Autor Tema: nota interesante  (Leído 944 veces)

0 Usuarios y 1 Visitante están viendo este tema.

  • Visitante
nota interesante
« on: Febrero 06, 2007, 03:47:29 pm »
Encontré esta nota boludeando en internet y me pareció bueno lo que dice el autor, se asemeja a lo que sentimos todos nosotros por la banda en mi opinión..

Les dejo el link:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5939207/4_the_rolling_stones

Saludos!

Desconectado Estela

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Mensajes: 4,576
  • Karma: +7/-0
  • Sexo: Femenino
    • Ver Perfil
    • Email
nota interesante
« Respuesta #1 on: Febrero 06, 2007, 04:45:40 pm »
Buen artículo! Fue escrito por Steven Van Zandt, ex-guitarrista de la banda de Bruce Springsteen.
Aquí en Argentina, se publicó en el nro. especial de colección  Rolling Stone de julio de 2004. Tenías la opcion de comprarlo con alguna de tres portadas diferentes: Elvis, Bob Marley y Jagger...

Si tienes voz, tienes palabras, déjalas caer...

Desconectado NIK JAGER

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Mensajes: 5,684
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - transitofm@yahoo.com
    • Ver Perfil
nota interesante
« Respuesta #2 on: Febrero 06, 2007, 08:46:58 pm »
Cita de: "Estela"
Buen artículo! Fue escrito por Steven Van Zandt, ex-guitarrista de la banda de Bruce Springsteen.
Aquí en Argentina, se publicó en el nro. especial de colección  Rolling Stone de julio de 2004. Tenías la opcion de comprarlo con alguna de tres portadas diferentes: Elvis, Bob Marley y Jagger...


little stevie ama a los stones , el es el concilieri en los Sopranos ( Silvio Dante ) y su radio de garage fue una novedad hace 3 años con un super festival de rarezas .
lo de Sun City es de el tambien .
saludos  8)
bonus :  la nota no me abrio

Desconectado Estela

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Mensajes: 4,576
  • Karma: +7/-0
  • Sexo: Femenino
    • Ver Perfil
    • Email
nota interesante
« Respuesta #3 on: Febrero 06, 2007, 09:01:39 pm »
Cita de: "NIK JAGER"
bonus :  la nota no me abrio

Este es el artículo (lamentablemente no lo encontrè en ningún lado en castellano) a menos que alguien tenga la amabilidad de transcribirlo de la revista.

The Rolling Stones are my life. If it wasn't for them, I would have been a Soprano for real. I first saw the Stones on TV, on Hollywood Palace in 1964. In '64, the Beatles were perfect: the hair, the harmonies, the suits. They bowed together. Their music was extraordinarily sophisticated. The whole thing was exciting and alien but very distant in its perfection. The Stones were alien and exciting, too. But with the Stones, the message was, "Maybe you can do this." The hair was sloppier. The harmonies were a bit off. And I don't remember them smiling at all. They had the R&B traditionalist's attitude: "We are not in show business. We are not pop music." And the sex in Mick Jagger's voice was adult. This wasn't pop sex -- holding hands, playing spin the bottle. This was the real thing. Jagger had that conversational quality that came from R&B singers and bluesmen, that sort of half-singing, not quite holding notes. The acceptance of Jagger's voice on pop radio was a turning point in rock & roll. He broke open the door for everyone else. Suddenly, Eric Burdon and Van Morrison weren't so weird -- even Bob Dylan.
It was completely unique: a white performer doing it in a black way. Elvis Presley did it. But the next guy was Jagger. There were no other white boys doing this. White singers stood there and sang, like the Beatles. The thing we associate with black performers goes back to the church -- letting the spirit physically move you, letting go of social restraints, any form of embarrassment or humiliation. Not being in control: That's what Mick Jagger was communicating. There were a few James Brown and Tina Turner dance moves in there. But James Brown was very choreographed. Those strange moves Jagger was doing -- they were of the spirit. Iggy Pop and Jim Morrison took it to another level, but all that came from Jagger.

In the beginning, it was Brian Jones' band. He named them. He managed them -- got the gigs and wrote to the paper when they got bad reviews. The attitude and aggressiveness -- they first came from him. And the tradition came from him. He was using the blues pseudonym Elmo Lewis and playing bottleneck guitar. Then, on albums like December's Children and Aftermath, he was playing all of these other instruments: dulcimer, harpsichord, sitar. He was so inventive and important. If anybody gets left out of the Stones' story, he's the one.

But Keith Richards has been taken for granted too, relegated historically to permanent rhythm guitar. But his solos were great: "Heart of Stone," "It's All Over Now." And there are the riffs: "Satisfaction," of course, and "The Last Time," which the Stones themselves considered the first serious song they wrote. "Honky Tonk Women" is just one chord. Then he started the tunings: the G tuning and the five-string version of the G tuning. There are chord patterns that relate to his tunings -- the "Gimme Shelter" effect, let's call it -- where you add a suspended note, and it becomes more melodic and rhythmic at the same time. I play rhythm guitar with the E Street Band in Keith's style all the time. Anybody who plays rock & roll guitar does.

Bill Wyman and Charlie Watts, more than any other rock & roll rhythm section, to this day, knew how to swing. It's so much a thing of the past now, but in those days rock & roll was something you danced to. You can just picture how much fun it was to be at the Richmond Hotel in London, at the Station Hotel in 1962 and '63: the crowd going crazy, the Stones going crazy, like they were in a South Side Chicago blues club. You can picture it in the music.

There are generations of young people now who only know the Stones iconically. There is no connection to the music. So I'd send them to the first four albums, the American versions: England's Newest Hitmakers, 12x5, Now and Out of Our Heads. The next lesson is the second great era: Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street. They make up the greatest run of albums in history -- and all done in three and a half years.

In a lot of ways, the Stones are playing better now than they were in the Sixties. They were quite sloppy in the early days -- which I enjoy. Technically, they're better than they've ever been. The trouble is, their power comes from their first twelve albums. There have been a few great songs since '72, but only a handful. If they were making great records and playing live the way they are now, my God, how amazing would that be?

But live, they're still able to communicate that original power. You can learn a lot from the Stones still: Write good songs, stay in shape and dig deep down for that passion every night. You should live so long, a tenth as long, and be as good as Mick Jagger. It's amazing Keith is still alive. There are a few people who have this constitution of invulnerability, although you shouldn't learn that. Let's be honest: Excessive drug use hurts songwriting. The good side is, he's still on the road, rockin', forty years later. You can't hold most bands together for four years, let alone forty.

I don't look forward to the day when the Stones stop, because going out there and playing continues to be the most effective advertisement for these songs. They may have a bit of production with them onstage now, but it's still about them. They're pushing things to the limit, showing that if you stick to your guns, and don't compromise with what's trendy, you're gonna go a long fucking way.
Si tienes voz, tienes palabras, déjalas caer...

Desconectado rogerriffin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Mensajes: 8,334
  • Karma: +58/-29
  • On the way down to Mexico...
    • MSN Messenger - rogerriffin@rocksoff.org
    • Ver Perfil
    • http://www.rocksoff.org/phpBB/images/avatars/114687131047325ed9ad589.jpg
    • Email
nota interesante
« Respuesta #4 on: Febrero 07, 2007, 11:05:12 am »
Tuve la oportunidad de conseguir esa revista hace unas semanas con la portada de Mick, es colombiana, son buenos los reviews, pero si, el de los Stones es extenso sino lo transcribia...
Rock`n`Roll, Let`s Go!!!
Keith, Mèxico 1995.
Disculpen por la tardemia!
Mick, Monterrey 2006.

"Pon a los Stones para aterrizar mejor!" M-Clan

Desconectado pablomacbar

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Mensajes: 856
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • Ver Perfil
nota interesante
« Respuesta #5 on: Febrero 07, 2007, 06:08:07 pm »
Compre en su momento la revista que contenia ese articulo.

Sinseramente me pareció horrible, escrito desde el fanatismo, un asco, perdón a los que le gustó. Pero me pareció que en ella no se hablaba bien de los stones, ni se sacaba a luz algo que no siempre se aprecia, parecia algo escrito por un rollinga, esperaba algo mas intelectual en ese contexto.

Desconectado juancho

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Mensajes: 2,535
  • Karma: +25/-2
    • Ver Perfil
nota interesante
« Respuesta #6 on: Febrero 07, 2007, 09:28:16 pm »
Si! A mi me gusta, y no sólo la nota de los stones, me gusta también cómo escribe Joe Perry (donde de paso agrega ser admirador de los Stones también) sobre Chuck Berry, son varias páginas de artistas con muy buenas ilustraciones, yo tengo la edición con Mick Jagger en la tapa, ni cuenta me había dado que existían otras con distintas tapas, por suerte a mi me tocó justo la que más hubiera deseado de las tres, con Jagger.
Me gusta mucho también la ilustración que se hace de los Stones, a pesar de que tiene al menos un error, aunque a veces estas cosas se hacen a propósito...
Salutte!!
Si un extraterrestre me preguntara ¿qué es el rock'n'roll? Lo haría escuchar Jumping Jack Flash.

Desconectado Estela

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Mensajes: 4,576
  • Karma: +7/-0
  • Sexo: Femenino
    • Ver Perfil
    • Email
nota interesante
« Respuesta #7 on: Febrero 07, 2007, 09:41:33 pm »
Respecto a las tres tapas yo en ese momento tenía la suscripción, ergo, la revista me llegaba a mi casa. Y obviamente, me podía llegar cualquiera... Pero como un presagio me llegó la que tenía en la tapa a Jagger... cosa e' mandinga....  :twisted:  :twisted:  :twisted:
Si tienes voz, tienes palabras, déjalas caer...

  • Visitante
nota interesante
« Respuesta #8 on: Febrero 08, 2007, 12:52:12 am »
Pablo, respeto tu opinión pero no la comparto, me parece que esta escrita desde un punto de vista más emocional que analizandolos musicalmente, obviamente el que lo hizo no es objetivo porque debe ser fanático, igual que vos talvez y que muchos más, cada cual los quiere a su manera.
Para mi está bien, los prefiero antes que a los diarios sensacionalistas que se pasan diciendo boludeces por lo menos..

Saludos!

Desconectado pablomacbar

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Mensajes: 856
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • Ver Perfil
nota interesante
« Respuesta #9 on: Febrero 08, 2007, 05:29:03 pm »
yo lo que esperaba era un analisis un poco mas profundo acerca de los rolling stones, no son lo que son solo por el fanatismo de los fans, valga la redundancia.
Una observacion un poco mas comprometida, o si se quiere intelectual.

Desconectado pablomacbar

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Mensajes: 856
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • Ver Perfil
nota interesante
« Respuesta #10 on: Febrero 08, 2007, 05:32:06 pm »
No es de mala onda lo que digo, lo que pasa que cuando compre esa revista, me lleve un fiasco, esperaba mucho mas.