Quote
superrevvy
can somebody please start a superheavy thread where no keith bashing is allowed?

it brings discredit on superheavy and mick more than it does keith.

Superheavy brings enough discredit to itself by its very existence. Sure don't need no help from IORR.

Quote
Stoneage
Maybe there will be a tour with Super Heavy this spring or summer since Mick has nothing planned, as usual, except to supervise the release of sundry Rolling Stones trumpery? Wouldn't it be nice to actually see the band perform together for once?

Well, it seems like Keith is the reason the Stones can't tour.

Quote
treaclefingers
In actually think you are quite wrong here revvy....Mick stayed ONLY because it was obvious he wasn't going to be able to better solo than with the Rolling Stones brand. That was why he 'toughed it out'. Hard to take a step or two down after all that success. I don't think generally what Keith has done artistically with the stones since about 83 has been worth the trouble, artistically.

Even if I agreed with your assessment of when Keith's important musical
contributions came to a close (which I don't, since I think he was mostly great
right up to and including the Bigger Bang album), but even if I did agree with
you, Keith's very existence on the world stage was, as of 2007, more
powerful artistically than the guitar stylings of whatever virtuoso you would
have preferred Mick to be working with...

There's a lot of people on this board, including you, Treacle, I think, that
measure the Stones' art primarily by their music. Whereas I measure it
primarily by their BEING, as performance artists, as provocateurs, as
imprinters upon world consciousness.

That said, I still love virtually all of Keith's music, right up through Bang.

So that's why I don't worry so much about how well Keith is or isn't playing.
Or even composing, at this point. And why I do worry so much about Keith's
BEING, his health, etc, and whether he's up to taking his rightful place
yet again on the world stage. If there's no part for him to play anymore
on the world stage, or if playing his part would further endanger his health,
then I think probably he shouldn't.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-14 22:12 by superrevvy.

Quote
superrevvy

Quote
treaclefingers
In actually think you are quite wrong here revvy....Mick stayed ONLY because it was obvious he wasn't going to be able to better solo than with the Rolling Stones brand. That was why he 'toughed it out'. Hard to take a step or two down after all that success. I don't think generally what Keith has done artistically with the stones since about 83 has been worth the trouble, artistically.

Even if I agreed with your assessment of when Keith's important musical
contributions came to a close (which I don't, since I think he was mostly great
right up to and including the Bigger Bang album), but even if I did agree with
you, Keith's very existence on the world stage was, as of 2007, more
powerful artistically than the guitar stylings of whatever virtuoso you would
have preferred Mick to be working with...

There's a lot of people on this board, including you, Treacle, I think, that
measure the Stones' art primarily by their music. Whereas I measure it
primarily by their BEING, as performance artists, as provocateurs, as
imprinters upon world consciousness.

That said, I still love virtually all of Keith's music, right up through Bang.

So that's why I don't worry so much about how well Keith is or isn't playing.
Or even composing, at this point. And why I do worry so much about Keith's
BEING, his health, etc, and whether he's up to taking his rightful place
yet again on the world stage. If there's no part for him to play anymore
on the world stage, or if playing his part would further endanger his health,
then I think probably he shouldn't.

But it doesn't really matter what you or I think of Keith artistically in the lat 20+ years...your point was that Mick 'chose' to continue with Keith because of the artistry...at least that is what you said. My argument is that after Undercover, MJ saw the artistry part of the Rolling Stones and Keith, as mostly over.

That explains the mammoth tours, few albums, and not playing many of the new songs on said albums. I don't mind that we differ on this, I just happen to think you're wrong on this point.

Quote
treaclefingers

But it doesn't really matter what you or I think of Keith artistically in the lat 20+ years...your point was that Mick 'chose' to continue with Keith because of the artistry...at least that is what you said. My argument is that after Undercover, MJ saw the artistry part of the Rolling Stones and Keith, as mostly over.

That explains the mammoth tours, few albums, and not playing many of the new songs on said albums. I don't mind that we differ on this, I just happen to think you're wrong on this point.

As i tried to explain, you define "artistry" differently than i do. You
think music in and of itself matters a lot. Whereas I don't think it matters
very much at all.

By my definition (and mick's), keith was still a great artist as of 2007. And
that is why mick kept working with him all these years. Because the strongest
art possible at the time for anyone was mammoth tours and mammoth
merchandising etc. Not little perfect ignored albums.

get it? the mammoth tours and mammoth prices and mammoth hype and greatest
hits were the art that defined their times. If the stones would have
done what their hardcore fans wanted, to care a lot about their new music
and play it no matter what, they would have long since been extinct.
Instead they triumphed.

The fact is that post-1983, until very recently in my opinion, no pop
music has mattered very much at all. but mammoth tours have mattered.
and the stones were the best at doing them. and couldnt have done them
without keith being an immortal badass. and halfway-decent sometimes-magical
guitar slinger.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-14 22:55 by superrevvy.

so now that we're all on the same page artistically, these then are the questions:

1) Can Keith still be an immortal badass and halfway-decent sometimes magical
guitar slinger?

2) If he can, can he do it without taking so many prescription drugs that his
life is in imminent peril?

3) If he can, are mammoth tours essentially over anyway, both in terms of societal
impact and financial potential?

4) And if he can't, does it make any kind of artistic sense whatsoever to take a
fundamentally diminished Keith on the road as a part of a fundamentally
diminished show? Would that really be a fitting ending for this jubilee drama?

Quote
superrevvy

Quote
treaclefingers

But it doesn't really matter what you or I think of Keith artistically in the lat 20+ years...your point was that Mick 'chose' to continue with Keith because of the artistry...at least that is what you said. My argument is that after Undercover, MJ saw the artistry part of the Rolling Stones and Keith, as mostly over.

That explains the mammoth tours, few albums, and not playing many of the new songs on said albums. I don't mind that we differ on this, I just happen to think you're wrong on this point.

As i tried to explain, you define "artistry" differently than i do. You
think music in and of itself matters a lot. Whereas I don't think it matters
very much at all.

By my definition (and mick's), keith was still a great artist as of 2007. And
that is why mick kept working with him all these years. Because the strongest
art possible at the time for anyone was mammoth tours and mammoth
merchandising etc. Not little perfect ignored albums.

get it? the mammoth tours and mammoth prices and mammoth hype and greatest
hits were the art that defined their times. If the stones would have
done what their hardcore fans wanted, to care a lot about their new music
and play it no matter what, they would have long since been extinct.
Instead they triumphed.

The fact is that post-1983, until very recently in my opinion, no pop
music has mattered very much at all. but mammoth tours have mattered.
and the stones were the best at doing them. and couldnt have done them
without keith being an immortal badass. and halfway-decent sometimes-magical
guitar slinger.

I will agree with you, your definition of artistry is completely different from mine.

I will disagree with you on most of the rest...pop music has been very prominent and mattered since '83, whether you or I personally liked it or not. I don't define a mega tour as artistic...maybe you are thinking from a marketing perspective, the 'branding' of the Stones as 'bigger than life' has been artistic? I would just call it damn good marketing.

michael jackson and madonna have defined pop music since 1983, until (again)
very recently in my opinion.

part of that definition is that the MUSIC part mattered very much less than the POP
part. you don't disagree with that. nobody disagrees with that.

but what mattered most in financial terms (and therefore artistic terms) were
mega tours. which the stones did better than even madonna or michael jackson,
whose rule over radio never extended to live shows, thanks to the stones.

don't get me wrong. plenty of good art gets made that does not have great
financial success. but it simply doesn't matter, societally.

unless or until some massively successful artist adopts it and adapts it.
robert johnson and muddy waters only matter, societally, because of pop acts
like the rolling stones. otherwise they'd be mere footnotes.

success, success, success, does it matter? uh-huh.

let me try to clarify one more thing...

just as we disagree about what "art" is, we also disagree about what "matters"
means.

yes, the michael jackson madonna pop music of the last thirty years matters very
much in financial terms. but in my opinion the way it matters is in a very specific
way, in that it served to diminish rather than expand popular consciousness.

unlike the stones, who have always served the opposite function.

Quote
superrevvy
let me try to clarify one more thing...

just as we disagree about what "art" is, we also disagree about what "matters"
means.

yes, the michael jackson madonna pop music of the last thirty years matters very
much in financial terms. but in my opinion the way it matters is in a very specific
way, in that it served to diminish rather than expand popular consciousness.

unlike the stones, who have always served the opposite function.

I'll have to dust off my copies of It's Only Rock and Roll, Emotional Rescue, Dirty Work, Steel Wheels, Voodoo Lounge, Bridges to Babylon, ABB in that case...wasn't aware that popular consciousness was being expanding on these albums!

Quote
superrevvy
michael jackson and madonna have defined pop music since 1983, until (again)
very recently in my opinion.

part of that definition is that the MUSIC part mattered very much less than the POP
part. you don't disagree with that. nobody disagrees with that.

but what mattered most in financial terms (and therefore artistic terms) were
mega tours. which the stones did better than even madonna or michael jackson,
whose rule over radio never extended to live shows, thanks to the stones.

don't get me wrong. plenty of good art gets made that does not have great
financial success. but it simply doesn't matter, societally.

unless or until some massively successful artist adopts it and adapts it.
robert johnson and muddy waters only matter, societally, because of pop acts
like the rolling stones. otherwise they'd be mere footnotes.

success, success, success, does it matter? uh-huh.

Well, on that basis U2 is much 'better' and 'matters' much more than the stones, or the beatles, or anyone else. Be interesting to hear your take on the next Justin Bieber album as outsells anything the stones have every put out (never mind the youtube views).

I think you get where I'm going. I think your position gets increasingly hard to defend.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-15 01:48 by treaclefingers.

Treacle, you seem determined to distort and misinterpret what I say, in order
to win the argument in your own mind.

So let me try to come at this another way...

The most successful acts in the world have a significant degree of sway,
over culture and consciousness. Think of them as representing y'all, the
music consuming public.

So let's say your only choices to represent your sense of music on that grand
scale, your sense of style, and your sense of fun, your values, etc are michael
jackson, U2, madonna, Bruce, and the Stones. I pick the Stones by a mile, even
post 1983, to represent me.

As I've said numerous times in my posts to you, it is the Stones touring success
that matters post 1983, not the albums you listed (even though I think every one
of those albums are great).

So try to follow this logical train of thought, without falling off this time.
You don't have to agree with me, (because obviously you prefer commercially
unsuccessful Stones as long as they do what you want them to do, whereas I prefer
commercially successful Stones even if they don't do what I want them to
do), but you really should acknowledge the coherence of my position, instead
of fantasizing some logical flaws which do not exist.

1) Success matters, always. You are empowered and space is created for you
societally by the success of those who share your values and aesthetics and
sense of fun.

2) I did not feel adequately represented on the world stage by Michael Jackson,
U2, Bruce, or Madonna. I did feel adequately represented on the world stage
by Mick and Keith. I loved every minute of their hugely successful tours.
It was personally important to me that they who shared my values have massive
success. It was not important to me that they play personal favorites of mine
like "parachute woman" or "pretty beat up".

So for the 88th time, fer chrisakes i KNOW you look at the world differently
than me. You like what you like and could give a flying fcuk about what
the world likes.

For me, I care very much about what the world likes. And it is, sadly, fairly
rare that what the world likes is the same as what I like. So for me it was
a powerful pleasure to see the world vote big in favor of the Steel
Wheels, Voodoo Lounge, Bridges to Babylon, No Security, Licks, and Bigger
Bang tours. Even if the music, isolated in your head, was not as great as
some previous music. For me, the music was usually plenty good enough for
me to still get my rocks off, and when you coupled that with immense worldwide
success, what more could I ask for?

Nothing.

For me, it was the best of all possible worlds.

So I've had about twenty years of intense pleasure out of the Stones 1987-2007
while you've had twenty years of intense displeasure. But still somehow you
think your brain is working better than mine. Fine. I'll happily live with
my disfunction.





Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-15 11:03 by superrevvy.

Quote
superrevvy
Treacle, you seem determined to distort and misinterpret what I say, in order
to win the argument in your own mind.

So let me try to come at this another way...

The most successful acts in the world have a significant degree of sway,
over culture and consciousness. Think of them as representing y'all, the
music consuming public.

So let's say your only choices to represent your sense of music on that grand
scale, your sense of style, and your sense of fun, your values, etc are michael
jackson, U2, madonna, Bruce, and the Stones. I pick the Stones by a mile, even
post 1983, to represent me.

As I've said numerous times in my posts to you, it is the Stones touring success
that matters post 1983, not the albums you listed (even though I think every one
of those albums are great).

So try to follow this logical train of thought, without falling off this time.
You don't have to agree with me, (because obviously you prefer commercially
unsuccessful Stones as long as they do what you want them to do, whereas I prefer
commercially successful Stones even if they don't do what I want them to
do), but you really should acknowledge the coherence of my position, instead
of fantasizing some logical flaws which do not exist.

1) Success matters, always. You are empowered and space is created for you
societally by the success of those who share your values and aesthetics and
sense of fun.

2) I did not feel adequately represented on the world stage by Michael Jackson,
U2, Bruce, or Madonna. I did feel adequately represented on the world stage
by Mick and Keith. I loved every minute of their hugely successful tours.
It was personally important to me that they who shared my values have massive
success. It was not important to me that they play personal favorites of mine
like "parachute woman" or "pretty beat up".

So for the 88th time, fer chrisakes i KNOW you look at the world differently
than me. You like what you like and could give a flying fcuk about what
the world likes.

For me, I care very much about what the world likes. And it is, sadly, fairly
rare that what the world likes is the same as what I like. So for me it was
a powerful pleasure to see the world vote big in favor of the Steel
Wheels, Voodoo Lounge, Bridges to Babylon, No Security, Licks, and Bigger
Bang tours. Even if the music, isolated in your head, was not as great as
some previous music. For me, the music was usually plenty good enough for
me to still get my rocks off, and when you coupled that with immense worldwide
success, what more could I ask for?

Nothing.

For me, it was the best of all possible worlds.

So I've had about twenty years of intense pleasure out of the Stones 1987-2007
while you've had twenty years of intense displeasure. But still somehow you
think your brain is working better than mine. Fine. I'll happily live with
my disfunction.

You win.

I cannot spend the time necessary to review your treatise.

Good strategy on your part though...if you can't convince'em the first time, just keep blathering on until they throw in the towel!

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-15 18:07 by Max'sKansasCity.

Quote
Roscoe

Quote
superrevvy
can somebody please start a superheavy thread where no keith bashing is allowed?

it brings discredit on superheavy and mick more than it does keith.

Superheavy brings enough discredit to itself by its very existence. Sure don't need no help from IORR.

You really think its that bad. Do you like reggae or different genres of music. I would have not wanted Mick to do a solo rock album. Some people seem to phrase Mick's wondering spirit cause it sounds the most like a Stones album. But some people here like to bash whatever Mick does on his own. Or just like to post make comments like yours without saying anything thoughtful

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
superrevvy

You win.

I cannot spend the time necessary to review your treatise.

Good strategy on your part though...if you can't convince'em the first time, just keep blathering on until they throw in the towel!

Okay, just for you, I'll repeat the part even a moron could understand
(not that you're a moron):

I've had about twenty years of intense pleasure out of the Stones huge
success 1987-2007 while you've had twenty years of intense displeasure.
But still somehow you think your brain is working better than mine. Fine.
I'll happily live with my disfunction.

Quote
superrevvy

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
superrevvy

You win.

I cannot spend the time necessary to review your treatise.

Good strategy on your part though...if you can't convince'em the first time, just keep blathering on until they throw in the towel!

Okay, just for you, I'll repeat the part even a moron could understand
(not that you're a moron):

I've had about twenty years of intense pleasure out of the Stones huge
success 1987-2007 while you've had twenty years of intense displeasure.
But still somehow you think your brain is working better than mine. Fine.
I'll happily live with my disfunction.

I don't know why I've 'angered you' here...you're attempting to expand the argument to include things we hadn't originally discussed, presumably because of your inability to make your point coherent. That isn't my fault.

Who said I've had 'intense displeasure'? Wasn't me. All I've questioned was your assertion that Mick has stayed with Keith because of the artistry. When I questioned that logic by giving you musical examples, you expanded your definition of 'artistry' to include the megatours and marketing. You further said their has been no artistry in music in the last 30 years. I can't even remember whether or not you've backtracked on that.

Perhaps there is an 'art' to marketing, but I don't think you can describe the big tours and the money machine as particularly artistic.

I just think you've dug yourself into a bit of a hole here, and are getting caustic by calling me a moron (which incidentally is like throwing in the towel on your argument).

Don't worry, I'm not judging you, just your logic.

What is this? Another sticky icky love fest?

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
What is this? Another sticky icky love fest?

Too much treacle will do that to ya! Unfortunately, this one appears to have gotten away from me!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-16 00:40 by treaclefingers.

Quote
treaclefingers


I don't know why I've 'angered you' here...you're attempting to expand the argument to include things we hadn't originally discussed, presumably because of your inability to make your point coherent. That isn't my fault.

Who said I've had 'intense displeasure'? Wasn't me. All I've questioned was your assertion that Mick has stayed with Keith because of the artistry. When I questioned that logic by giving you musical examples, you expanded your definition of 'artistry' to include the megatours and marketing. You further said their has been no artistry in music in the last 30 years. I can't even remember whether or not you've backtracked on that.

Perhaps there is an 'art' to marketing, but I don't think you can describe the big tours and the money machine as particularly artistic.

I just think you've dug yourself into a bit of a hole here, and are getting caustic by calling me a moron (which incidentally is like throwing in the towel on your argument).

Don't worry, I'm not judging you, just your logic.

Right back at you on everything you just said. i didnt use the word moron until
you used the word blather. i didnt bail out on a logical argument, you did.
because you didnt have time, poor baby.

youre the one who has used strawmen over and over and over again.

you make up things that you think i've said and then argue against them, instead
of what i actually said.

proof of your lack of reading skills is in the bold letters above, because that
is EXACTLY what i have been saying the whole time, that the mega tours were
great great GREAT art.

so the main thing i've articulated and explained the whole time, you think
hasnt been addressed. you got a problem.

Treacle has put me in mind of something I keep forgetting to post.

SuperRevvy's Simplified Mental Illness Test (SRSMIT).

Here's how it goes. You take a piece of paper and headline three columns as follows:

***Art/Music I really like but I know isn't that good***Art/Music that's really good but I don't like***Art/Music that I love to death***




Now some people will have trouble thinking of very many things to write down,
particularly in columns one and two. Whereas for others like me, the lists will
go on for miles.

The saner you are, the longer your lists will be.

This has been SuperRevvy's Simplified Mental Illness Test (SRSMIT).

You're welcome.

Quote
superrevvy

Quote
treaclefingers


I don't know why I've 'angered you' here...you're attempting to expand the argument to include things we hadn't originally discussed, presumably because of your inability to make your point coherent. That isn't my fault.

Who said I've had 'intense displeasure'? Wasn't me. All I've questioned was your assertion that Mick has stayed with Keith because of the artistry. When I questioned that logic by giving you musical examples, you expanded your definition of 'artistry' to include the megatours and marketing. You further said their has been no artistry in music in the last 30 years. I can't even remember whether or not you've backtracked on that.

Perhaps there is an 'art' to marketing, but I don't think you can describe the big tours and the money machine as particularly artistic.

I just think you've dug yourself into a bit of a hole here, and are getting caustic by calling me a moron (which incidentally is like throwing in the towel on your argument).

Don't worry, I'm not judging you, just your logic.

Right back at you on everything you just said. i didnt use the word moron until
you used the word blather. i didnt bail out on a logical argument, you did.
because you didnt have time, poor baby.

youre the one who has used strawmen over and over and over again.

you make up things that you think i've said and then argue against them, instead
of what i actually said.

proof of your lack of reading skills is in the bold letters above, because that
is EXACTLY what i have been saying the whole time, that the mega tours were
great great GREAT art.

so the main thing i've articulated and explained the whole time, you think
hasnt been addressed. you got a problem.

I think we should just end this argument because I'm finding it boring, as is probably anyone who is having the misfortune of reading it...there is in fact, far too much 'blathering' taking place. As for the section I've bolded, I don't know why you're not understanding that I actually do understand that is your point. I just disagree with it fundamentally. To each his own.

Not sure how my commending you on another thread for 'calling out' the posters 'strawman argument' would infuriate you. I was on 'your side' on that one.

You're taking this a little personally and becoming way too personal in your attacks...please don't. Let's just drop this now.

that's a good test.

cake cake cake.

Quote
treaclefingers

Not sure how my commending you on another thread for 'calling out' the posters 'strawman argument' would infuriate you. I was on 'your side' on that one.

That's what I thought you intended treaclefingers, when I first read it.

sheesh....

Must be a full moon someplace.... back to Superheavy....

Quote
GetYerAngie

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
proudmary
Mick Jagger's SuperHeavy should not be written off just yet

[www.telegraph.co.uk]

From the article:
This, frankly, is a little unfair. A devil’s advocate might contest that Richards’s inflexibility, and refusal to try different things, has held the Stones back in their comfort zone, and prevented them from moving with the times.
Exactly.

Great quote - and article.

Regardless of the merits of Superheavy one way or another, I think this point above is on target. Jagger complained not long after Undercover that the Stones had basically become "just" a "hard rock" band.

Kieth is in ascendancy (if not creatively), in a sense. No longer junked out. Ronnie reduced to a shadow of Keith in his playing. The sidemen no longer impact players - no Nicky Hopkins or Billy Preston. No Brian Jones or Mick Taylor to triangulate. No one really to replace the influence of Jimmy Miller as a producer.

In the meantime despite a few words to the contrary from Keith, at other times he makes clear he is suspicious of Jagger's choices - "Miss You" and "Emotional Rescue" as singles. Keith tells the story of how peeved he was at Jagger for putting together Tattoo You, that he claims the name came about as possibly being "tattoo us", but he insists on Tattoo YOU because Jagger did it more or less by himself.

We can guess Keith is probably also suspicious of "Undercover"s (the song) trendy sound, and ultimately probably "Anyone seen my Baby" later on.

For his part, Jagger disparages his own lyrics for "Love is Strong" - its probably a reflection of just how inspired he is at "finishing off" many of Keith's "bits and pieces".

who gives a shit what or who he's singing with...at least he's not doing a reality show....be thankful.

Quote
Rip This
who gives a shit what or who he's singing with...at least he's not doing a reality show....be thankful.

Maybe we could get Bill Wyman or Ronnie Wood on Celebrity Apprentice. Although Keith is the one that lives in New York, so.....

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
treaclefingers

Not sure how my commending you on another thread for 'calling out' the posters 'strawman argument' would infuriate you. I was on 'your side' on that one.

That's what I thought you intended treaclefingers, when I first read it.

sheesh....

Must be a full moon someplace.... back to Superheavy....

Thanks SweetThing, I appreciate that.

I actually like superevvy but I think the sideways move on this thread got the best of us.

You are correct, back to SuperHeavy.

not particularly superheavy, but surprisingly hard rocking! sir paul with
dave stewart, apparently from 2004:

Damian Marley's song of the week is a new one by Damian Marley featuring
Mr. Cheeks, "Paradise Child"

[soundcloud.com]

SupaRevy's superheavyish song of the week is an old one by Jay-Z, featuring
Kanye West and Rihanna, "Run This Town"