blondie....

[tim_noone]

Watching on jools the drummer hasnt changed much... debbie harry is fast fading in looks, once so georgeous!! And the guitarist looked like hed been embalmed....is there a time to hang up the microphone? I only think the stones get away with it cos they were born old...

[RammyClaret61]

She is 71. Went to see blondie a couple of weeks ago. She can still sing for sure. Excellent concert. A few years ago went to Meatloaf, he can't sing now. Bruce Springsteen 67 and still amazing. Also seen Fleetwood Mac recently, all in their 60's and again excellent.

[Wile E Coyote]

didnt see Blondie, but the stones are time defying somehow, was listening to them last night on their 40 licks album, that was 1994, still going strong and their age seems irrelevant. I just regard them as a great band, 1964 till 2017 is remarkable.
Cant really think of who else could pull it off so effectively , more so because its such a youth centred industry. That might be it ! many of the younger bands are talentless unimaginative copyists with nothing new to say, and everyone recognises genuine talent.
Hence the stones longevity.

[tim_noone]

She is 71. Went to see blondie a couple of weeks ago. She can still sing for sure. Excellent concert. A few years ago went to Meatloaf, he can't sing now. Bruce Springsteen 67 and still amazing. Also seen Fleetwood Mac recently, all in their 60's and again excellent.

I changed my mind... she still has it,jools interviewing now 71...wow! The london grammar girl is a good looker with an excellent vouice by the way!

[ClaretTony]

didnt see Blondie, but the stones are time defying somehow, was listening to them last night on their 40 licks album, that was 1994, still going strong and their age seems irrelevant. I just regard them as a great band, 1964 till 2017 is remarkable.
Cant really think of who else could pull it off so effectively , more so because its such a youth centred industry. That might be it ! many of the younger bands are talentless unimaginative copyists with nothing new to say, and everyone recognises genuine talent.
Hence the stones longevity.

My grandma told me I hadn't to like the Rolling Stones because they had long hair. I'm still a big fan - and it's only rock'n'roll but I like it.

[tim_noone]

didnt see Blondie, but the stones are time defying somehow, was listening to them last night on their 40 licks album, that was 1994, still going strong and their age seems irrelevant. I just regard them as a great band, 1964 till 2017 is remarkable.
Cant really think of who else could pull it off so effectively , more so because its such a youth centred industry. That might be it ! many of the younger bands are talentless unimaginative copyists with nothing new to say, and everyone recognises genuine talent.
Hence the stones longevity.

My favourite group .... nearest i got to seeing them was the rolling clones jools holland is pretty good this week,as he is most weeks.last week featured beth ditto and others trying to creat the shock effect...didnt do it for me

[tim_noone]

My grandma told me I hadn't to like the Rolling Stones because they had long hair. I'm still a big fan - and it's only rock'n'roll but I like it.

Anyone with long hair was frowned upon by parents and grandparents back then ...why? I never got that.

[BFCmaj]

I thought I'd turned on an episode of The Walking Dead by mistake.

Future Islands were great btw.

[BFCmaj]

didnt see Blondie, but the stones are time defying somehow, was listening to them last night on their 40 licks album, that was 1994, still going strong and their age seems irrelevant. I just regard them as a great band, 1964 till 2017 is remarkable.
Cant really think of who else could pull it off so effectively , more so because its such a youth centred industry. That might be it ! many of the younger bands are talentless unimaginative copyists with nothing new to say, and everyone recognises genuine talent.
Hence the stones longevity.

Apart from the fact that The Stones just copied old R 'n' B stuff.

[tim_noone]

I thought I'd turned on an episode of The Walking Dead by mistake.

Future Islands were great btw.

What do think of london grammar ? Been around a few years now...she has a great voice imo.

[tim_noone]

Apart from the fact that The Stones just copied old R 'n' B stuff.

"Is that so"

[BFCmaj]

"Is that so"

Pretty much. Their first few albums are R n B and Blues. Then they had a rubbishy psychedelic period before Keith Richards discovered open G tuning and then they wrote the same sounding songs ever since.

[BFCmaj]

I actually am a Stones fan btw!

[icu81b4]

Music is music, if you were to just listen to it instead of looking at how attractive the person/people were creating it then this wouldn't be an issue for you.

Of course attractive people help sell products, but .... You can see where I'm heading here.

[Wile E Coyote]

Apart from the fact that The Stones just copied old R 'n' B stuff.

I knew something like this was coming.

yes, of course they were influenced, who isnt? but the stones developed a niche and gave it something brand new and distinctive.
The whole media/pop business was also in its formative stages. They set the trend. In no shape or form could it be said they just did what everyone else does now.
Thesedays it is blatant and unoriginal. No comparison. The blues reference was obvious, but i think you chose to miss my point.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Watching on jools the drummer hasnt changed much... debbie harry is fast fading in looks, once so georgeous!! And the guitarist looked like hed been embalmed....is there a time to hang up the microphone? I only think the stones get away with it cos they were born old...

Born old haha. I love the stones. And I blame Tim Noone.

[Vintage Claret]

I still would..

[cricketfieldclarets]

I still would..

Mick jagger? I suppose with them lips...

[Saxoman]

didnt see Blondie, but the stones are time defying somehow, was listening to them last night on their 40 licks album, that was 1994, still going strong and their age seems irrelevant. I just regard them as a great band, 1964 till 2017 is remarkable.
Cant really think of who else could pull it off so effectively , more so because its such a youth centred industry. That might be it ! many of the younger bands are talentless unimaginative copyists with nothing new to say, and everyone recognises genuine talent.
Hence the stones longevity.

Mick Jagger hasn't been able to sing since the late 80s, but I'm still sure they put on a good concert.

[tim_noone]

I still would..

Yes I've got to agree.....

[Saxoman]

Burnley are the north Korea of football, isolated, cut off and believe delusional things about themselves..

Whoops, wrong thread.. Rock on..

[RammyClaret61]

This is from the concert I went to 4 weeks ago.

[yTib]

Watching on jools the drummer hasnt changed much... debbie harry is fast fading in looks, once so georgeous!! And the guitarist looked like hed been embalmed....is there a time to hang up the microphone? I only think the stones get away with it cos they were born old...

boy. 16 or 90; boy.

[tim_noone]

Nice....71? Crazy!

[BFCmaj]

I knew something like this was coming.

yes, of course they were influenced, who isnt? but the stones developed a niche and gave it something brand new and distinctive.
The whole media/pop business was also in its formative stages. They set the trend. In no shape or form could it be said they just did what everyone else does now.
Thesedays it is blatant and unoriginal. No comparison. The blues reference was obvious, but i think you chose to miss my point.

There are plenty of contemporary artists who I'm confident will have the longevity that the Stones have, it's just that we don't realise it yet because they are still relatively young, and likewise they too will acknowledge their influences in their music.

Similarly, there are very few artists who have come along who you could say are truly original but there are plenty who are innovative. Like the Stones, most acts take an existing genre or several influences and give their music a new twist and this is how new genres develop. Heavy Metal was born out of the Blues, Punk came from Rock 'N' Roll, Rap music looked backwards to Soul/Funk, people like Gil Scott-Heron and even Muhammad Ali but then became one of the most influential musical genres of the twentieth century.

The problem is that music is now a whole different animal. When the Beatles and Stones came out in the mid sixties, Rock music was only 10 years old and listeners only had a handful of bands to listen to. Listeners were pretty much dictated to by A&R men and the radio what to listen to. The Top 40 was rigged by record companies but it was still all fairly fresh and new. Now music is so accessible on so many different platforms but this has had an adverse effect on what people listen to. Up to fairly recently, you could pretty much identify when a piece of music was from just by listening to it. From the mid sixties to the nineties you could probably hazard a guess and be fairly accurate within a couple of years or so by recognising different genres and advances in music technology, but I would argue over the last twenty years, new music has become quite stagnant and safe. There aren't really that many obvious new genres of music that have developed. When I was younger, music would dictate fashion (Punk, New Romantic, Heavy Metal, Acid House, Grunge, Brit-Pop etc) and music doesn't really do that so much now. There are still new exciting acts that are pushing the boundaries (I personally like bands such as Biffy Clyro, Radiohead, Tool, Mastodon who I find challenge my listening) it's just that we don't necessarily hear them as much in the mainstream. The radio seems to like Coldplay, Adele and Ed Sheeran.

[bobinho]

She has, in the past, (late seventies/early eighties) been the single most beautiful most fittest bird there ever was. Bar none.

Solely responsible for me spending far too much time in my bedroom alone on as a teenager.

She does look a little older these days, but she still "radiates".

Clem Burke (drummer) one of the best out there.

[Blackrod]

Fit sexy with a great voice. The drummer Clem is excellent I agree.

[Wilsdenclaret]

Had the misfortune of seeing Blondie live a couple of times in the last 18 months supporting other people............absolutely dreadful and the new album is a total car crash; Clem Burke still has it but.....time to go, time to go.

[boiledclaret]

Pretty much. Their first few albums are R n B and Blues. Then they had a rubbishy psychedelic period before Keith Richards discovered open G tuning and then they wrote the same sounding songs ever since.

Top band that became one of the greatest groups in the world between 1968-1972, when they had a real menace about them. They've made few albums in the same league since. Their last great album (imo) was Emotional Rescue in 1980, 37 years ago.

More of a 'brand' than a band nowadays but they certainly created a legend within their first decade, which has aided them massively ever since.

[hampsteadclaret]

as above..
- when Debbie Harry first appeared ( latish 70s) she was the most gorgeous woman in pop music.
Trust me on that one.

8.. yes I like Future Islands..that lead singer though..he's a bit different..is he trying to hard..?

[tim_noone]

Wasnt it the drummer who contracted some debilitating illness,and was the lucky boyfreind of debbie harry? If so hes done remarkably well to be still active so to speak......

[Wilsdenclaret]

No it was Chris Stein the guitarist

[tim_noone]

No it was Chris Stein the guitarist

Ahhh.his he still with them?

[Wile E Coyote]

in the 60's it was genuinely new, there hadn't been youth culture paricularly, for whatever reason certain bands emerged and as mentioned, fashion trends were prominant.
I believe after 50 years of bandwagon hopping, and an entire multi billion dollar industry pggy backing off the scene to exploit it, the music has dried up.
There isnt anything worthwhile and original. Songs might be good, bands worth seeing occasionally, more so for the young, because they have no reference points from the past. Older people realise it is all mainly rehashed and not particularly valid.

[Quicknick]

She is 71. Went to see blondie a couple of weeks ago. She can still sing for sure. Excellent concert. A few years ago went to Meatloaf, he can't sing now. Bruce Springsteen 67 and still amazing. Also seen Fleetwood Mac recently, all in their 60's and again excellent.

71, eh! Credit to her for still being able to do it.

[Wilsdenclaret]

Ahhh.his he still with them?

Yeah, he's the one who looks like death warmed up and barely moves

[tim_noone]

Yeah, he's the one who looks like death warmed up and barely moves

Oh.....ignore my opening post,good stuff,well done that man!

[BFCmaj]

in the 60's it was genuinely new, there hadn't been youth culture paricularly, for whatever reason certain bands emerged and as mentioned, fashion trends were prominant.
I believe after 50 years of bandwagon hopping, and an entire multi billion dollar industry pggy backing off the scene to exploit it, the music has dried up.
There isnt anything worthwhile and original. Songs might be good, bands worth seeing occasionally, more so for the young, because they have no reference points from the past. Older people realise it is all mainly rehashed and not particularly valid.

Have you read the book '1971 Never A Dull Moment'? It looks at how productive music was in that short period of time.
https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/1108075 ... ll-moment/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;