Wednesday, February 13, 2008

People Who Live in Glass Houses Shouldn't Roll Stones

The very picture of health, isn't he?

If you think that Natalie Cole was out of line in her criticism of Amy Winehouse, just check this out.

She's being panned by none other than Keith Richards (see his blog here) and Mick Jagger. Here's the stupidest part:

"When we were experimenting with drugs, little was known about the effects," Jagger said. "In our time there were no rehab centers like today. Anyway, I did not know about them."

Umm, sorry, mooselips. Acid may have been new in the 1960s, but cocaine and heroin were both old hat, and the dangers of both were well known. VERY well known. No excuses for you.

I don't know what's up Richards' ass. He's known for just spouting gibberish, so maybe it's that. Maybe he needs all of his blood replaced again. It certainly is a hypocritical stance for him, considering that it's been less than a year since he made that "joke" about snorting his dad's ashes, a "joke" that no one in the world had a moment's problem with believing. I mean, given his history, why would such a thing be hard to believe?

Jagger's a little easier to figure out. He has to put on this more conservative front now that he's got that entirely meaningless "Sir" in front of his name. I guess we have to expect a bit of hypocrisy from the aristocracy. His claim that they didn't know the dangers is self-serving, however. How could someone be so inspired by the blues without knowing what happened to the old cats that supposedly inspired him?

Now, it would be easy for me to get on my own high horse and say that this will change my buying decisions and I wouldn't listen to the Stones anymore, but what would be the point? I'm not ANYWAY. These guys have been dried-out husks for at least 15 years now. Sheer has-beens. Bill Wyman knew what he was doing when he made the Steel Wheels tour his last. He also knew what he was doing when he kept his mouth shut for all the years before that.

As for Mick and Keith, I have some advice for them, too. Look up Pete Townshend and Roger Daltry. They can teach you how to grow old with grace, and how to hold on to your place in rock history without making stupid, obnoxious, hypocritical asses of yourselves.

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Defined A Decade?

Being a music geek means being comfortable with thinking up themes like "The Bands That Defined A Decade." I'm talking rock bands here. This is something I've been toying with for quite some time, and I'm always tweaking. For now, I'm settled on these picks.

The 50's - I'd love to just say Elvis and get it over with, but he's not a band, even though he was almost as big as one by the time he died. No, I'd have to pick Buddy Holly & The Crickets as the rock and roll band that defined 50's. No, they weren't first on the scene, but Buddy's sound as well as his songwriting took rock and roll to the next level.

The 60's - The Beatles - These guys were the 60's, hands down.

The 70's - Led Zeppelin - Possibly the rockingest band that has ever existed. Their legendary excesses even helped spawn the punk movement.

The 80's - Here's where it gets a little tougher to pick, but I have to go with U2.

The 90's - Another tough decade to wade through. I want to say Pearl Jam, but they only rode in on the coattails of Nirvana. Nirvana brought grunge front and center, and every band tried to be them.

The 00's - I cannot even pick a band who might define the first 8 years of this century. My first inclination is to pick The White Stripes, though, since their garage rock revival has spawned scores of imitators, and hoards of rock snobs continue to cry out, "If it ain't indie, its' shit."

Thoughts?? Contributions?