distance, The Stones are one of those acts that start to become less impressive, while (arguably) the opposite is true of Bowie.
- Rayge
- Posts: 15303
- Joined: 14 Aug 2013, 11:37
- Location: Zummerzet
- Contact:
Re: The Rolling Stones vs. David Bowie
The Modernist wrote:I wonder how people feel now over this thread generally. The Stones are leading, but would they be now? I feel, that with distance, The Stones are one of those acts that start to become less impressive, while (arguably) the opposite is true of Bowie.
Well, I wasn't around when it was first posted, although apparently I voted for the Stones during one of the revivals. As far as I am concerned, neither act has done anything worth my time since the 1970s, and not much then. The Stones have by far the better singles discography, so they win easily. As for albums, apart from Heroes (and possibly Blackstar, which I only heard once), there's nothing I would willingly listen to again from Bowie after Ziggy, while I wouldn't mind hearing any of the late Stones albums between Let it Bleed and Only Rock & Roll again (although, like Foxhound, I'm not that keen on Exiles).
In timeless moments we live forever
You can't play a tune on an absolute
Negative Capability...when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact & reason”
- The Modernist
- 2018 BCB Cup Champ!
- Posts: 13843
- Joined: 13 Apr 2014, 20:42
Re: The Rolling Stones vs. David Bowie
Not an Alladin Sane fan?
- Rayge
- Posts: 15303
- Joined: 14 Aug 2013, 11:37
- Location: Zummerzet
- Contact:
Re: The Rolling Stones vs. David Bowie
The Modernist wrote:Not an Alladin Sane fan?
Not really. I mean, I bought it soon after release in the wake of Ziggy, but, as I remember it anyway, there was a migraine inducing piano in one of the tracks that put me off.
In timeless moments we live forever
You can't play a tune on an absolute
Negative Capability...when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact & reason”
- Minnie the Minx
- funky thigh collector
- Posts: 33547
- Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 16:00
- Location: In the naughty North and in the sexy South
Re: The Rolling Stones vs. David Bowie
Belle Lettre wrote:I found Bowie pretty charismatic in my teenage years, and retain some affection for him, but none of the albums I liked (haven't actually listened to them for some time I admit) are as good as Beggars' Banquet and, above all, Let It Bleed.
You come at the Queen, you best not miss.
Dr Markus wrote:
Someone in your line of work usually as their own man cave aka the shed we're they can potter around fixing stuff or something don't they?
Flower wrote:I just did a google search.
- Minnie the Minx
- funky thigh collector
- Posts: 33547
- Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 16:00
- Location: In the naughty North and in the sexy South
Re: The Rolling Stones vs. David Bowie
toomanyhatz wrote:
"Start Me Up" is a much better single than anything by Bowie, however.
You come at the Queen, you best not miss.
Dr Markus wrote:
Someone in your line of work usually as their own man cave aka the shed we're they can potter around fixing stuff or something don't they?
Flower wrote:I just did a google search.
- naughty boy
- hounds people off the board
- Posts: 20266
- Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 23:21
Re: The Rolling Stones vs. David Bowie
I agree with G that Bowie's stock has risen and the Stones' has fallen over the last few years. You get a strong sense of it just talking to people, watching TV, seeing who's wearing what T-shirt etc.
Matt 'interesting' Wilson wrote:So I went from looking at the "I'm a Man" riff, to showing how the rave up was popular for awhile.
- Davey the Fat Boy
- Posts: 24007
- Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
- Location: Applebees
Re: The Rolling Stones vs. David Bowie
John Onan wrote:I agree with G that Bowie's stock has risen and the Stones' has fallen over the last few years. You get a strong sense of it just talking to people, watching TV, seeing who's wearing what T-shirt etc.
That may change when Jagger or Richards pass away.
Anyhow - interesting read. Makes me miss the old BCB.
It does occurs to me that nobody even bothered to ask if anyone could explain what's so great about David Bowie.
“Remember I have said good things about benevolent despots before.” - Jimbo
- Minnie the Minx
- funky thigh collector
- Posts: 33547
- Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 16:00
- Location: In the naughty North and in the sexy South
Re: The Rolling Stones vs. David Bowie
Davey the Fat Boy wrote:John Onan wrote:I agree with G that Bowie's stock has risen and the Stones' has fallen over the last few years. You get a strong sense of it just talking to people, watching TV, seeing who's wearing what T-shirt etc.
That may change when Jagger or Richards pass away.
Anyhow - interesting read. Makes me miss the old BCB.
It does occurs to me that nobody even bothered to ask if anyone could explain what's so great about David Bowie.
Most bright sparks get it.
You come at the Queen, you best not miss.
Dr Markus wrote:
Someone in your line of work usually as their own man cave aka the shed we're they can potter around fixing stuff or something don't they?
Flower wrote:I just did a google search.
- Minnie the Minx
- funky thigh collector
- Posts: 33547
- Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 16:00
- Location: In the naughty North and in the sexy South
Re: The Rolling Stones vs. David Bowie
Grey Error wrote:toomanyhatz wrote:
"Start Me Up" is a much better single than anything by Bowie, however.
I'm at work so can't go on and on you'll be sad to know, but I did want to return to this. I understand people loving or even preferring the Stones to Bowie and that's not my beef.
But to genuinely believe that a pretty good single by the Stones is better than anything - anything - by Bowie is simply ludicrous.
You come at the Queen, you best not miss.
Dr Markus wrote:
Someone in your line of work usually as their own man cave aka the shed we're they can potter around fixing stuff or something don't they?
Flower wrote:I just did a google search.
- toomanyhatz
- Power-mad king of the WCC
- Posts: 29993
- Joined: 07 Apr 2005, 00:01
- Location: Just east of where Charlie Parker went to do some relaxin'
Re: The Rolling Stones vs. David Bowie
Grey Error wrote:toomanyhatz wrote:
"Start Me Up" is a much better single than anything by Bowie, however.
Not made clear enough in retrospect (though understood at the time) I was speaking of in the 80s. I stand by it, though of course I'd be very surprised if anybody in the Stones camp managed anything anywhere near as good as Bowie's final two albums.
Footy wrote:
The Who / Jimi Hendrix Experience Saville Theatre, London Jan '67
. Got Jimi's autograph after the show and went on to see him several times that year
1959 1963 1965 1966 1974 1977 1978 1981 1988 2017* 2018 2020!! 2023?