Beatles or Stones (or Kinks? Monkees? Herman's Hermits?)
- Thread starter Billville
- Start date
Gerard K H Love
Appreciate your friends
Grateful Dead fans strike me as the type that want all of the band than can get, even the prolonged tune up. The band itself has always struck me as a little too stoned anyway so taking forever to tune is not a surprise at all.
You know, thinking back, on LSD a tune up would be quite a trip.
mjp
Founding member
I suppose it could be, but you'd have to be on LSD as well to really appreciate it, in which case the "concert" really becomes irrelevant. You could be sitting in a cement quarry.
I just wonder what the difference is between a novice (or punk) musician who "can't tune his guitar" and an accomplished, celebrated musician - or group of musicians - who are too drug addled to tune their instruments? I think one is no better than the other.
And as I though more about tuning on stage the other night I remembered the many times I stood and watched Johnny Thunders tune his guitar. Though that was likely due to his playing old Les Paul Juniors, which tend to rebel against any kind of precise tuning. That was in clubs though. I have to say that in an arena show I never saw a guitarist tune up.
Though I did see Led Zeppelin play an encore of Black Dog once that I wish Jimmy Page would have stopped in order to tune up. But that's a different story. He seemed very well inebriated (it could have had something to do with emptying two-thirds of a large bottle of vodka that sat on top of one of his amps throughout the show), so he may not have been able to tune up even if they did stop...
I just wonder what the difference is between a novice (or punk) musician who "can't tune his guitar" and an accomplished, celebrated musician - or group of musicians - who are too drug addled to tune their instruments? I think one is no better than the other.
And as I though more about tuning on stage the other night I remembered the many times I stood and watched Johnny Thunders tune his guitar. Though that was likely due to his playing old Les Paul Juniors, which tend to rebel against any kind of precise tuning. That was in clubs though. I have to say that in an arena show I never saw a guitarist tune up.
Though I did see Led Zeppelin play an encore of Black Dog once that I wish Jimmy Page would have stopped in order to tune up. But that's a different story. He seemed very well inebriated (it could have had something to do with emptying two-thirds of a large bottle of vodka that sat on top of one of his amps throughout the show), so he may not have been able to tune up even if they did stop...
Hmmm, your trip around the arena would take at least 20 minutes, yes. I wonder if they had an equipment problem that they announced before you got inside. Jerry would probably be the most likely candidate for noodling around and constantly tuning during a break like that. It's just hard for me to believe that they were just tuning for over 20 miutes. I mean, I can do it in about 30 seconds.
What year was this? Late 70s/early 80s?
I also am a fan of pocket watches.
What year was this? Late 70s/early 80s?
I also am a fan of pocket watches.
mjp
Founding member
I thought it was 1980, but now I may have to revise that back to 1978 - deadlists.com says it could have been 78 or 81, but 81 seems too late. I don't think I would have been crashing a Dead show that year, so I'm going with 1978.
I know it's an unbelievable story, and if I didn't know what tuning up sounded like, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and say they were just fucking around. But they weren't. Pretty weird. Like you said though, could have been an equipment issue or something, I have no idea what happened before I got in there.
But the band stayed on stage, and I don't know if they would have stayed out there if they knew they were up against a technical issue that might last a while...who knows.
Some Deadhead somewhere knows! He's probably got tape of the whole thing. ;)
I know it's an unbelievable story, and if I didn't know what tuning up sounded like, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and say they were just fucking around. But they weren't. Pretty weird. Like you said though, could have been an equipment issue or something, I have no idea what happened before I got in there.
But the band stayed on stage, and I don't know if they would have stayed out there if they knew they were up against a technical issue that might last a while...who knows.
Some Deadhead somewhere knows! He's probably got tape of the whole thing. ;)
Gerard K H Love
Appreciate your friends
Yeah, I heard the tape and you can distinctly hear some punks tromping around the arena in the middle of a crucial tune up. Jerry Garcia can be heard muttering, "those fuckin' punks need to stop pounding around and sit the fuck down."
Gerard K H Love
Appreciate your friends
Yesterday I reminded myself why I quit listening to John Lennon for a long time. I found an Mp3 that has everything by Lennon. The beginning is a live concert with the band tuning up on stage and Lennon says,"this the first time we have played together so we're going to do a couple of songs we all know." Yes the first couple of songs are good old rock and roll, but then this shit starts happening. Yoko Ono is scarred for life, like my poor ears.
I think this is how you say to the world.
I think this is how you say to the world.
chronic
old and in the way
That would be the Live Peace in Toronto album. I remember buying a copy of this new which included a John and Yoko calendar (1969 I think) that's probably worth a fortune today.
"Yoko is a concept by which we measure our pain."
mjp
Founding member
Yoko was an artist, not a singer, and Lennon was an idiot to foist her caterwauling on those who would listen for more than 10 seconds. And what is it with ex-Beatles? McCartney did the same thing (anyone who has heard that tape of Linda McCartney's isolated vocal mic knows what I mean).
Having said that, I admire Yoko for not cashing in on John's legacy, or allowing others to do so. She could make a billion dollars this year just by putting out a slew of products with Lennon's mug on them. But you don't see that kind of exploitation where Lennon is concerned, and you have Yoko to thank for that.
Compared to someone like Rita Marley, and those 500 Marley kids, who are happy to stick Bob's name on everything from an expensive beachfront resort to commercials for maxi-pads. Really. That kind of behavior should put Yoko into perspective, and make you realize that she's done a good thing, despite any "singing" you've had to endure over the years.
Having said that, I admire Yoko for not cashing in on John's legacy, or allowing others to do so. She could make a billion dollars this year just by putting out a slew of products with Lennon's mug on them. But you don't see that kind of exploitation where Lennon is concerned, and you have Yoko to thank for that.
Compared to someone like Rita Marley, and those 500 Marley kids, who are happy to stick Bob's name on everything from an expensive beachfront resort to commercials for maxi-pads. Really. That kind of behavior should put Yoko into perspective, and make you realize that she's done a good thing, despite any "singing" you've had to endure over the years.
Yoko has always been very protective of Lennon's legacy. I'm not sure I'd agree with what I've read about how she treated Juilan. But that's personal, and probably shouldn't be out in the public laundry "” as there's certainly some backstory.
And how many, "great" bands have shitty songs, anyway? Even BUK has shitty poems. So if this was a science experiment, or a showing of love, who gives a fuck?
Yoko has proved more than a few things in her life, and one was her true love for JL by not selling him out. Go Yoko!
As far as Rita Marley, that is just plain wrong. Especially what you wrote on Smog, about her not taking care of people that trusted Bob. A fucking shame.
(Note: I like that caterwauling line -- hmmm.)
And how many, "great" bands have shitty songs, anyway? Even BUK has shitty poems. So if this was a science experiment, or a showing of love, who gives a fuck?
Yoko has proved more than a few things in her life, and one was her true love for JL by not selling him out. Go Yoko!
As far as Rita Marley, that is just plain wrong. Especially what you wrote on Smog, about her not taking care of people that trusted Bob. A fucking shame.
(Note: I like that caterwauling line -- hmmm.)
Last edited by a moderator:
i know, that linda mac tape is brutal - they made good use of it on howard stern. her singing taints alot of wings stuff for me and i always admired lennon for having the good sense to not have yoko sing much on his tunes. rest her soul, but linda made for a bad singer.
I was at that concert of the Dead that MJP was at and let me tell you that was the best tuning up I have ever heard, every string being twisted was like a thousand peace vibrations resonating through every pore of our existence. And you were there for the best part! You're lucky you weren't there for the actual songs, if you want to call taking "I've Been Working On the Railroad," and playing it for 47 minutes a song. I could hardly play my tambourine and do my fairy dance I was so excited when they started tuning up. And people like to bring up how us Deadheads are on drugs but how else were we going to stand this music?
By the way I was there with Buk's dad and he said he hated it and preferred the Lennon Sisters (no relation to John).
By the way I was there with Buk's dad and he said he hated it and preferred the Lennon Sisters (no relation to John).
I first heard the Beatles on the radio in 1963 and on that day my life changed forever. I loved the Stones too in London in the late sixties and seventies. But the Stones were like good mates, the Beatles were my brothers.
Thus sayeth the Lord.
Chronic, that is so funny, and so true. Cop a load of this:
[This video is unavailable.]
- the lads in drag looking like Monty Python mums. 'What a drag it is getting old.' 'Well, they didn't play that at Glastonbury,' said my wife. And you can see why. But still, they are dear boys. On the night my wife and I met, which is now just over 38 years ago, in North London, during a heatwave, we danced all night to the Stones and I stole a rose for her from someone's front garden. Happy days.
[This video is unavailable.]
- the lads in drag looking like Monty Python mums. 'What a drag it is getting old.' 'Well, they didn't play that at Glastonbury,' said my wife. And you can see why. But still, they are dear boys. On the night my wife and I met, which is now just over 38 years ago, in North London, during a heatwave, we danced all night to the Stones and I stole a rose for her from someone's front garden. Happy days.
mjp
Founding member
The Rolling Stones are an easy target, as are most of those geriatric 60s and 70s rockers who are still out there hitting the stage and cashing the check. It's a nostalgia show. The problem is, if you're 20 or 30 years old and you go see the Rolling Stones, Aerosmith, Alice, Ozzy, Iggy, et al, you are seeing an approximation of what made them noteworthy in the first place, a lifelike recreation, and that's what makes the whole thing more than a little sad.
I'm not saying that rock and roll is for the young, blah blah blah, but these rich old men regurgitating the same set they played in 1984 are a joke. The only people from the 60s I'd pay to see today are Bob Dylan or Neil Young, those type of guys who still stir shit up. Still try to create. The Rolling Stones haven't written a good song in 30 years. They haven't had to so they haven't tried to. They don't want to upset their investors.
As far as most other kinds of music are concerned, the older the performers get, the better they get. Jazz, reggae, country, blues - most of those guys will kick your ass harder when they are 60 than they could when they were 30. Because they just gain skill and strength the longer they play. The more skilled you get at playing rock and roll, the less interesting it is. Rock and roll isn't supposed to be a demonstration of chops, it's supposed to be an animalistic cage match for wound up teenagers.
Back in my mid-30s, when I was actively playing jazz gigs, I had a few opportunities to play with some guys who were in their 60s and 70s. It was mind-blowing how fresh and original their playing was. As long as I knew the material, it was almost effortless playing with them. Their energy, drive, and originality literally lifted my feet off the floor. After 50-odd years of playing, they had essentially evolved into creative masters, and yet they were virtually unknown outside of their jazz circle. I wish I'd had more of those experiences, but the few I had are among the greatest moments of my life.
What else are you supposed to do if you love music and people want to hear you as much as you want to play?
Keith Mick Ronnie and Charlie have all done solo projects that show they still yearn to create and could without the others.
They went through the fire and are still here-thats fucking great and the entire circle of 60's musicians have a bond that should be celebrated-is it the best way?? Who knows really since being an artist in the 60's now being 60+ is a new thing with no history.
Does it seem crass and overtly nostalgic at time perhaps but never to me. I watch Keith- the Stones and the members of the DEAD (and others)and enjoy every second knowing the planet will be a little less when each one passes. To me thats why Neil still plays with CSNY. To keep that Hippie Dream alive!
Keith Mick Ronnie and Charlie have all done solo projects that show they still yearn to create and could without the others.
They went through the fire and are still here-thats fucking great and the entire circle of 60's musicians have a bond that should be celebrated-is it the best way?? Who knows really since being an artist in the 60's now being 60+ is a new thing with no history.
Does it seem crass and overtly nostalgic at time perhaps but never to me. I watch Keith- the Stones and the members of the DEAD (and others)and enjoy every second knowing the planet will be a little less when each one passes. To me thats why Neil still plays with CSNY. To keep that Hippie Dream alive!
mjp
Founding member
Well, okay, but I wasn't talking about artists and musicians, I was talking about rock and roll and what it is. Two different things.
The Rolling Stones don't continue to tour because they love doing it (I guarantee you they do not), they continue to tour because they are financially obligated to each other and to ROLLING STONES INC., and frankly, if someone drags a steamer trunk full of hundred dollar bills into the room and says, "Just go tour for a couple months and you can have this," most people are going to say, "Wait right here, I'll go pack!"
You don't have to take my word for it, a lot of those guys have said they only tour out of obligation to the hundreds of people whose livelihood depends on them. I've read interviews with Pete Townsend and Keith Richards where they say that quite directly and without apology. And there's no shame in that. But call it what it is - it's an industry, it isn't rock and roll. It's entertainment, like Cats on Broadway or Bugs Bunny at the Symphony at the Hollywood Bowl.
The Rolling Stones don't continue to tour because they love doing it (I guarantee you they do not), they continue to tour because they are financially obligated to each other and to ROLLING STONES INC., and frankly, if someone drags a steamer trunk full of hundred dollar bills into the room and says, "Just go tour for a couple months and you can have this," most people are going to say, "Wait right here, I'll go pack!"
You don't have to take my word for it, a lot of those guys have said they only tour out of obligation to the hundreds of people whose livelihood depends on them. I've read interviews with Pete Townsend and Keith Richards where they say that quite directly and without apology. And there's no shame in that. But call it what it is - it's an industry, it isn't rock and roll. It's entertainment, like Cats on Broadway or Bugs Bunny at the Symphony at the Hollywood Bowl.
Interesting though that the Stones still (or until recently)
played some gigs at clubs as well as the stadia shows. I've never seen them live and probably never will but those small
shows must be amazing.
played some gigs at clubs as well as the stadia shows. I've never seen them live and probably never will but those small
shows must be amazing.
That's pretty much spot on and I love their music (up to about 1974 / Out of Time anyway). I get the feeling that they're obsessed with money (Jagger in particular). I find it pretty distasteful when people go around sowing their wild oats and leaving kids behind that they can't be arsed to look after too. No matter how rich / famous you are and no matter how many women are throwing themselves at you that is still the behaviour of a grade-A cunt in my view.
Skygazer
And in the end...
Oooo! that's harsh, oddly I'm listening to them right now whilst perusing, you cut me deep. If you use that criteria 2/3 of the rock bands would be sucked down a black hole never to be seen again.I agree about them turning it in, it's way past time, no expert Bruno, bit I think he's on pretty good terms with his children, that they have a serial shagger for a dad, well they seem to have accepted it. I agree that men who walk away from their responsibilities as fathers financially and emotionally are cretins.