Count Drugcula
-
Posts
181 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Events
Posts posted by Count Drugcula
-
-
The Stones and Led Zeppelin were arguably the two biggest bands at least of the period from the late 60s to around 1977. They were in direct competition each other for the title of biggest band in the world, especially during their respective American tours in the summer of 1972.
According to a book I read, they were actually outselling the Stones live in '72 but the Stones had much better PR and a better relationship with the media (this book claims the media/reviewers pretty much downed Led Zeppelin at almost every step in the first few years) so it seemed like the Stones' tour was the bigger event that summer.
That said, who do you feel was the better live act?
The only tours that should be considered (for sake of fairness) are the Stones' tours between 1969 and 1980; Likewise, only Led Zeppelin's concert career as a full band.
The Rolling Stones Stones:
December 1968 (Rock N' Roll Circus--Last show with Brian Jones)
July 1969 (Hyde Park DVD, first show with Mick Taylor)
November-December 1969 - American Tour 1969 (Altamont that year)
August-October 1970 - European Tour 1970
March 1971 - UK Tour 1971
June-July 1972 - American Tour 1972 (Ladies and Gentlemen: The Rolling Stones)
January-February 1973 - Pacific Tour 1973
September-October 1973 - European Tour 1973 (Brussel's Affair, last shows with Mick Taylor)
May 1975 (NYC 1975 Tour announcement, first show with Ron Wood)
June-August 1975 - Tour of the Americas '75
April-June 1976 - Tour of Europe '76
June-July 1978 - US Tour 1978
Led Zeppelin:
September 1968 - Scandinavian Tour 1968
October–December 1968 - UK Tour 1968
December 1968-February 1969 - North American Tour 1968/1969
March–April 1969 - UK and Scandinavian Tour 1969
April–May 1969 - North American Tour Spring 1969
June 1969 - UK Tour Summer 1969
July–August 1969 - North American Tour Summer 1969
October 1969 - European Tour Autumn 1969
October–December 1969 - North American Tour Autumn 1969
January 1970 - UK Tour 1970 (Captured on the Led Zeppelin DVD)
February–March 1970 - European Tour 1970
March–April 1970 - North American Tour Spring 1970
June–July 1970 - Tour of Iceland, Bath & Germany 1970
August–September 1970 - North American Tour Summer 1970
March–April 1971 - United Kingdom Tour Spring 1971
May–August 1971 - European Tour 1971
August–September 1971 - North American Tour 1971
September 1971 - Japanese Tour 1971
November–December 1971 - United Kingdom Tour Winter 1971
February 1972 - Australasian Tour 1972 (Captured on the Led Zeppelin concert DVD)
May–June 1972 - North American Tour 1972
October 1972 - Japanese Tour 1972
October 1972-January 1973 - UK Tour 1972/1973
March–April 1973 - European Tour 1973
May–July 1973 - North American Tour 1973 (Broke Beatles 1965 Shea Stadium record; Song Remains the Same DVD)
January–March 1975 - North American Tour 1975
May 1975 - Earls Court 1975 (Captured on the Led Zeppelin DVD)
April–July 1977 - North American Tour 1977
August 1979 - Two warm-up concerts in Denmark and Knebworth Festival 1979 (captured on the Led Zeppelin DVD)
June–July 1980 - Tour Over Europe 1980
-
I've read that in the late '70s, a lot of the young rising Punk bands, and their fans, had a LOT of open disdain, even hatred for and attempted to dethrone the then reigning rock bands and artists, especially the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Elton John and Pink Floyd*.
For those who were around in the Punk era, can you say if this was true or not? Was there any animosity between the two scenes?
Also...anyone want to reignite this topic of discussion--Punk vs. Hard Rock? Personally I have to take the side of Hard Rock.
*=Moreblack was right, I got confused.
-
Yes?
that second one counts actually
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4gfh0NdkA4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JybkqBGrVs
Just tryin to prove they had swing when they wanted to. They also had tons of hard rocking songs as well that were as raw as any punk song.
I've been to London, seen seven wonders. I know to trip is just to fall
I used to rock it, sometimes I'd roll it. I always knew what it was for.
There can be no denyin' that the wind 'll shake 'em down
And the flat world's flyin'. There's a new plague on the land
If we could just join hands (X3)
Traversed the planet when heaven sent me. I saw the kings who rule them all
Still by the firelight and purple moonlight. I hear the rested rivers call
And the wind is crying, from a love that won't grow cold
My lover, she is lying, on the dark side of the globe
If we could just join hands (X3)
You got me rockin' when I ought to be a-rollin'
Darlin', tell me, darlin', which way to go
You keep me rockin', baby, then you keep me stolen
Won't you tell me, darlin', which way to go... that's right
Oh how I wonder, oh how I worry and I would dearly like to know
I've all this wonder of earthly plunder will it leave us anything to show
And our time is flyin' see the candle burnin' low
Is the new world rising, from the shambles of the old
If we could just join hands.
-
I don't think its about rivalry, i think they genuinely don't like the music. I can imagine Keith not liking it cuz Keith has never been a big one for heavy shit, he's a swing man and heart and Zep can't swing. Actually thats an unfair assessment i think JPJ and Page could, dunno about Bonzo though. And Pete i can imagine not liking them either, Petes an intellectual, he seems to like stuff that has a certain weight of intellect behind it, either that or just original authentic stuff, neither of which Zep appear to be to me but that being said i don't have a great deal of knowledge about em except having listened to all of their albums at some point or another. In fact i think i own them all somewhere.
-
Keith is jealous of Mick.
He would hit the road solo if he could sing or hold a show together on his own. Look at Jimmy Page, stranded without Plant, should Plant not be singing Zeppelin songs?
The guitarist needs the singer in most cases. Sadly a lot of us feel were not missing anything without Slash, Izzy wasn't that missed, UYI toured just rolled on, quickly replaced.
There are a lot of similarities between what happenned in the Stones and with Guns but the big difference is Mick can never tour as the Stones with a new band without permission of Keef and Charlie, which would never happen as long as Keef is breathing, while Axl owns the Guns name and can do with it as he pleases....
IMHO Keith is not jealous of Mick but rather he was hurt that Mick would go out as a solo artist and perform Stones songs. You have to understand these two were closer than brothers for close to 20 years, starting in 1963, until they had a falling out in the 81-82 timeframe..In Keef's book he talks about how Mick changed over the years and became distant from their friendship which I think still hurts him to this day......Despite Keef's objections Mick has the right to play Stones songs during his solo tours just as any ex-member of Guns N Roses has the right to play Guns songs on their solo tours...
And Keef did actually release two solo albums and did solo tours in the late 80's and early 90's with his band the Expensive Winos. I went to his show at the Boston Orpheum which was actually excellent and he did sing at those shows and was really not that bad. He did some Stones songs but the majority of the Winos setlist was from Keefs solo albums.
He also toured with a band Woody put together, sans Mick, The New Barbarians, in 1979 which was a traveling drunks circus but the shows were very enjoyable.......
I do agree that as long as Axl fronts any incarnation of Guns most casual fans would not notice the difference but there is a large number of old school hardcore Guns fans, many who frequent the forums, who will never accept NuGnR as the real deal but will still support Axl making new music..........
Pretty much. I used to be a really adamant supporter of Axl's vision and thiss band (because I thought there was some grand vision--something that would validate the death of the original band. I really was a true believer in his genius and felt he could pull off the next Led Zeppelin), felt this new band was GN'R but now...
While I do await whatever the new band puts out, the next record, and I will buy it, I just I've just realized that what we call GN'R is just Axl and his boys. Not GN'R in the way that it existed with the old band--not a band. A very talented crew of guys that Axl is sadly wasting the talent (at least until a record comes out with them on it) of.
I guess part of my dissatisfaction stems from Axl's lack of desire to do really anything great with this band, to make it feel like a band and promote them as such, to act consistently and put out records, and the way that it's a revolving door lineup (and as such you can't truly come to love a member if they only stay 3 years) kind of makes me wonder why he wanted to rebuild a "New Guns" if he wasn't going to do anything really momentous with it? I'm an Axl fan (but I wish his music was a little funner in spirit), but I don't see why he needs the GN'R name anymore. He could go solo and I'd still attend.
That isn't to say I'm in Slash's camp, because I'm not a big fan of most of his recent material either to be honest. Nor do I accept Slash's account that the break up all 100% Axl's fault. But what I am coming to terms with is the belief that Axl shouldn't have kept the GN'R name by himself.
-
Keith is jealous of Mick.
He would hit the road solo if he could sing or hold a show together on his own. Look at Jimmy Page, stranded without Plant, should Plant not be singing Zeppelin songs?
The guitarist needs the singer in most cases. Sadly a lot of us feel were not missing anything without Slash, Izzy wasn't that missed, UYI toured just rolled on, quickly replaced.
Keith did hit the road with his own band after Mick did, just to spit in Mick's face. And he was pretty successful, not as successful as the Stones as a collective would be, but successful enough. And Mick's tour did Ok--Meh.
Page had a great thing going with David Coverdale in the early '90s, very highly anticipated, and I forget the details but essentially they fucked it up in the execution. Also, Page was a HIGHLY successful and much in demand session guitarist long before Led Zeppelin came into being.
The guitarist more often than not greatly determines the sound of the band. A singer does too...But a singer can't create the riffs, the solos, the licks, etc--And that's what people look more for in a Rock N' Roll band. Izzy wasn't that missed? Even Axl begged for him to come back. The only reason the Illusion tour rolled on was because they'd have been in the poor house if they cancelled the rest of a two year tour. The UYI tour, IMO, was the main thing that kept Guns from imploding in 1992 as opposed to when they eventually imploded in 1998. The UYI Tour and Gilby being a capable touring replacement is the only thing that kept Guns together for those next few years.
As soon as Guns got off the road from that tour, things quickly began to collapse and the band really in many ways stopped functioning. Axl and Slash couldn't see eye to eye over anything, especially the future of the band, where they should go, what they should do, how they should handle the mid 90s with it's onslaught of post GN'R trends. After Izzy left, there was no glue left to hold Axl and Slash together anymore--nothing to bridge their totally opposite mindsets.
Basically, the UYI tour from '92-'93 was the original GN'R's life support system, even though it didn't seem so at the time.
-
keith who?
apples and oranges. guns n' roses has every right to perform guns n' roses songs. mick strarted a new band. axl kept the band going after captain cancer and the spiders who crawl through your veins abandoned him.
Axl in the legal and realistic sense, though, formed a new band. The name is the same but the workings, partnership, dynamics and legalities of it are not at all the same as Guns N' Roses was from 1985 to 1990/1992--as a team of guys in a band; a gang. A family.
When Guns renegotiated their contract, they created a new legal partnership, which now consisted of Axl, Slash and Duff, in September 1992. In this new contract, Axl had the bit added in which stipulated that if he was ever fired from Guns involuntarily, or if he was to ever quit GN'R, the legal and brand name "Guns N' Roses" would go with him and become his.
Axl sent a letter on August 31st 1995 to Slash and Duff stating in essence effective December 31st 1995 he was quitting Guns N' Roses. His intent was to start a new band called "Guns N' Roses", and a form new legal partnership consisting solely of himself.
Slash and Duff, if they wanted to continue on, could join this new Guns as hirelings on contract. Which they did until they left in 1996 and 1997 respectively. But unlike the 1992 agreement, they were not equal partners in Guns---They now were hired members of a new band and legal entity which happened to share the same name as the original entity.
For all intents and purposes, after 1995, they had been reduced to having the same status in the band as Matt Sorum or Dizzy Reed: Hired Guns operating under the Guns brand name at Axl's beck and call.
But unlike Matt or Dizzy, Slash and Duff had helped create and shape the Guns name, sound, brand, songs, image and legacy, and as such, this idea of a new band being named Guns and their participation in it as hired hands on contract was a giant spit in the face to them and on their integral role in creating Guns in the first place.
-
This little except from Keith's book--about the Stones mid 80s breakup period--was interesting, especially in the way that what Keith says could very easily be applied to Axl's version of Guns post 1998:
"Said Mick, 'The Rolling Stones....cannot be, at my age and and after spending all these years, the only thing in my life....I certainly have earned the right to express myself in another way.' And he did. The way he expressed himself was to go on tour with another band singing Rolling Stones songs.
I really believed Mick wouldn't dare tour without the Stones. It was too hard a slap in the face to deliver to us. It was a death sentence, pending appeal. And for what? But I was wrong and I was outraged and I was hurt. Mick was touring.
So I let him have it, mostly in the press. An opening shot was, if he doesn't want to go out with the Stones and then goes out with Schmuck and Ball's band instead, I'll slit his fucking throat. And then Mick responded loftily, "I love Keith, I admire him...But I don't feel we can really work together anymore." I can't recall all the jibes and barbs I let loose--Disco Boy, Jagger's Little Jerk Off Band, why doesn't he join Aerosmith?--That's the kind of stuff I fed to the grateful tabloids. It got really bad. One day a reporter asked me, "When are you two going to stop bitching at each other?" "Ask the Bitch", I replied.
Then I thought, let the guy have his way. I took it like that. Let him go out there and fall flat on his face. He'd shown a total lack of friendship, of camaraderie, of everything that's necessary to hold a band together. It was a dump. Charlie felt even worse about it then I did, I think.
I saw a clip of Mick's show, and he had a Keef-look alike guitar player stepping in tandem, doing guitar hero moves. When it was on the road, I was asked what I thought, and I said that it was sad that a high percentage of his show was Rolling Stones songs. I said, if you're going to do something on your own, do stuff off the two albums you did. Don't pretend you're a solo artist and have two chicks prancing around doing "Tumbling Dice." The Rolling Stones spent a lot of time building up integrity, as much as you can get in the music industry. And the way Mick handled his solo career jeopardized all that, and it severely pissed me off.
Mick had misjudged something by a hundred miles. He took it for granted that any bunch of good musicians would be as compatible with him as the Rolling Stones. But he didn't sound like himself. He had great players, but it's kind of like the World Cup. England's not Chelsea or Arsenal. It's a different game, and you've got to work with a different team.
Now you've got the best hired hands around and you've got to form a relationship with them. Which is not Mick's forte. He could certainly strut around and have the star on his dressing room door and treat the band like hirelings. But you don't get good music that way."
-
One thing that kind of turns me off about CD is that a lot of the songs, either musically or lyrically, are very negative. There's no real just loose, light hearted fun. It's very epic and grandiose yes, but I think epic and grandiose tracks should be balanced with some lighter hearted stuff. Also, almost all of the lyrics in each song are a variation on the same theme ("Lost love", "someone fucked me over and I'm pissed/bitter", "love"). Where's a track like Bad Apples? Or You Ain't the First? Or You Could Be Mine? I Used to Love Her?
Am I alone in hoping that there's some light heartedness balancing out the darker stuff on the next record?
Like along the lines of:
-
Hey--
I was lookin for some recommendations of some good early-mid 70s (like '70-'76) funk and soul records. Like the kind of stuff that would've been a perfect song on a the soundtrack of a mid '70s blaxploitation film or a gritty NYC 70s thriller.
-
An incredible time for music. Motown, can't fuck with it. Doo Wop tho, good ol' Dion DiMucci and fuckin the del satins, randy and the rainbows, the four seasons...shit, who was it that did that doo wop version of blue moon? that was bangin'. Surf music too is a huge and unappreciated part of that, Jan and Dean etc.
There's an interesting case to be made y'know for that type of music not actually ending after The Beatles, it just got over shadowed by The British Invasion, which messed up the trajectory (in a good way or a bad way i suppose is up to your individual taste) of American popular music somewhat by making it...well...English.
A lot of what ended up being considered a phase or a craze actually, in hindsight were really important sub-genres. There are bands like Count Five and The Misunderstood that are considered to be kinda British Invasion offshoots which is really unfair because its basically Americans doing American music.
I applaud this post. I think a lot of the stuff--ESPECIALLY the love songs--like the one posted above, Angel Baby, have such a raw soul to them. I don't know whether in retrospect the British invasion was so great or not, because a whole culture of basically Americana was just blooming the mid 50s until the British invasion era and all of the English bands just eclipsed what was going on. Both are great in their own way, but I don't think many bands have surpassed the soul of Motown from that era, or the Doo Wop, or the early Rock N' Roll/Rockabilly stuff. Punk--the real punk movement in the 70s-- was the real attempt to bring all of that raw spirit back without any of the glitter or pretenses that came with the British Invasion era bands. Sadly, it too died out too quickly.
Did you know Rock N' Roll was considered a dead/dying, passing trend in 1962? I read this long article I had bought from the NY Times from the beginning of that year discussing how the general consensus was that rock was on it's way out; Radio stations weren't really playing Elvis or Buddy Holly anymore or rock in general and it was considered a brief, weird, teenage fad that had had it's day. All that was big in America in '62 was Doo Wop, Motown, Soul in general, and other stuff like Calypso (which I happen to love) and the like that had itself recently been "exported" to America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6AGBc9Sjmo
"THE conversion of radio stations WINS and WHN to the so-called "good music" format attests to the decline in rock 'n' roll that has been going on for some time. While a softer and more sophisticated form of rock 'n' roll appears likely to become a lasting part of popular music, there is hardly any question that the peak of the fad has passed." -- Excerpt from the article I mentioned, from March '62.
-
-
Anyone else love Doo Wop, like the Four Seasons, the Gladiolas, The Drifters, etc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPoPMXY4Yyo
Personally, I think the whole era from like '54-64 was a great era for music
-
There's a big difference...Elvis was a physical and mental mess in his latter days. He was hooked on a bunch of different kinds of medications and had to be held up at times just to stand and basically shuffled through the last two or three years medicated like a zombie. He gave away his control gradually, and became truly, legitimately dependent on others to just simply get by. Watch his last performances--he was a shadow of himself, and he knew it I think. He went from being a thin, energetic, fun, down to Earth legitimate sex symbol to being a paranoid, obese, agoraphobic and Howard Hughes-esque drug addict whose life consisted of a variety of pills just to get him through the day and a whole HUGE circle of medicine dispensers, yes men, sychopants, revolving doors of such inner circle types.
Axl seems to be OK physically for a man his age, the same as he ever was mentally (except a bit more bitter and a bit more guarded with his feelings and opinions) and as far as anyone knows isn't an addict. He has a small circle of friends and has had the same people in his life--Del, Beta, etc--for over a decade.
I think a better comparison to Elvis' last years is Michael Jackson's last years. They took a very similar course.
-
I don't get it. People are saying she's ugly, she should kill herself...But she's a 13 year old girl. I'm sure the girl reads the stuff, and idk...people, especially girls, are vulnerable to that kind of crap at that age. I don't see what she did that was so offensive that people want her to ''slit her wrists''. I mean come on.
And a 13 year old no less. I could see if we were talking about an adult woman, perhaps, but this kid is just that--a kid. Barely a teenager.
-
I'd kinda like to see him with the hair he has now tied back in a ponytail.
Some men can't rock ponytails well, but I think Axl could.
-
Which do you prefer on Axl?
-
I sort of agree that GNR isn't a psychedelic band. Catcher is the only song, or maybe Sorry, that has that vibe. Plant sang about Hobbits n shit and some of the Stones kind of voodoo. GNR are more real than that, a brutal band for brutal times? I guess you could say Brownstone is their Tumbling Dice and Nov Rain is like Stairway. I don't think Jagger has written a song as deep as Estranged or Catcher, neither has Plant, he just read Lord of the Rings. It would be awesome if Guns did a song about Han Solo or Darth Vader.
The Rain Song is a deep song by Plant.
All of My Love as well.
Carouselambra too.
No Quarter
Waiting on a Friend by Mick
Plundered My Soul by Mick
Sympathy for the Devil
As Tears Go By
All deep
-
At 0:02 to 0:04 in the commercial, Slash's playing the opening riff from For the Love of Money:
-
We'll just have to agree to disagree then.
I just checked the lyrics for all 3 songs you just listed. What if perhaps some of the subtlety is eluding you?
If it's eluding me, then it's too subtle.
-
What in the fuck are you talking about? No i mean... really... what teh fuck are you talking about?
Quite frankly, I think you've expressed an opinion. And one poorly backed up by broad, sweeping, vague generalizations with little merit. Nice stealth cupcake though.
Three examples:
Estranged
November Rain
Coma
Great songs but the lyrics are a little too direct. Like, we know what exactly he's trying to tell us, and it drags on a bit, cause we get the message.
A song like Stairway to Heaven is a long song, but the lyrics aren't the best direct, straight forward, you can really read anything you want into it. I think Axl takes himself/music/his lyrics way too seriously.
He's never written anything as sublime or just...natural...as like, Tumblin' Dice.
-
Anything Goes
This was played back in the club days, as well as Shadow of your Love.
Really? Wow, wished I would have see that live. That song rocks!
Have GNR ever done One in a Million live? I know some of the lyrics are offensive, but I really love the chorus of this song.
Anything Goes performed with the Hollywood Rose arrangement.
I'd love to hear what Bumble could do with some of the main licks and especially the solo.
k this is a totally different song from the song on Appettite for Destruction. Did Axl re-write the lyrics or did he write 2 different songs with the same title?
Yeah, One in a Million was played live at the CBGB's gig in 88/89.
It was played somewhere else too. Only played twice in their whole career.
I think it was kinda ballsy to play it in public.
-
After reading the lyrics of people like Dylan, Jagger/Richards, Page/Plant, etc etc, I gotta ask:
Does anyone else think that Axl's lyrics (for the most part) are a little too direct? That they lack that metaphorical spirit that colors a lot of the songs by Jagger/Richards, Page/Plant, etc? I just feel at times that his lyrics like hammer you over the head with the message intended, that it's too direct, and he says in a ten minute song what another lyricists could say in a five minute song.
I always hated Cobain and the like, but as I write more of my own stuff, I've kind of come to have appreciation for shorter, more metaphorical stuff. Don't get me wrong, Axl does have some metaphorical lyrics--Rhiad, CD, Catcher--
But the bulk of his work over his career (not just CD) is VERY direct, and somewhat longwinded. I feel CD is just a bit too repetitive in it's themes.
One reason why I love the UYIs more than any other GN'R record is because the themes, stories, thoughts presented in the songs' lyrics are so diverse and all encompassing. AFD is all about partying and the dark side of life, for the most part, and thus it fixes on only a few major themes: sleaze, dirt, sex, corruption, the high flying rebel rebel. And CD is the exact opposite: It's the comedown after the party, the distraught lost soul, the beaten man, the underdog. And I like variety in music and lyrics, which is why I prefer the UYIs over all the rest.
I'm not talking about the music or any other factor, simply the lyrics. I don't think we've ever had a big discussion about Axl's lyrical style, skills or talent here before...And since there's nothing else to talk about, I figured it'd make for some interesting discussion.
You don't have to just argue or agree with my point, also give your own perspective on Axl's lyrics--What are your favorite lyrics? Why do they speak to you? What songs could've been written better? Etc, etc.
-
Love 'em!
Something from Keith Richard's book--could be applicable to the whole 'new Guns' thing
in 2011
Posted
Mick wanted to take the Stones in a new wave and disco inspired direction. Emotional Rescue and Undercover are examples of this. He was asserting more and more control over the band's sound, making it less guitar oriented. The kind of stuff from his first solo album is the exact direction he wanted to take the Stones, but was fought by Keith, which was the beginning of their feud. He, like Axl, felt the Stones should jump on every new trend.
Jagger never took doing movies seriously and I think has only done what, 4 or 5 movies in 40 years?
As for the show in NYC, that was in 2002, LONG after their breakup/feud period had ended. I think had Mick could legally, he might've tried it. Axl does it because he can. We don't really know the legal status of the Rolling Stones name.
Axl and Mick are very much alike, except Axl's nuts. Like Mick, Axl is shrewd businesswise, power hungry, egotistical and obsessed with working out to the last minute detail the band's business side. Both of them are full of pride and ego. In fact, meeting Mick in 1989 when Guns opened for them was most likely what inspired Axl to start issuing contracts and becoming obsessed with operating the business side of Guns. He spoke about how shrewd Jagger was (something about Mick going so far as to inspect the gate receipts personally with an accountant for any irregularities) and he expressed admiration for it if I recall correctly. The very next year, 1990, Axl issued his own first contract, which would fine Steven Adler $2000 if he was caught using drugs...And after that, he became contract happy.