|
Post by jimmyrock on Jul 5, 2018 19:37:12 GMT -5
As a self proclaimed 'superfan' of the Mats you should probably know that the motivating factor in the reunion was Slim. Most of the profits from that tour went to help with his medical bills. Songs for Slim raised a lot of money, but I don't think Paul or Tommy ever said anything about donating their profits from the reunion tour to Slim. so I can reclaim my self proclaimed superfan title?
|
|
|
Post by jimmyrock on Jul 5, 2018 19:42:31 GMT -5
the replacements had a chameleon like quality, stylistically, and swing wise. switching from nightclub jitters, skyway, to bastards, iou. the ability and inclination to do that. they were true music fans. i never got the sense GNR were. they were metal heads. even their covers, just sound like them. as i nick lowe just state in an interview, there is so much rock and not enough rock & roll. people have forgotten the roll. the replacements had the roll. I dont see that exactly, at least in terms of the swing aspect, I feel Mars as very straight drummer..what do you see in "nightclub jitters, skyway, to bastards, iou" that demonstrates the roll? I am not an apolgist for GNR but I think they were really more punk / hard rock than metalheads...if labels matter to the indie fans here ( couldnt resist )
|
|
|
Post by raccoon on Jul 5, 2018 19:42:48 GMT -5
Hell yes! Glad to have you. Looks like I was wrong about the reunion concert proceeds. I've been wrong before.
'Lot of water under the bridge. Lot of other things too...' (Dylan)
|
|
|
Post by jimmyrock on Jul 5, 2018 19:46:14 GMT -5
As Paul sang in Cass Elliot's words: "Nobody can tell ya; There's only one song worth singin', They may try and sell ya, 'Cause it hangs them up to see someone like you. But you've gotta make your own music Sing your own special song, Make your own kind of music even if nobody else sings along." Long live GnR and the Mats and anybody bringing joy into this world with music and words! well amen to that! we need more bands that make great music....
|
|
|
Post by jimmyrock on Jul 5, 2018 19:52:51 GMT -5
Hell yes! Glad to have you. Looks like I was wrong about the reunion concert proceeds. I've been wrong before. 'Lot of water under the bridge. Lot of other things too...' (Dylan) oh its no worries here, I love having lively conversation on music...I had a summer long debate, oh early 90s with some othrs in a summer beach house deal about how the Mats were overated and I dont appreciate Uncle Tupelo enough!.....it all comes down to your own opinion any way...
|
|
|
Post by jimmyrock on Jul 5, 2018 19:59:18 GMT -5
the replacements had a chameleon like quality, stylistically, and swing wise. switching from nightclub jitters, skyway, to bastards, iou. the ability and inclination to do that. they were true music fans. i never got the sense GNR were. they were metal heads. even their covers, just sound like them. as i nick lowe just state in an interview, there is so much rock and not enough rock & roll. people have forgotten the roll. the replacements had the roll. I dont see that exactly, at least in terms of the swing aspect, I feel Mars as very straight drummer..what do you see in "nightclub jitters, skyway, to bastards, iou" that demonstrates the roll? I am not an apolgist for GNR but I think they were really more punk / hard rock than metalheads...if labels matter to the indie fans here ( couldnt resist ) when I hear swing I think drummer...groove... rythm section....I posted this in the other thread about Petty dinging Paul by stealing his line about rebel w/o a clue and making a huge hit out of his tune... anyway felt Tom Petty And the HBs lost their swing when their original drummer Stan Lynch left the band....chris mars to me is like max weinberg
|
|
|
Post by anarkissed on Jul 5, 2018 22:04:19 GMT -5
I've never thought of G 'N R as heavy metal. It's hard rock. The difference being that hard rock has more of a sense of pop melody and retains that sort of blues-based, Stones-influenced deal, where metal, at least since the 80's, seems more mathematical. Hard rock songs seem to be more about drugs and sex; heavy metal more about the military industrial complex and summoning demons.
|
|
|
Post by anarkissed on Jul 5, 2018 22:54:08 GMT -5
I like the idea of discussing what it means for a drummer to "swing"...I feel like I know what it is, but I cannot possibly say what it is...I feel like it cannot be learned...I feel like you either have it, or you don't...I tnink you can be a "straight ahead" drummer and still swing...I think you can be a brilliant drummer and not...Chris Mars, and Charlie Watts, and Max Weinberg and Ringo are straight ahead drummers who swing...John Bonham and Carl Palmer and Neal Peart do not...Keith Moon did not swing and he was not straight ahead...But, boy, was he badass...Gene Krupa swings, and I would say he was a big influence on Keith Moon...I'd say something about Buddy Rich, but he was kind of a dick...As an amateur musician, I have to say, I was always somewhat in awe of a drummer in a rock and roll band...Aside from learning the songs, and bringing something to the party, it always seemed to require this huge effort of simple physical endurance that I don't really think guitarists and bassists and keyboardists necessarily had to have...And I'd bet I could put Keith Richards in a room with an old record player and a stack of Metallica albums for a week, and at the end of that week, he could come out and play some pretty good approximations of a Kirk Hammet solo...I'll bet I could have put John Bonham in that same room with a stack of Wailers records for a year, and he still couldn't have come out of there and played reggae...
|
|
|
Post by jimmyrock on Jul 6, 2018 4:51:15 GMT -5
I like the idea of discussing what it means for a drummer to "swing"...I feel like I know what it is, but I cannot possibly say what it is...I feel like it cannot be learned...I feel like you either have it, or you don't...I tnink you can be a "straight ahead" drummer and still swing...I think you can be a brilliant drummer and not...Chris Mars, and Charlie Watts, and Max Weinberg and Ringo are straight ahead drummers who swing...John Bonham and Carl Palmer and Neal Peart do not...Keith Moon did not swing and he was not straight ahead...But, boy, was he badass...Gene Krupa swings, and I would say he was a big influence on Keith Moon...I'd say something about Buddy Rich, but he was kind of a dick...As an amateur musician, I have to say, I was always somewhat in awe of a drummer in a rock and roll band...Aside from learning the songs, and bringing something to the party, it always seemed to require this huge effort of simple physical endurance that I don't really think guitarists and bassists and keyboardists necessarily had to have...And I'd bet I could put Keith Richards in a room with an old record player and a stack of Metallica albums for a week, and at the end of that week, he could come out and play some pretty good approximations of a Kirk Hammet solo...I'll bet I could have put John Bonham in that same room with a stack of Wailers records for a year, and he still couldn't have come out of there and played reggae... I agree a straigh ahead drummer can have swing, I disagree that MAx and Chris swing... they play the beat faster or slower, Charlie and ringo yes, levon helm, yes...Neal peart good example of very technical drummer who doesnt swing, nor would that fit in Rush, but Bonham? really? I would definitely say he swings Keith Moon would have to keep time before moving to playing with swing! But note how stiff The Who sounds when Kenny Jones was the drummer..... I'll take the Keith and Bonham bet.
|
|
jim63
Tenderfoot
Posts: 19
|
Post by jim63 on Jul 6, 2018 5:50:26 GMT -5
One thing I could never get over with Guns and Roses was a song like “Paradise City” with the refrain “take me down to the paradise city where the grass is green and the girls are pretty”. That song may be considered an anthem but it’s a stupid fucking anthem. Then look at a song like “Bastards of young” or “Little Mascara” and you have lyrics that stick with you because they are so insightful and meaningful. Axel Rose couldn’t have written a song like “Here comes a regular” and Paul would have been embarrassed for the Replacements to have put out some of the stupid shit G&R put out.
|
|
|
Post by jimmyrock on Jul 6, 2018 6:34:23 GMT -5
Paul would have been embarrassed for the Replacements to have put out some of the stupid shit G&R put out. and yet Gary's Got a Boner made it past his filter I didnt listen to much GnR after Lies.....
|
|
jim63
Tenderfoot
Posts: 19
|
Post by jim63 on Jul 6, 2018 7:05:37 GMT -5
You’ve got me there but I didn’t have to listen to “Gary’s got a boner” ever 5 minutes on the radio and even then teenage boys with boners and no place to stick them is still more realistic than “Paradise City”.
|
|
|
Post by teddinard on Jul 6, 2018 8:33:10 GMT -5
Yeah it's not very illuminating to compare a song obviously meant as a goof to a full-on anthem.
But it does raise an interesting question. Did Guns and Roses have a sense of humor?
It's sincere because I don't really know their catalog. They've never meant much to me, and I only know what you can't avoid hearing on the radio.
But they seem to take themselves deathly seriously. At least Axl Rose does. Is there anything funny about Guns and Roses? (Unintentionally funny doesn't count.) Is there anything in their songs that counts as wit or irony? Really I'm asking out of ignorance--but they don't go down that road in their hits.
With the Replacements of course, not taking themselves too seriously (or you could say, seriously not taking themselves seriously) is a defining thing about them. And Westerberg is a witty and sophisticated writer. I don't get that with Guns and Roses at all.
If we're looking for a "vs." here, this aspect would be a big point of differentiation between the groups.
|
|
|
Post by anarkissed on Jul 6, 2018 13:08:24 GMT -5
Is there anything funny about Guns and Roses? No.
|
|
markc
Dances With Posts
Posts: 82
|
Post by markc on Jul 6, 2018 13:51:00 GMT -5
I like the idea of discussing what it means for a drummer to "swing"...I feel like I know what it is, but I cannot possibly say what it is...I feel like it cannot be learned...I feel like you either have it, or you don't...I tnink you can be a "straight ahead" drummer and still swing...I think you can be a brilliant drummer and not...Chris Mars, and Charlie Watts, and Max Weinberg and Ringo are straight ahead drummers who swing...John Bonham and Carl Palmer and Neal Peart do not...Keith Moon did not swing and he was not straight ahead...But, boy, was he badass...Gene Krupa swings, and I would say he was a big influence on Keith Moon...I'd say something about Buddy Rich, but he was kind of a dick...As an amateur musician, I have to say, I was always somewhat in awe of a drummer in a rock and roll band...Aside from learning the songs, and bringing something to the party, it always seemed to require this huge effort of simple physical endurance that I don't really think guitarists and bassists and keyboardists necessarily had to have...And I'd bet I could put Keith Richards in a room with an old record player and a stack of Metallica albums for a week, and at the end of that week, he could come out and play some pretty good approximations of a Kirk Hammet solo...I'll bet I could have put John Bonham in that same room with a stack of Wailers records for a year, and he still couldn't have come out of there and played reggae... I agree with a lot of what you said, but..... John Bonham absolutely could swing, he wasn't just power.
|
|
|
Post by jimmyrock on Jul 6, 2018 17:10:04 GMT -5
Yeah it's not very illuminating to compare a song obviously meant as a goof to a full-on anthem. ok, maybe, but my point was he was fine putting out stupid shit
|
|
|
Post by jimmyrock on Jul 6, 2018 17:12:07 GMT -5
Yeah it's not very illuminating to compare a song obviously meant as a goof to a full-on anthem. But it does raise an interesting question. Did Guns and Roses have a sense of humor? And Westerberg is a witty and sophisticated writer. If we're looking for a "vs." here, this aspect would be a big point of differentiation between the groups. which? That Paul is a witty and sophisticated writer or that GnR didnt display a sense of humor?
|
|
|
Post by jimmyrock on Jul 6, 2018 17:19:12 GMT -5
Is there anything in their songs that counts as wit or irony? I wouldn't put wit or irony at the forefront of a good song....I mean that compliments it but isnt required in my mind....melody, rhtm, hook, interesting changes that lift the song, I dont know whatever makes it catchy to you, ...dont sell GnR short for the fabulous guitar solos and big riffs...writing songs aint all just lyrics
|
|
|
Post by jimmyrock on Jul 6, 2018 17:24:16 GMT -5
You’ve got me there but I didn’t have to listen to “Gary’s got a boner” ever 5 minutes on the radio and even then teenage boys with boners and no place to stick them is still more realistic than “Paradise City”. ok on both points, the overplayedness has turned me off to some songs too, like I could go the rest of my life without listening to another Boston song, but I could also go without Garys got a Boner which I tired of much quicker......and then realistic....I get that, so that song resonates with you, mark of a good writer to be able to speak to the audience...
|
|
|
Post by teddinard on Jul 6, 2018 21:04:26 GMT -5
Yeah it's not very illuminating to compare a song obviously meant as a goof to a full-on anthem. But it does raise an interesting question. Did Guns and Roses have a sense of humor? And Westerberg is a witty and sophisticated writer. If we're looking for a "vs." here, this aspect would be a big point of differentiation between the groups. which? That Paul is a witty and sophisticated writer or that GnR didnt display a sense of humor? Wit and humor Replacements, lack thereof Guns and Roses. And yeah, lyrics of the Replacements are much more sophisticated than those of Guns and Roses, notwithstanding "Gary's Got a Boner." As to whether wit etc. is "required," as you say in your other post, I'm not even sure what that would mean. Cole Porter's great songs are witty--it's hard to imagine an unwitty Cole Porter. Many of the Great American Songbook songs would be lifeless without the subtlety and energy of the lyrics. And other celebrated songwriters--Bob Dylan, Elvis Costello, Leonard Cohen, the list goes on and on--are both witty and sophisticated. Of course there are great songs without that layer. But Replacements' songs happen to have it, and Guns and Roses songs don't. So if we're into contrasts, that is one, regardless of whether or not it means much to you. It's definitely something I value in Westerberg's songs. It makes them much more emotionally powerful to me than Guns and Roses songs.
|
|