The Wick wrote on Jul 8^th, 2008 at 6:03pm:


_____________________________

OK yes, your very right Love Is Strong is a close cousin (or even sister more to the point) of As Wicked As It Seems. I like Love Is Strong better although I do dig Keiths solo tune. We can agree to dis-agree there.

Oh yeah???? Well guess what.... I was certainly no Black Crowes fan either before hearing the LIONS album. I thought they were nothing more than a simple Rolling Stones/Faces generic sound that wasn't authentic or any where near as good. BORING.

To say The Black Crowes are unoriginal is actually being kind to them on this issue...
I never cared for them because I thought they just were too generic sounding and acting and molded themselves after The Stones and The Faces and were nowhere near as good. They were boring sounding and uninteresting as an act because of that.

*************Then I heard ... LIONS!!! Wow!!!!  Ballsy Zepllin-esk guitar, Beatle-esk songwriting towards the end of the album, coupled with a thick, authentic sounding analogue production style. I am not big Led-Zep or Beatles fan either. But darn, that album's production in itself could be described as basically classic it is so good. Even Chris Robinson sounds bigger, raspier, and venomous. He never sang or sounded like that before (or since).

*I'd have to say it is more than probably my favorite "sounding" album of all time from a recording/production stand point.

If you have not heard this album... then I can tell you that you simply will be blown away in the fact that it is actually The Black Crowes.


Try it ...you won't be dis-appointed. In fact, you will be praising it.



Ian

Gotablouse,

The quotes:
All I am doing is hitting "quote" option on the posts I'd like to directly repond to.  This is how YaBB is coded to work with my browser (Mozilla Firefox) or it is a problem with the board ....not my posting. I don't care for it either and wish it would stop. I'll see if I can just cut and paste the qoutes I want to repond to from here on out in most situations.


*****Now, speaking of quotes you posted this: 

"If they hadn't somehow found the magic formula for making a killing on mega tours, the Stones probably wouldn't be better off than the Kinks or the Moody Blues, after 1986 it looked like that was about to happen..."

Earlier in this thread you stated that 99% of the people here think I must be on something by the comments and ideas that are mine. Well, how on earth can you tell me that with comments like this? The Rolling Stones were always by far and away much bigger, had much more weight, were more influential globally, and much more recognized around the entire planet than The Kinks or The Moody Blues could ever dream of... they were the premier Rock and Roll band for years and the world knew that.

Even if nothing happened after 81 The Rolling Stones would arguably still be remembered as possibly the greatest Rock n Roll band of all time by a lot of people. They would still easily be in the top five every time the topic came up (if not ranked first or second place). They were the heavy weights and had released several classic albums and showed the world what a rock n roll band really is. Bands acted and  mimic'd them back then and several more do now. They were HUGE all along and EASILY and always would be way ahead of The Kinks or Moody Blues for cryin out loud as far as people remembering them and what they did for music. Yikes.

How could you say they would be nothing more than The Moody blues or The Kinks even if they stopped after 81???

We are talking about The Rolling Stones here Gotablouse. They would always easily be ahead of these bands you speak of. They could of done nothing from 81 until right now and still would outsell The Moody Blues and The Kinks if there was a way to put them all on tour side by side and they were all still around.
They would also still be remembered as much more and in a different class as The Kinks and Moody Blues. They already had a very big catalogue of classic songs and albums that the world knew and were very familiar with. Everybody knew them. 

Geeze Man. You obviously under-rate things incredibly. You say I am supposed to be on something???....just read your last post here with that one.


Ian

Ok. The Stones would never be considered second degree. The only other band to achieve a level of popularity The Stones saw in the 60's was The Beatles. Nobody had been so popular since as a "group". Maybe Guns n Roses for a short short period in 88 but that's it. Guy, The Stones were all around legends by 81. They would never be considered "second degree" or second rate as The Moody Blues are now. They had done too much for music and culture. The Moody Blues never had near an impact like The Stones.

Ok. Regardless I have you pegged. It is nothing bad. You love The Stones all time classic stuff from 68-72 because they help mold music for what it became for the next 20 years.

But now you like "edgy" things, "Edgy" recording. OK. I just don't think you have to really be careful if you are gonna try it to do it with the Stones. I bet you really liked How to Dismantle An Atomic Bomb by U2.

"Just Push Play"...good album, for the record (pun intended). Better than Nine Lives. Nine Lives was I don't know ...stupid. "Avant Garden" is really a good song. I love that song. "Sunshine" is good too. Hey .....Aerosmith has not put out a studio release since then ....unless your counting Honkin on Bo-Bo. Well, I think even the 15 year old girls are tired of their act by now.

Ian

Gazza wrote on Jul 9^th, 2008 at 7:01am:


While we're checking how about Springsteen and U2?

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 9^th, 2008 at 6:42am:
Oh man this is a riot, "second degree"="irony" !

To bring back the topic on track I just listened to one of Rubin's latest productions, the Neil Diamond album, not really my cup of tea, but excellent production, Mick and Keiths songs with that type of treatment would certainly be a treat.

Gazza wrote: (although I think he is missing the point)

"Led Zeppelin and ABBA are two groups apart from the Beatles who have sold more records than the Stones.  I would imagine that Pink Floyd's total would be close as well."

________________________________________


Sure they have. The Stones are not the head cream of the crop in album sales. We know that. They are up there but they are probably in fifth, sixth or seventh place. My guess would be Beatles, Pink Floyd, Led-Zepplin, Bee-Gees, U2, Abba, AC/DC, Stones.

Something in that order. BUT, Abba, Bee-Gees and even AC/DC do not have the name, reputation, or legendary status as The Stones (and even U2 aren't quite to that level) . They never have been. Over-all neither does Led-Zepplin on a global scale. You could ask a 75 year old guy at the grocery store if he knows who The Rolling Stones are and he will know. You could also ask the 16 year old female cashier when checking out. She will know as well. She may not know the songs, but at least she will know who they are or what they do for a living. It was basically the same notoriety for The Stones in the 60's 70's 80's and 90's. Guess what, that 16 year old girl may very well not know who Abba is today. When Rolling Stone or Time Magazine writes about the most influential "music groups" of all time, Abba, and The Bee-Gees very well may not be mentioned in a serious note (if they are mentioned at all.....). It is always = Beatles, Stones, Who, Led-Zepplin. These groups are viewed, for the most part as the corner stones of pop or Rock music and generally educated people would not argue that....even if they don't care for any of these groups music. Maybe Pink Floyd or AC/DC would get honorable mention. So album sales do not mean everything. The Stones are still a house-hold name and are legendary status. They were since the 60's. That is my point.


Ian

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 9^th, 2008 at 3:48pm:



I'm not missing any point. You said that the "only band to achieve a level of popularity" greater than the Stones was the Beatles.

You're wrong.

Unfortunately.

You may wish to rely on the 75 year old at the grocery store for your insight on popular music if it suits your own personal agenda. 300-400 million other people will disagree.

Theres not much value in a few critics or "generally educated" people  having an opinion which suits your view on greatness (and your personal taste is something I dont disagree with), but if your limiting your worldview to people over the age of 45-50, then it nullifies your argument.

Sorry to say, record sales and the opinions of people in different generations to ours (regardless of how dumb they are) would suggest different.

This snobbery in favour of 'serious music' is another issue entirely. Abba split 25 years ago, and today there are still sell out musicals and a new film which celebrate their music. It might not be YOUR taste or that of most of us, but to suggest theyre not a household name, people no longer know who they are or arent still influential simply isnt true.

There's more music in the world than rock music, amazingly.

"snobbery" LOL, well I certainly mis-spoke. Truthfully. I meant well  .....anyone shall we say "normal". I meant to say as in your average bloke. Anyone who was not commited or mentally handicap would know who The Stones were. I should of phrased it differently. There are tons of un-educated people who know who the Stones are and have select sense that truly counts.

I don't think Abba had all the Grampa's in this country knowing exactly who they were when they came out. When the Stones hit it really big (65-68) ....everyone knew them. Barbers, Moms, Dads, elderly. I don't think the same is true about Abba or The Bee-Gees. All the 50 and under knew these people. But everyone from 8-65 knew who The Rolling Stones were when they hit it big. This is what I mean. I mean having a huge impact. Album sales do not mean everything.

Yes, other groups are influential, not just rock groups. Yes, there are many other types of music out there that is quite interesting, and influences. Hell, I think my catalog is as diverse as anyones I know personally. From Pink and Tommy Lee (forgive me, i just had to see how bad he was) to Conway Twitty to The New York Dolls to Rage Against The Machine to Bonnie Raitt to Muddy Waters to White Zombie  and yes, I own an Abba album from when I was a kid. Gosh, it has been so long. In fact Abba were a pretty good pop gig. By the way ...speaking of which ....aren't they getting back together, as a group that is??

Look out Stones, look out U2, look out MCcartney and ...step down.. Because ...... here comes Abba!!!!

*No wonder why The Stones are having trouble getting a new record deal. They all want to sign the bucks over to Abba instead...


Gosh, I could of had a V8!


Ian

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 9^th, 2008 at 9:00pm:


To paraphrase Morrissey - "America is not the world..."

Abba became internationally popular by winning Eurovision. An event which (God help us) has a higher audience figure than the Superbowl.

They were absolutely massive - as were the Bee Gees. Hugely popular to a wider audience range age-wise than probably any rock act, I would imagine. So, people not only knew who they were (for what thats worth) but they also bought their music.

No, Abba arent getting back together. Three of them still show up from time to time for major events like the premeires of the film or musicals etc, but Agnetha (the blonde one with the sexy ass) has been a recluse for about 25 years, although she did apparently make an appearance at a premiere recently.

When is Ian's manager goin to throw the white towel over the top rope? He must have the best cut man in the business.

Ian I have been an outside observer of this thread but you are on the wrong side of this debate my friend. You are now trying to move the goal posts by insisting that you were only arguing about the popularity of Abba in the States. Sadly even in this sense you're wrong. Abba albums, and more importantly for them, singles, outsold the Stones here in the States as well by a long shot. I well remember roller skating to almost nothing but Abba back in those more innocent times. There were many times that I got a little pre-pube nookie in the darkened back room of the roller rink in mid 70's and Abba was almost always playing at some point during these early sexual escapades. I remeber it like it was yesterday. In fact I still get a little turned on whenever I hear Dancing Queen. Ok, not really, but I still say your argument is like pissing in the wind.



Riffy

Ian Billen wrote on Jul 10^th, 2008 at 10:19pm:



Not "the Uk" - "the world"