Subject: Re: Mick Jagger on SNL

From: kconvery@ioma.com (The Bishop)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, May 1, 2002 3:50 PM

"Rev. Ivan Stang" wrote...

> YES!
>> First off, "ALL MUSIC IS STUPID" -- Friday Jones
........
> The line is, "All this chitter chatter, chitter chatter, chitter chatter
> About schmatta shmatta shmatta... it doesn't mattah."
> > Wei has taken to calling lint or other detritus "shmatta". It sounds
> Yiddish but Wei, who SHOULD know, has never heard it in that context.

"Schmatta" (I don't know how to spell it either) is a Yiddish word
that means, literally, "rag." It is most often used to refer to an
article of clothing, such as when you point to a friend who has
arrived at your home and not yet removed their coat, and say, "Lose
the schmatta, stay a while." You might also say you are in the
schmatta trade or "in schmattas" if you make clothes or sell them. I
get this on good authority from Jeff Goldberg, a nice Jewish boy from
Queens and the biggest Barbra Streisand fan ever to attend the Bronx
High School of Science. "She IS like buttah!"

> Talk about godawful solo albums, Keith Richards did a couple... one
> from the late 90s called "MAIN OFFENDER" starts with a song about the
> apocalypse titled:
> "999" which uses the word Slack and mentions the Illuminati.

Speaking of solo efforts, does anyone remember the David Gilmour
solo album that features the song, "All Lovers Are Deranged"? I really
want that song.

> The album as a whole is VERY Keith Richards. Good, bad, or smacked out,
> it's VERY VERY Keith.

There's a funny moment in the Stones video compilation, "Video
Rewind." Bill Wyman springs them all from their museum display boxes.
Jagger is in glitter and make-up, Charlie Watts is still keeping time,
but Keith's box contains only empty manacles and cobwebs. "He's
probably gone out for a drink," Charlie opines. "That's Keith," says
Mick, and they start watching videos without him.

> This brings to mind a stupid sociological theory of mine, only recently
> developed.

OK, I liked Paul because of his incredibly fat bass tone and walking
lines. I always thought the Beatles were much better than their
individual members.

When it came to the Stones, Bill Wyman is my #4 bassist in all of
rock, and I always had new bass lines to learn, because his lines were
so complex and the Stones had about two dozen albums out already, so I
had no TIME to focus on Mick the Quick or Kan't-Kill-Me Keith.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Mick Jagger on SNL
From: "Pater Nostril" <paternostril@subgenius.com>

> Speaking of solo efforts, does anyone remember the David Gilmour
> solo album that features the song, "All Lovers Are Deranged"? I really
> want that song.

It's on the album About Face

I've seen it turn up in one of the mp3 ngs recently
I have it on vinyl I can rip it to mp3 if you ask unpleasantly

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Mick Jagger on SNL
From: joecosby@mindspring.com (Joe Cosby)

"Ricky Nielsen" <rickyn@lor.net> wrote:

>> So you'd call, f'rinstance, 'Shattered' a good song?
>>
>> You'd call 'Shattered' ... a song?
>>
>> Just checkin
>>
>Not to flog a dead horse but not just yeah but hell yeah some of the best
>songs are everything Shattered is, simple three cord work outs, I point to
>Wild Thing ,Louie Louie, Maybelline,96 tears. hell they all don't have to be
>masterpieces. If strippers can dance to it then they work for me. >

Well one subtle difference between 'Shattered' and those songs is that
most of those are good songs and 'Shattered' SUCKS.

I mean, if you like it you like it. To each his own. There is no
yardstick for musical taste, I have my tastes, you have yours, just
yours happen to SUCK, and that is your right, although I've noticed
that you still haven't actually directly answered the question "you'd
call 'Shattered' a good song?"

I don't object to simple three chord work outs. 'Satisfaction' is a
simple three chord work out and 'Satisfaction' is a great song.
'Shattered' is a simple three chord work out and 'Shattered' sucks.

It's tiresome and utterly amusical. Everything the stones have done
since mick taylor is tiresome and utterly amusical. They have no
sense of TONE at all. Although since I've been thinking about it,
some of Richard's ones have been exceptions to that, 'Happy' springs
to mind. Keith Richards is a better singer than Mick Jagger, which
does not speak well of Jagger's vocals. Jagger CAN'T SING. Am I the
only one who has noticed that? The lead singer of this huge band for
thirty years and he CAN'T SING.

In the very early days, there were exceptions, in the studio anyway,
but in those days there were actual musicians in the band so I suppose
that set a somewhat higher standard. 'Satisfaction', 'Angie', in fact
most of the studio cuts of their songs from those days were sung quite
well. But with Jones or Taylor there was an overall tone to the music
as a whole, there was a MUSICAL QUALITY.

Jagger and Richards are both, clearly, tone deaf. With the two of
them as the only real creative source in the band, the stones' music
is tone deaf. All of their songs SOUND the same. IS there a
difference between 'Shattered' and 'Start me up'? Does it MATTER?

The tone deafness would be tolerable if Richards were enough of a
guitar player to provide some texture to compensate.

But he isn't. He is the most overrated guitar player in rock. That's
not to say he's a bad guitar player, he's fairly good. And he does,
as somebody else pointed out, have a talent for coming up with catchy
licks. But beyond the bar chords and minimal soloing abilities that
you would expect from a half-way competent 14-year old garage band
guitar player, he lacks any musical talent, depth, or creativity. His
chops are, at best, painfully thin. Listening to Keith Richards
leaves me with the same sucking feeling that licking a lemon does.
Sour and THIN. His custom five-string guitar says it all.

So if y'all want to call thirty years of Mick Jagger going 'Bleat
bleat' over indistinguishable lyrics backed by indistinguishable
guitar licks music, to each his own.

To me it is the definition of crap rock. Jagger has always been a
clown, to me, musically and as an entertainer. When I was growing up,
Taylor was already out of the band, and I hadn't heard any of their
earlier stuff yet. I used to wince when some Rolling Stones crap came
on the radio. A shambling self-parody who I stuck away in the same
mental room with Elvis. Tone deaf Jagger and fat bleary Elvis. At
least Elvis had the good taste to croak so people could start editing
their memories of him.

It's a pity too, they were such a brilliant band in their earlier
days.

"Your diplomacy is higher than mine!"
"He was being diplomatic and not saying so."
-- Big Gay Gaming Group

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Mick Jagger on SNL
From: "Rev. Ivan Stang" <stang@subgenius.com>

Actually I agree with you that "Shattered" is IRRITATING musically. But
then there's always a song on every album that is horribly irritating.
For instance on every DEVO album there is a song like "Planet Earth"
which I find irritating musically and juvenile lyrically. (I told Rev.
Mothersbaugh that and he was delighted, since he didn't write "Planet
Earth". And those great Hendrix studio albums always had to have a song
by Noel Redding. Sorry I have to use the wayback machine for these
references.

> It's tiresome and utterly amusical. Everything the stones have done
> since mick taylor is tiresome and utterly amusical. They have no
> sense of TONE at all. Although since I've been thinking about it,
> some of Richard's ones have been exceptions to that, 'Happy' springs
> to mind. Keith Richards is a better singer than Mick Jagger, which
> does not speak well of Jagger's vocals. Jagger CAN'T SING. Am I the
> only one who has noticed that? The lead singer of this huge band for
> thirty years and he CAN'T SING.

I'm not in a position to say whether somebody "can sing" since I'm the
very bottom end of the calibration. My singing is where they set the
low point on the "shittiness of singing" machine.

I would remind you however that the Stones are a ROCK BAND and their
job is to "rock." Jagger doesn't have to sing well, or even PRANCE
well, anymore, he only has to sound and prance LIKE MICK JAGGER.
Whether you find this stomachable or not probably depends on what was
on the radio in the car the first time you finally got some
stink-finger in a back seat.

A lot of my favorite singers are TERRIBLE singers. Bob Dylan (of yore,
not the revised one they sell now) couldn't sing for shit, even less so
now, but who cares?

To many ears, Jimi Hendrix's guitar work sounds like out of tune
catterwalling, which in a sense it indeed is. An acquired taste no
matter how you look at it. And his lyrics are the most retarded lyrics
of all time. But, SO WHAT?

> In the very early days, there were exceptions, in the studio anyway,
> but in those days there were actual musicians in the band so I suppose
> that set a somewhat higher standard. 'Satisfaction', 'Angie', in fact
> most of the studio cuts of their songs from those days were sung quite
> well. But with Jones or Taylor there was an overall tone to the music
> as a whole, there was a MUSICAL QUALITY.

Well now see, I think "Angie" UTTERLY sucks. I think it's cloying,
maudlin, and REALLY badly sung. It's the song on that album that I
really hate.

Not that I'll ever hate anything as much as "Suite Judy Blue Eyes."

> Jagger and Richards are both, clearly, tone deaf. With the two of
> them as the only real creative source in the band, the stones' music
> is tone deaf. All of their songs SOUND the same. IS there a
> difference between 'Shattered' and 'Start me up'? Does it MATTER?

NO!

> So if y'all want to call thirty years of Mick Jagger going 'Bleat
> bleat' over indistinguishable lyrics backed by indistinguishable
> guitar licks music, to each his own.

I know, it's only rock and roll, but...

> To me it is the definition of crap rock. Jagger has always been a
> clown, to me, musically and as an entertainer.

DUH!!!

What do you think people go to the CIRCUS for? The ACROBATS and
ELEPHANTS? FUCK NO! The CLOWNS!

Seriously, what I liked about the Stones all along was the fact that
they very obviously had learned early on not to take themselves too
seriously.

> It's a pity too, they were such a brilliant band in their earlier
> days.

I sometimes wonder what exactly bands are expected to DO. Stay exactly
the same? Change every album, but only in a certain magic way? Keep
their managers and fans from overdosing or growing old too?

Luckily for the Stones, there are still zillions of rock fans with
ABYSMAL TASTE, such as yours, truly Ivan Stang.

Back to document index

Original file name: Re- Mick Jagger on SNL2 - converted on Monday, 21 July 2003, 13:44