Showing posts with label suck. Show all posts
Showing posts with label suck. Show all posts
Saturday, April 1, 2017
Sunday, October 11, 2015
Gimme Shelter
Charlie looks like he cares, in an arthritic robotic kind of way. Ronnie looks like he cares, but no one cares what Ronnie thinks. Mick looks like Mick, except during the final verse and chrous, where perhaps spurred on by Lisa Fischer (doing an amazing job taking the place originated by Merry Clayton), he seems to care.
But Keith, ah Keef...as usual he has the mistaken impression that being a multi-millionaire not giving a fuck that he's fleecing people out of of their hard earneed money (freely given) to trade on his long since pissed away if once upon a time deserved reputation is cool. It's not. What's cool is having more money than the GDP of Maldives, being able to afford not caring...and caring anyway.
Just dig that amazing ending. My goodness. Spine-chilling. I mean, really, guys, you couldn't have been arsed to run through how to end that song beforehand? Better to just have it sputter to a a halt pathetically?
And the thing is, maybe you should know it's all coming from the very beginning, when the music starts and it sounds good—and none of the Stones themselves are actually playing yet, instead indulging in an oh so convincing group hug, sans instruments. Maybe they were tabulating how much they were grossing per measure.
"World's greatest rock and roll band™." Please.
But Keith, ah Keef...as usual he has the mistaken impression that being a multi-millionaire not giving a fuck that he's fleecing people out of of their hard earneed money (freely given) to trade on his long since pissed away if once upon a time deserved reputation is cool. It's not. What's cool is having more money than the GDP of Maldives, being able to afford not caring...and caring anyway.
Just dig that amazing ending. My goodness. Spine-chilling. I mean, really, guys, you couldn't have been arsed to run through how to end that song beforehand? Better to just have it sputter to a a halt pathetically?
And the thing is, maybe you should know it's all coming from the very beginning, when the music starts and it sounds good—and none of the Stones themselves are actually playing yet, instead indulging in an oh so convincing group hug, sans instruments. Maybe they were tabulating how much they were grossing per measure.
"World's greatest rock and roll band™." Please.
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
Shattered
Our periodic public service reminder: the Rolling Stones suck live. They suck. Suck suck suckety suck. The most overrated live band ever, by a factor of roughly one trillion. They suck.
See? This was an ideal setting for them, and they still blew. If you caught them in your local bar on a Thursday night, you'd be annoyed and assume they were the bar owner's cousins or he owed them money or something.
Suck suck suckety suck.
See? This was an ideal setting for them, and they still blew. If you caught them in your local bar on a Thursday night, you'd be annoyed and assume they were the bar owner's cousins or he owed them money or something.
Suck suck suckety suck.
Monday, February 23, 2015
Jumpin' Jack Flash
The great Dangerous Minds recently posted this live rendition of "Jumpin' Jack Flash" by the Rolling Stones, complete with the transcript of Mick Jagger's revised lyrics:
Yeah, that looks pretty accurate.
I have a friend with absolutely outstanding musical taste—no surprise, really, given that our taste in music overlaps heavily (if not perfectly: he actively dislikes virtually all Bruce Springsteen's music, even as he thinks the guy himself seems pretty cool if more than a little overhyped). But the thing that really seems to baffle my pal is why I think the Stones suck so badly live. I don't really understand why he doesn't get it—I don't understand why anyone with working ears would ever claim they were even good live, much less great, when to my ears it's simply undeniable that they suck suck suckety suck live —but because I am by nature a people pleaser, I shall explain.
Simply compare and contrast that live version up there with this, the original recording:
That's why.
The live version wouldn't even get an honorable mention at a junior high talent show—more likely they'd get the hook. The original version, on the other hand, has never been bettered in the history of recorded pop music—not by Elvis, not by the Beatles, not by Dylan, not by Springsteen. The massive gap between the two is where the snark, the disappointment, the anger is created.
“Yah Awa bo anna craw fah huh cay
Anna ho alamo in a try ray
Buh ah ray ah now yeah and fad is a gay
Oh ray now, a jumpin jay flay sa gas gas gah.
Ah wa lay bah a toodleh beedeh hay.
Ah wa sko wid a strap rahda craws ma bah.
Bahda oh ray now en fad is a gay.
Buh oh ray now jumpin jah flah sa da ga ga geh”
Yeah, that looks pretty accurate.
I have a friend with absolutely outstanding musical taste—no surprise, really, given that our taste in music overlaps heavily (if not perfectly: he actively dislikes virtually all Bruce Springsteen's music, even as he thinks the guy himself seems pretty cool if more than a little overhyped). But the thing that really seems to baffle my pal is why I think the Stones suck so badly live. I don't really understand why he doesn't get it—I don't understand why anyone with working ears would ever claim they were even good live, much less great, when to my ears it's simply undeniable that they suck suck suckety suck live —but because I am by nature a people pleaser, I shall explain.
Simply compare and contrast that live version up there with this, the original recording:
That's why.
The live version wouldn't even get an honorable mention at a junior high talent show—more likely they'd get the hook. The original version, on the other hand, has never been bettered in the history of recorded pop music—not by Elvis, not by the Beatles, not by Dylan, not by Springsteen. The massive gap between the two is where the snark, the disappointment, the anger is created.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)