|
Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: s&r Date: 02 Nov 10 - 07:11 PM Loving MY country being multicultural I am delighted to see the results of the intermingling of cultures. I admire anyone who works to develop their musical skill: I don't give a toss about their accent or where the are born. Sadly there are some (not many) people who believe that culture should be kept in a pretty tin box sealed with blue ribbon. Stu |
|
Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: WalkaboutsVerse Date: 03 Nov 10 - 07:17 AM As I said in a brief talk, about this time last year, as part of the BBC/Sage Gateshead Free Thinking Festival, "If you are not American, don't Americanise, for the love of our world being multicultural" - quickly stressing the difference between being anti-American and anti-Americanisation, of course. And this year, by the way, at 3.30 on Saturday at the Sage, my brief talk will be: "Cut Capitalism." |
|
Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: alanabit Date: 03 Nov 10 - 07:36 AM I agree Stu. The mind boggles to think how many English folk songs would have been lost for ever had not Irish folk singers kept them alive. As for blues and rhythm and blues music, it is worth pointing out that until British blues bands started touring the US in the sixties, Muddy Waters and BB King were both virtually unknown in their own land. Indeed, their popularity, which had only ever existed in a small market, had already long since waned. They both generously acknowledged this in many interviews. The musicians, who revolutionised pop music in the sixties, could only possibly have done so by mixing US and British influences. In some ways, with their swagger and attitude, the Stones are the ultimate American band. However, only spiteful middle class English boys could have written "Play With Fire", "Mother's Little Helper" or "Nineteenth Nervous Breakdown" - let alone the casual vulgarity of "Brown Sugar" or "Honky Tonk Women". If you just hear the bass and drums at a distance, the Stones sound distinctly British, yet they are the template for the ultimate American bands like Aerosmith and Guns and Roses et al. The Stones mixed up what they knew and passed it on. That is what happens in a living culture. |
|
Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: The Sandman Date: 03 Nov 10 - 02:56 PM the problem with the Rolling Stones[imo] is that jick, magger.the rest of them were genuinely into the music, but jick was into himself |
|
Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: alanabit Date: 03 Nov 10 - 03:15 PM He is narcisstic for sure. On the other hand, in the time he has been with the Stones, he has become a reasonable pianist, a fair rhythm guitarist and nifty harmonica player. That does not suggest to me that he is indifferent to music. |
|
Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: Lonesome EJ Date: 03 Nov 10 - 06:34 PM Imagine! Jagger having an ego! Next you'll tell me Dylan has one too! |
|
Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: s&r Date: 03 Nov 10 - 07:51 PM What do you see as the difference between being anti-American and anti-Americanization WAV. Just interested because it seems to cause you some confusion... Stu |
|
Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: Jack Campin Date: 03 Nov 10 - 09:30 PM The mind boggles to think how many English folk songs would have been lost for ever had not Irish folk singers kept them alive. My mind would boggle if there was even one song in that category. Name one? |
|
Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: WalkaboutsVerse Date: 04 Nov 10 - 06:22 AM For you Stu: the main difference between being anti-American and anti-Americanisation is, as I've said, a love of our world being multicultural. |
|
Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: alanabit Date: 04 Nov 10 - 09:52 AM The mind boggles to think how many English folk songs would have been lost for ever had not Irish folk singers kept them alive. My mind would boggle if there was even one song in that category. Name one? Shall we start with The Wild Rover, which was collected in Norfolk? It is a shame we do not have Malcolm Douglas here, who I am sure could have reeled off a list from memory! |
|
Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: Jack Campin Date: 04 Nov 10 - 10:14 AM Why would it have been lost? The Irish posters got it from a Walter Pardon recording which is still available. All the Irish popularization did was turn it into a drunken cliche. |
|
Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: Jack Campin Date: 04 Nov 10 - 10:14 AM For "posters" read "popsters". |
|
Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: Desert Dancer Date: 04 Nov 10 - 02:17 PM Liz Phair's lengthy review/summary of Keith Richards' book in the New York Times: click. ~ Becky in Tucson |
|
Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Nov 10 - 02:36 PM I Love Keith's playing. It think he probably the best writer and player of Blues/Pop guitar riffs ever. Though Jimmy Page gives him serious competition in that field. I used to think Keef was a genius, until I saw Muddy Waters in concert. Keith obviously picked up his skill by using Muddy and perhaps Buddy Guy, Chuck Berry and some others as templates. I don't call that genius. I do call it damn good musicianship. |
|
Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: s&r Date: 04 Nov 10 - 03:54 PM Just a bit of a non sequitur in your 'explanation' WAV. It doesnt't make sense. no change there then Stu PS I had thought that your jingoism had taken a back seat. Sorry it's not so. |
|
Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: WalkaboutsVerse Date: 04 Nov 10 - 06:09 PM Stu: further to the above, then: if, e.g., more and more people around the world choose to present their verses in a pop or rock style, rather than traditionally, our world will become less and less multicultural. And loving our world being multicultural is surely not "jingoism". |
|
Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: mandotim Date: 04 Nov 10 - 06:53 PM WAV; you seem to assume in all these discussions that there is a single, defineable 'rock or pop style' in music. I guess this is because your ear is insufficiently discriminating to discern the difference between (say) Ray Davis and Lynyrd Skynyrd, or between Pink Floyd and Aerosmith. This may also be because you don't listen to much rock or pop music. To those who know, there are similarities, but also clearly identifiable differences. These differences are often the result of cultural influences. It is an undeniable fact that all cultures are influenced by other cultures to a greater or lesser extent, and bemoaning this fact doesn't (and cannot) change it. Cultural influencing is a reflection of the human urge to learn, grow and develop, and it is utterly impossible to stand in the way of this basic impulse. What I'm saying, WAV, is; get over yourself, stop whining about cultural mingling and learn to appreciate the wonders of learning from the glorious mix of influences that make up the world. Don't bang on about your bloody travels though; you've made it absolutely clear (ad nauseam) in your previous posts that you didn't learn a single thing from any of the cultures you observed (but didn't participate in.) |
|
Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: s&r Date: 04 Nov 10 - 07:47 PM 'and colloquially to excessive bias in judging one's own country as superior to others' is a fair contextual definition from your own sources. If we had frozen our development 2000 years or so ago we'd be speaking latin. There is nothing any more traditional about your tea-parties with the vicar with buxom serving wenches serving mead while minstrels play citterns than in listening to my (Bradford) grandson rapping or the band in the pub playing rock and roll. Loving the zoo being multicultural while you walk around smiling at the antics of inferior cultures seems to me to describe a world that isn't mine. I'm with Mandotim - I see more value in 'learning from the glorious mix of influences that make up the world.; Nice phrase Tim Stu |
|
Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: WalkaboutsVerse Date: 06 Nov 10 - 03:45 PM Listening to Keith in this interview, and members of the Beatles in others, the musicians who inspired them were all Americans - as I say, they, rather, were not kidding anyone about the fact that they were copying aspects of American culture (according to them, it was, and is, a cool thing to do); and the Beatles were so pop, they even tried talking in American accents. |
|
Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: mandotim Date: 06 Nov 10 - 04:14 PM Hi again WAV. Are you familiar with Liverpudlian history, particularly the development of the distinctive accent? I think you'll find that the blues singers of the Mississippi Delta were in fact scousers to a man. If you study the linguistics of Liverpool, you will hear the words 'this, that, them and those' prounced as 'dis, dat, dem and dose'. This was largely as a result of poor adenoidal care in the Liverpool hospitals, but it appears to have travelled the Atlantic and become embedded in the accents of the older blues singers; for instance, you would never hear a proper bluesman saying 'that' when he meant 'dat'. As for the Beatles, I was a teenager at the time (you were an infant) and I never heard the Beatles affect any accent than Scouse (apart from Paul, who would occasionally try to talk posh to impress Jane Asher). |
|
Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: s&r Date: 06 Nov 10 - 06:49 PM WAV how would you describe your own accent? I would not recognize it as anything that emanates from the northern hemisphere. But I don't mind your attempts at an English accent any more than I mind Maurice Chevalier or Marlene Deitrich. My grandchildren speak variously Yorks, Irish, Oxford, Lancashire other members of my family speak Notts, Canadian, Norfolk, Devon, Scots. We get together, and talk and sing... What is your problem? Stu |
|
Subject: RE: Keith Richards on the box From: GUEST,biff Date: 06 Nov 10 - 07:29 PM thanks alan for your link, I checked it out. I was asking for a link to the Keith interview that could be accessed by an american computer. |
| Share Thread: |
