BuffaloBill Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 As I would expect. Ridiculous standard to dismiss opinions of anyone who doesn't have the weekly top 40 lists from half-century ago committed to memory. You missed the point. The issue is that far too many people like the very popular songs but do not know anything about the rest of their work. If you really follow a group you should know about their music beyond simply the most popular material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 I can say this about Gimmie Shelter. Having seen the Stones multiple times on the 50 and counting tour. The 5/25/13 TO show's version may be the best one I ever heard the band perform. Being there was surreal. The audience was stunned. Even Keef banged out the opening riff correctly, and with proper timing,cadence and effing soul. No small deal these days. Bravo! Lads. This is why in my mind they're overrated. Fans are surprised when they play their own songs correctly. That's pathetic. Unless of course you're being sarcastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 I know you like electronic but check out this **** if you like sax. RIP Mark. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNEYKrFJgRo Much as I disagree with you about the Stones, you get points for Morphine...one of the last "rock" bands I truly loved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 (edited) This is why in my mind they're overrated. Fans are surprised when they play their own songs correctly. That's pathetic. Unless of course you're being sarcastic. Part of what makes rock n'roll, and jazz, unique is that they have co-existing aesthetics that appeal to different people. For me, Keith ripping out a riff that is a tad sloppy, on the borders of where it should be, what we expect it to sound like, is what makes it rock -n'roll... that whole "living on the edge" affect. When the Stones have been at their best, they can sound like a train that is about to go off the rails, but they always manage to be saved... On the flip-side, you have bands like Rush, whose fans will wax poetic about their technical merits, and absolutely flawless timing...they bore the crap out of me... some people dig that more than others. We just all have different reactions to things. I can appreciate technical dexterity as much as anyone (as a lousy drummer, I am in awe of people who can play), but it doesn't have much emotional resonance. To me, it is like my girlfriend being amazed that I can normally figure out exactly what is going to happen during one of her Lifetime movies, before it happens...most of the time, within the first 10 minutes of the movie. It has all the elements of a movie (actors, actresses, a scripted story, a beginning, middle and end); it's a movie, but not necessarily a good movie. Edited June 4, 2013 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Part of what makes rock n'roll, and jazz, unique is that they have co-existing aesthetics that appeal to different people. For me, Keith ripping out a riff that is a tad sloppy, on the borders of where it should be, what we expect it to sound like, is what makes it rock -n'roll... that whole "living on the edge" affect. When the Stones have been at their best, they can sound like a train that is about to go off the rails, but they always manage to be saved... On the flip-side, you have bands like Rush, whose fans will wax poetic about their technical merits, and absolutely flawless timing...they bore the crap out of me... some people dig that more than others. We just all have different reactions to things. I can appreciate technical dexterity as much as anyone (as a lousy drummer, I am in awe of people who can play), but it doesn't have much emotional resonance. To me, it is like my girlfriend being amazed that I can normally figure out exactly what is going to happen during one of her Lifetime movies, before it happens...most of the time, within the first 10 minutes of the movie. It has all the elements of a movie (actors, actresses, a scripted story, a beginning, middle and end); it's a movie, but not necessarily a good movie. From the Buffalo News music critic Jeff Miers article yesterday, serving as both a review of 5/25 and a preview of 6/6 (Toronto shows): The ACC show featured no opening act – this was “An Evening with the Rolling Stones,” then, and the group would end up making it an action-packed one, cramming some 22 songs into roughly 2½ hours of alternately uber-sloppy and air-tight rock ’n’ roll. And: So do the Stones still matter? Yes. No band has made it longer. No band stretches back to the very roots of rock ’n’ roll with the same unerring conviction. And no other band has so stubbornly refused to “get better” over the years – the Stones remain a loud, sloppy, shambolic garage band, and there’s integrity suggested by that fact. http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130601/CITYANDREGION/130609869 Oh, and the times I have seen Gimme Shelter played by the Stones (they didn't do it every time I've seen them), it has been the #1 highlight of many highlights of the show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted June 4, 2013 Author Share Posted June 4, 2013 (edited) OK, time to round out the first five: Over-rated No. 6: Genesis. having wished there were none, Genesis delivered far too much pretty, pithy music. too little soul. and far too much wind and wuthering. were they a progressive rock or a folk band, and did they suffer at times from the lack of a full-time harpsichord player? evidently, Pete Gabriel needed to move on in order to focus his voice. and for all the proclamations that Genesis was more influential with Gabriel than without him, i question that to a degree. Gabriel proved he needed room to breath as a solo artist rather than be handcuffed by the constrictions of the band. sure, Lamb Lies Down is Genesis at its essential peak, but in retrospect it proved more of a molehill than mountain. i'll more quickly pull out any one of his solo albums, particularly his third one, which features not only the Jam's Paul Weller but also, listen carefully, not one hint of cymbal. all that said, this all pales to the naive, meadowlark, english country-side fantasy Genesis-proper delivered in its lean years, before finally figuring out they were a jazzy pop band. the epitomy of the three core members' era was Duke, a marvelous album that actually captured and anticipated the Asia-based sound to come, and did it better -- or more accessibly. things quickly degenerated from there, as the band unraveled under the weight of success and acting careers to produce a long, seemingly endless string of palp to eventually compete with Lionel Richie, et al, on the low end of the pop register. for all the albums Genesis recorded -- not to count the oh-too-many live and best-of albums -- and sold they hardly resonate. Under-rated No. 6: P*ssy Riot (sorry, the spellifier on this board has changed the name to "kitty" -- how's that for punk!) yes, P*ssy Riot. too often in today's music we seem to forget that rock and roll, at its raw base, is a youthful expression of protest and rebellion. though often without a clue, it is the new generation's opportunity and vehicle to voice itself against "the establishment," whatever that establishment might be. and here, we have a collective of Russian women doing so anonymously, incohesively and courageously in the face of what they consider a repressive government, and at great personal expense. at a time, we in the western world, seemed gripped in fascination with the latest beiber goings on, or mumford and sons and lumineers banalifications, P*ssy Riot is actually pushing the limits. and don't under-estimate them as mere posers with balaclavas. their instincts are rooted in rock, as i find it interesting that they cite Bikini Kill as an influence. what's best about P*ssy Riot is that you don't have to understand Russian to get them. what they do and stand for requires no translation. (sidenote: originally had The Jam here at No. 6, a band that deserves far more appreciation and respect for the rock solid albums it produced in the mid-1970s. what i feared, however, is burdening this list from an old-man's point of view, having already cited T-Rex, the Beat and Cramps, all from essentially the same era. the decision to call an audible here was to bring a bit of freshness to the discussion.) jw Edited June 4, 2013 by john wawrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Underrated: Snatches of Pink! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVcgGBbKqrc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 (edited) This is why in my mind they're overrated. Fans are surprised when they play their own songs correctly. That's pathetic. Unless of course you're being sarcastic. Okay Chef...I go out of my way to defend the Stones...the today I am rewarded on my Facebook page with a video (linked by the Stones site themselves) of the Stones performing their 60's classic "As Tears Go By', with the "hot", but woefully untalented Taylor Swift...what a freaking train-wreck! I still love that band, but why do they always make me "look the other way"? It is one of the worst, most awkward performances ever... Sadly, it is typical of what they have been doing the last 4 tours or so...bring out a young, "flavor of the month" tart for Mick to cavort with on stage for a few awkward moments...it normally sounds like the female singer, somewhere in the 20-25 range has only heard the song they are performing for the first time about 20 minutes ago (although, in the case of Taylor Swift, she is such an awful singer, she just can't sing live without her auto-tune)...just terrible. I guess it is not a big enough turn-off for old geezers like me to stop going to their shows, but I certainly don't see it winning them over any new fans...nowhere in America is little Alexis telling daddy to pull into Walmart so she can get a copy of the new(est) Rolling Stones greatest hits collection "GRrrr.." ''cuz it has that song that Taylor sang with creepy old lizard guy"... I love the Stones too much to link it here...I am embarassed for them. Edited June 4, 2013 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Okay Chef...I go out of my way to defend the Stones...the today I am rewarded on my Facebook page with a video (linked by the Stones site themselves) of the Stones performing their 60's classic "As Tears Go By', with the "hot", but woefully untalented Taylor Swift...what a freaking train-wreck! I still love that band, by why do they always make me "look the other way".... it is one of the worst, most awkward performances ever... Sadly, it is typical of what they have been doing the last 4 tours or so...bring out a young, "flavor of the month" tart for Mick to cavort with on stage for a few awkward moments...it normally sounds like the female singer, somewhere in the 20-25 range has only heard the song they are performing for the first time about 20 minutes ago (although, in the case of Taylor Swift, she is such an awful singer, she just can't sing live without her auto-tune)...just terrible. I guess it is not a big enough turn-off for old geezers like me to stop going to their shows, but I certainly don't see it winning them over any new fans...nowhere in America is little Alexis telling daddy to pull into Walmart so she can get a copy of the new(est) Rolling Stones greatest hits collection "GRrrr.." ''cuz it has that song that Taylor sang with creepy old lizard guy"... I love the Stones too much to link it here...I am embarassed for them. I was going to remark about the Stones being sloppy and you said something along the lines that that's rock and roll. No, not in my mind. R&R is all about improvisation and playing in the moment and to the audience. For instance Widespread Panic will come out with only the first set written down and create the second set during the intermission based on the feel of the crowd. How cool is that? Sloppy doesn't cut it. They're professionals and they should be perfect or pretty damn close. Does sloppiness happen? Oh hell yeah but if your fans are expecting it and are "oh, well, that's just Keef, being Keef" that's the sign of being overrated. I think the putting up with the sloppyness in R&R is what us old farts were subjected to in the 60's and 70's live performances. Drug and alcohol fueled sets were the norm and sloppy was just part of the act. I cringe at that. Many of the very good young bands today are more professional than that. You'll see lots of bottles of water on stage but no 1.5 L of Jack. Maybe a beer or two but that lasts them a full 1-2 hour set. I loved when I saw the Allman Brothers and they all came out with Starbucks. Oh, how the times have changed Nope, sloppy is just being lazy just as it is with professionsl sports. It's almost a disrespect to the audience. Hey Keef, I paid top dollar for this show the least you can do is learn how to count. However keep in mind I will never dis you for liking them, they've withstood the test of time and have some great songs. It's just if you're going to revered as R&R Gods you better be in tune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 All jam bands = overrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 All jam bands = overrated. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted June 4, 2013 Author Share Posted June 4, 2013 I was going to remark about the Stones being sloppy and you said something along the lines that that's rock and roll. No, not in my mind. R&R is all about improvisation and playing in the moment and to the audience. For instance Widespread Panic will come out with only the first set written down and create the second set during the intermission based on the feel of the crowd. How cool is that? Sloppy doesn't cut it. They're professionals and they should be perfect or pretty damn close. Does sloppiness happen? Oh hell yeah but if your fans are expecting it and are "oh, well, that's just Keef, being Keef" that's the sign of being overrated. I think the putting up with the sloppyness in R&R is what us old farts were subjected to in the 60's and 70's live performances. Drug and alcohol fueled sets were the norm and sloppy was just part of the act. I cringe at that. Many of the very good young bands today are more professional than that. You'll see lots of bottles of water on stage but no 1.5 L of Jack. Maybe a beer or two but that lasts them a full 1-2 hour set. I loved when I saw the Allman Brothers and they all came out with Starbucks. Oh, how the times have changed Nope, sloppy is just being lazy just as it is with professionsl sports. It's almost a disrespect to the audience. Hey Keef, I paid top dollar for this show the least you can do is learn how to count. However keep in mind I will never dis you for liking them, they've withstood the test of time and have some great songs. It's just if you're going to revered as R&R Gods you better be in tune. fully disagree here. rock and roll is sloppy by nature in my opinion. it's dirty. it's spontaneous. it's unprompted. it's filled with boozehounds and the socially addled. sorry, gotta run. will return to this thought later. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Why? I like hearing songs, and not 20 minutes of somebody tuning a guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 i think we may be using wrong words....i think sloppy may be being used as an opposite to the 'perfection' of bands like steely dan where you go see them live and it's almost as if you are listening to the original recording. I am hoping that sloppy is being used to mean gritty, spontaneous(a good word you chose). That is how i am choosing to interpret what some are saying as sloppy, if not then nevermind fully disagree here. rock and roll is sloppy by nature in my opinion. it's dirty. it's spontaneous. it's unprompted. it's filled with boozehounds and the socially addled. sorry, gotta run. will return to this thought later. jw then you are doing just that, 'hearing', not 'listening'...way more to it than that... I like hearing songs, and not 20 minutes of somebody tuning a guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 i think we may be using wrong words....i think sloppy may be being used as an opposite to the 'perfection' of bands like steely dan where you go see them live and it's almost as if you are listening to the original recording. I am hoping that sloppy is being used to mean gritty, spontaneous(a good word you chose). That is how i am choosing to interpret what some are saying as sloppy, if not then nevermind then you are doing just that, 'hearing', not 'listening'...way more to it than that... Wow, aren't we all about the semantics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 I don't think it's possible to call an entire genre over/underrated. Nor do I think it's fair to paint all jam bands with such a wide brush. Personally, I'd rather shove rusty needles under my toenails than attend a Phish concert; but the Allman Bros. Band is one of the best concerts I've ever attended. Both jam bands - yet completely different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 When Chef Jim is saying the Stones suck while mentioning a bunch of jam bands, all bets are off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 (edited) When Chef Jim is saying the Stones suck while mentioning a bunch of jam bands, all bets are off. Name a Jam Band. BTW saying the Stones are overrated does not mean I think they suck. To me there is very little music that sucks. Plenty I won't listen to but very little that sucks. fully disagree here. rock and roll is sloppy by nature in my opinion. it's dirty. it's spontaneous. it's unprompted. it's filled with boozehounds and the socially addled. sorry, gotta run. will return to this thought later. jw Dirty, spontaneous and unprompted is not sloppy. I agree with Pooj that the word sloppy is wrong to describe R&R but not wrong with regard to a live Stones concert apparently. Edited June 4, 2013 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Name a Jam Band. BTW saying the Stones are overrated does not mean I think they suck. To me there is very little music that sucks. Plenty I won't listen to but very little that sucks. Dirty, spontaneous and unprompted is not sloppy. I agree with Pooj that the word sloppy is wrong to describe R&R but not wrong with regard to a live Stones concert apparently. Perhaps, "imperfect," is a more accurate term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Name a Jam Band. I'm not falling for this. It's a trick question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts