IpMan
-
Posts
4,149 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by IpMan
-
-
14 hours ago, SteveAJones said:
Most white, suburban, upper middle class soccer Mom's don't harm American citizens. Most twice deported illegal aliens do.
Statistically speaking, you could not be farther from the truth.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/us/trump-illegal-immigrants-crime.html
-
11 hours ago, cryingbluerain said:
RIP Indianapolis Colts Linebacker Edwin Jackson, allegedly killed by a twice deported illegal alien drunk driver.
Damn right! Because it hurts much less when your loved one is killed by a white, suburban, upper middle class soccer mom driving drunk...allegedly.
-
10 hours ago, Strider said:
Now, now, let's not get too psychoanalytic. I don't think it was about Keith feeling threatened by a better guitar player at all.
For one thing, despite what some people say, Keith could play guitar. Ok, he wasn't Jimi Hendrix or Ritchie Blackmore flamboyantly fast, but he created great riffs and he could solo well enough to suit the song. One listen to "Gimmie Shelter" and "Sympathy for the Devil" should be enough to prove that to any naysayers.
Keith's playing didn't show signs of slippage until the 1978 tour, which despite what Jann "stanlove" Wenner tries to tell you, was an unmitigated disaster. You think Led Zeppelin's 1977 tour had problems and that their playing wasn't up to snuff? The Stones 1978 tour made Led Zeppelin's 1977 tour sound like Europe 1973.
But Keith was a riff machine on the 1969-72 tours. And the Stones were rock royalty. I am sure he felt secure in his position as top dog along with Mick Jagger in the band. They were the songwriters...they were the Glimmer Twins!
When Mick Taylor left, it was during a time when many others around the band were also displaying signs of having difficulty handling the drugs and wildness around the band. Jimmy Miller, Bobby Keyes and Nicky Hopkins, for instance.
Mick Taylor also chafed at not getting proper writing credits, as Mick and Keith always took the writing credits. Bill Wyman and Charlie Watts got nothing from the songwriting royalties. Their money came from touring.
I think at that point in time, the Stones' first priority in a replacement for Mick Taylor was someone who personality-wise and constitution-wise could fit in and mesh with the band. Mick Taylor was a very young kid when he joined the Stones and never seemed to fit in. His playing was fantastic but he tended to just stand there and play and not show any personality or emotion.
Ron Wood was the complete opposite. He was one of the lads, had been around the block a few times with the Faces and even already knew how to deal with a preening peacock of a singer through his time with Rod Stewart. He even looked like a Rolling Stone...like Keith's long-lost brother.
I think the Stones saw Woody as a fellow drinking buddy, someone who could handle the partying, and would be happy just being in the band and not squawk about songwriting credits. As for his playing, it's easy to forget that Wood was actually a pretty good player in The Faces, for that kind of rowdy, raucous, drunk rock 'n' roll. He was an underrated bottleneck slide player at that time, too.
Was he Mick Taylor level? No. But he was certainly the equal of Keith Richards, if not better at certain things like bottleneck/slide.
If your position is that Keith's ego felt threatened by Mick Taylor then his ego would have been threatened by Ron Wood, too.
Well, it took over 20 years before Mick and Keith even officially acknowledged that Ron Wood was a member of the Rolling Stones, so that probably plays a part in his attitude. Again though, it is exactly that whatever-devil-may-care attitude of Ron Wood that made him so appealing to Mick and Keith in the first place.
Good points. Reminds me of that quote from Lennon I believe, in regard to Pete Best vs. Ringo Starr: "...well, Pete was the better drummer, but Ringo was the better Beatle."
-
6 hours ago, Crimson Avenger said:
Second, I'd still argue (as I did at length somewhere on here, so won't repeat it) that his whole style of playing has changed a bit; there's far less of the fun but reasonably straightforward blues/rock and roll stuff, and much more jazzy/thoughtful stuff. I think that contributes most of the difference in what we hear in 75.
Right here. I believe during Zep's touring hiatus Aug 73' - Dec 74', Jimmy attended a guitar retreat of sorts hosted by John McLaughlin. This makes sense as to his change of style as beginning in 75' we are indeed hearing some very interesting, disjointed counter-runs ala McLaughlin on Bitches Brew. He continues this up until the end of Zep whereas the b-Bender style would dominate from 83' - 86'.
This is why, IMO, Jimmy's best live playing was 96' - 2001' when he had incredible fluidity and phrasing, and was combining all styles together in a cohesive, melodic formula. He may have been faster during Zep but he was never this passionate, fluid, and focused as he was during this period. His construction of extended solo's and his ability to make one guitar sound like three was never as good as it was during this time.
-
1 hour ago, EaglesOfOneNest said:
Agreed!
I always wondered why they went with such a mediocre player like Woody after Taylor left. They could have had their pick of ANY guitarist and Woody was their man? I wonder if it had anything to do with Keith's ego? Maybe he was intimidated by Taylor and did not want to be upstaged again?
-
Well, as this amounts to a dick measuring contest anyway, which members had the best...member?
Not being serious BTW, just pointing out how silly opinions and comparisons are. The Stones or Zeppelin? Why not both equally? They are both great bands which gave the world some damn fine music and in the end that is all that matters.
-
30 minutes ago, Xolo1974 said:
Me for starters
I picked up a guitar because of Barbie Benton. I don't know but there was just something in the way she held that guitar so...lovingly.
Hubba Hubba
-
On 1/30/2018 at 6:22 PM, chef free said:
Classical music was the progressive rock of its time!
Except they had no idea what a Temple of Syrinx or a Topographical Ocean was...those longhairs were too busy with nymphs, fairies, and Uber-Mensch for that nonsense.
-
-
8 minutes ago, stanlove said:
Give me the proof that the Stones were paying alot of attention to what Zeppelin was doing.
I have said before i am fine with just saying they were both so big that it was hard to say who was bigger. The only time i object is when a Zeppelin fan claims Zeppelin was bigger then the Stones on the road. That myth was started by Zeppelin themselves and I have seen Zeppelin fans blindly repeat it for decades.
In 1978 actually the Stones put on small club shows for the fans., They were bigger then they ever were and could have easily sold out stadiums all over the country ( they did play some stadiums and broke all records ) but decided to step back.
I believe your statement is a wee bit disingenuous as it was you who started this whole pissing contest.
-
2 hours ago, stanlove said:
If the Stones wanted to demand the same percentage as Zeppelin they could have obviously.
I believe you have won most ridiculous comment of the day !!!
So, you are saying they simply did not want the money? Ok, sure, that makes sense.
-
8 hours ago, stanlove said:
The Stones got bigger box office then Zeppelin in the 1970s.. Zeppelin because of Grant might have taken more of the box office money but the Stones were usually getting better gates when they toured in the same years. They charged more per ticket and they played to bigger crowds. Both were huge but the Stones were the established act at the time and Zeppelin was on the way up.
Of course, after all, it's just money. I am sure Keith and Mick were thrilled as larks that Zeppelin were bringing in more money, yet playing smaller venues.
I don't know where you are from but where I come from that is a big win for Zeppelin, laughing all the way to the bank.
-
12 minutes ago, stanlove said:
Richards said in a 1969 interview that he did not like Led Zeppelin That was after their first album and before they were big. It had nothing to do with jealousy, he just did not like them. Big deal. I have never understand why people get upset if someone doesn't like there band. I just saw a youtube video recently where Page says the Beatles didn't do anything before 1967 that is worth writing home about. You should see the comments of Beatles fans.
For the record the Richards has nothing to be jealous about Led Zeppelin about. He is 4 times as rich and famous and he is still playing his music, something Zeppelin stopped doing 40 years ago. In the 1970s it was Zeppelin that was jealous of the Stones not the other way around,. We know what happened in the 70s when Zeppelin tried to tour at the same time as the Stones. Zeppelin was very upset about it and everyone knows it.
Zeppelin were upset because the Stones received all of the press coverage while Zep received little. Both bands were selling out however Zeppelin actually made more money off their tour than the Stones did on theirs. It had nothing to do with popularity and everything with feeling ignored by the press. However Zeppelin brought this on themselves by their behavior to the press prior to 73'.
I always found this bit of history quite funny and silly. Zeppelin first shuns the press then gets upset because the press will not cover them. Its kinda like ignoring a girl and then getting pissed off because she no longer comes around.
-
This close up pictures look remarkably good considering they were taken by a 15 year old likely using an instamatic camera.
-
-
13 hours ago, bluecongo said:
No love for Copenhagen 7/24/79?
very unique version with a BLISTERING solo
Love right here in spades. I absolutely am enchanted by this version, without a doubt one of the best.
-
2 hours ago, chillumpuffer said:
. You are a wag? Ironically my Parents migrated up north from Shitsville before I was born - how close was that?
Please Chill, tell us how you REALLY feel
-
9 hours ago, Strider said:
Welcome to the Forum, Emmy. You have a young Pamela Des Barres vibe.
I believe Ms. Barres harmonic balance was around 12.6 Hz. Hit that frequency and her eyeballs would rattle like a pair of maracas.
-
3 hours ago, middlezep said:
Whenever i see over the hills...on a mid 70s setlist, it makes me critique the setlists and wonder why there was not more variety. I think page and plant 90s totally recognized that with playing, thank you, ramble on, what is and what should never be, ramble on, babe im gonna leave you and opening shows with the wanton song. In fact, i would say that ramble on, is a key song to the whole flow of the ahmet show in 07.
Ramble On, a song so nice, they played it twice...
-
1 hour ago, Urozep said:
As a message to JAP. I have watched this site forbyears but never logged in to post . Yes I am a mega fan. I also haven't successful job and family and career . I do t think i have to own up to how deep my " fanship" is but suffice to say it's deep. Made my way to the 07 show etc...I am onky sharing what i have learned // I have no vested interest in anything else.
Not sure where the vitriol comes from but hey man.....get a life
trying to share with so called like minded individuals
Can one truly quantify the depths of ones fandom? What does absolute zero feel like? Do deaf people know when they fart?
-
Oh Jesus, will people just get over the fact Plant does not want to be in a reformed Zeppelin again. Regardless of the reason.
What I find so silly about this is no one would ask a guy to get back with an ex-spouse simply because they threw some awesome parties back in the day; nor would they wish some woman to go back to work at a McDonalds drive-thru as she did at 16 due to the outcry of several ex-patrons who really dug her sweet speaker voice.
The man does not want to get the band back together and I for one applaud this stance. It is not 1982, Plant is almost 70 and I really don't care what anyone says, rock is a young persons game and even if Plant had the vocal abilities ala 1971 he would look like a goddamned fool at 70 belting out WLL as he did in 1972 or whatever. I am not being ageist per se, but such a visual is akin to a 70 year old woman, regardless of shape, walking around in a pair of fuck me pumps, Juicy sweats, and a sports bra...no thanks. Rock, and ESPECIALLY Zeppelin, were all about attitude and projection. You cannot recapture lighting in a bottle.
Let it go....let it goooooo...
-
Damn right it was, some obviously more than others. Berlioz & Wagner were seriously metal, and as mentioned before the diminished fifth from baroque.
-
21 hours ago, kipper said:
Good, I hope they raid all of them and drive them all out of business.
Yes, and then the morality police can go to the liquor store and do the same on the way to merchants who sell tobacco and or porn. With some hard work and perseverance, we can be just like Saudi Arabia or Children of the Corn in no time.
-
8 hours ago, kipper said:
The news said Apple is bringing back to the USA 20,000 jobs thanks to the current president.
I got a very nice raise in December and another one is coming in a few months. The company had frozen raises for several years when Obama was President. My neighbor said she got a raise too, but I dont count hers because it was a minimum wage increase which is really just more like a welfare raise anyway.
I will believe it when I see it, after all, Walmart just closed 68 Sam's Clubs which resulted in the termination of over 10,000 employees. Also, I know of no one who has gotten a large raise last year or is expecting a large raise this year. Most companies will continue with the standard "cost of living" increase which is actually, typically, 1 or 2% below the actual COL / CPI increase. Just remember, a company can announce ANYTHING, it does not mean they will actually do it.
Also, please remember, the stock market performing as it is has zero bearing on the overall economy. More than 83% of all stock are held by the 1%. The stocks are performing so well due to the reduction of regulations which allow windfall profits. We are essentially, back in the Gilded Age. On a final note, the stock market is also artificially inflated akin to a bubble. Most economists believe we are in for a major correction around August / September 2018 and a loss of around 10,000 point would not be unexpected. Also, interest rates will likely start going up around that time in an effort to curb out of control inflation.
So, I suggest (for people in the market such as I) to begin moving your investments out of high gain or moderate gain stocks and into low gain, low risk such as public utilities and T notes otherwise you could easily lose half of your portfolio. Real Estate will also likely take a hit, but a small one, maybe a max of 7% devaluation, however rental prices are really going up so if you do invest in real estate, even though the property may take a slight dive in value, you can more than make up for it with the increased rental income.
Another great investment will be in marijuana related stock, that shit is going up, up, up and would not be affected by a downturn in the stock market. Sessions will not, nor can do a damn thing about weed at this point whether he knows it or not. That horse left the barn once Cali legalized it for recreational use. That being said, please do your research into a company before you invest. Weed is a growing (get it) market but all the positive indicators mean squat if the company is being mismanaged so be sure to check out quarterly and annual statements before investing.
. You are a wag? Ironically my Parents migrated up north from Shitsville before I was born - how close was that?
The Rest in Peace Thread
in Ramble On
Posted
Well, I must say, you got me there. Of course that is a world I would not care to live in.