It's the rolling stones, but only technically.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSnQ0bdHW0s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4mBTjJ_Yrg

I love that song. I saw Tobacco some years back and he didn't play any BMSR songs. Oh well. My replacement's Sweatmother. I really like them.

But here's mine.

http://youtu.be/jDW2itdXEYU

Please tell me you know about this, Gmork. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV7VNhzFLOQ

Can't speak for Gmork but that was new to me. Very NSFW though

For 20 years, my default music for old Bettie
Page loops has been the Rolling Stones "Get Yer yayas out".

I completely forgot about Tobacco. I had a love affair with Fucked Up Friends and listened to it about a thousand times in a row then abruptly dropped it. Happy to see he's got two more albums out!

Also Wareheim is a genius, that video is great.

You have successfully given me nightmare fuel minutes before bed. Great find!

yay!

Hip Shake was originally a song by Slim Harpo. So at least two of you are wrong already.

Also, although I don't like the Stones, if you're objecting to the quality or competency of that cover, you're fucking retarded.

>>Also, although I don't like the Stones, if you're objecting to the quality or competency of that cover, you're fucking retarded.

Right. It's like complaining about water being wet. What did you expect? It's part of its nature.

Anyway, here is my replacement:

http://youtu.be/MHf-YnY9k7k

I actually had forgotten specifically who did the original version.

I'm not objecting to the quality and competency of that cover, I am objecting to the quality and competency of that music in general.

smh

Face it, pops. The Rolling Stones are to the modern world what, I dunno, polka music was to your generation. You can try the old "I'm too hip for the rest of you hipsters" routine all you want; you're fooling no-one but yourself.

Their Satanic Majesties Request is great, I've even got the 11 disc bootleg version with every single inch of tape from every session they did for that album.

They start to lose me after Brian Jones died, though they still have their moments.

They'll forever be tarnished by my time working record stores in Boston, though, because Bobby Keyes' son is a fixture in that world, in that he's a horrible, probably clinically sociopathic creeper who we were perpetually fighting to keep away. At that point, he had been blacklisted by the sex workers' community for phone harassment. Belinda Carlisle has a restraining order against him and I think some of the Stonesdo, too. I'm pretty sure his father has completely disownd him at this point, although there are tons of pictures of him hanging out with them all on tour when he was a kid, before he turned into a GG Allin wannabe stalker.

>>Face it, pops. The Rolling Stones are to the modern world what, I dunno, polka music was to your generation.

So what would be the equivalent, to my generation, of Martin Scorcese making a documentary about Polka Music? Nope. Does not compute.

You want an analogy that works? Sinatra. And I didn't like Sinatra when I was in my early twenties.

I'm probably getting the story wrong, but I remember this interview with Pete Townshend where he was getting shitfaced at a bar. Punk Rock like The Ramones and Sex Pistols were becoming big and he just thought his time was up. Anyway, in walks Jon Lydon who convinces Townshend to not break up The Who, that they were the foundation of punk rock, etc. and Townshend got drunk and passed out in an alleyway. A cop found him and asked "Who are you," and that's how the song was conceived.

I never really got into the Stones that much as a band, but Godard's documentary Sympathy for the Devil is one of my favorite films.

Martin Scorcese is like 90 years old, John. Of course he's going to wanna make films about The Rolling Stones. He's just as much a dinosaur as they are! In *your* generation, 'Shine a Light" would be like Frank Capra coming back from the grave to do a documentary about geriatric flappers.

Sinatra doesn't work as a Stones analogy, because for all of his problems (and there were a lot), Sinatra's got that timeless sense of class that will never truly go out of style. The Rolling Stones are basically just dumb teenagers trapped in the faded snapshot of a long-dead era. Ol' Blue Eyes, he's you and me.

The one saving grace that the Stones have is that they're still the darlings of the major record labels, which, let's face it, was the only reason they thrived in the first placed - exactly middle of the road and thus perfect for the corporate gatekeepers of 1970s radio. Dated or not, The Stones keep playing ball, and the RIAA will keep trying to force-meme them onto kids.

But no amount of product placement in Ke$ha songs will hide the truth.

Ah Homer, you lonesome schoolboy, you child of the moon, you starfucker!

You're a strange stray cat. I can see that you're just fifteen years old.

Don't hang around, cause two's a crowd.

Actually, Martin Scorcese is in his 70s.

Jesus, Homer, you don't think I'm trying to pretend that the Rolling Stones aren't old, do you? Actually, the REAL heyday of the Stones was before MY time. Mick Jagger became a Great Grandfather last year. The oldest of the original lineup is Bill Wyman, who is a month older than my father, so he'll be 79 in a few months.

If you're trying to get me to concede that time has passed, of course, and if you want me to acknowledge that you can dislike the Stones without being a hipster, I already did that.

Face it, pops. The Rolling Stones are to the modern world what, I dunno, polka music was to your generation. You can try the old "I'm too hip for the rest of you hipsters" routine all you want; you're fooling no-one but yourself.

Most of the people in this thread seem pretty well informed and with good taste, even if they don't like the band that I like. You seem pretty misinformed about the Rolling Stones, but if you don't like them, I don't know why you should be well informed, and I think you're just making shit up, because you're trolling.

The only factually incorrect statement I have made is by saying that Scorcese is 90. That was intentional hyperbole, and at any rate, it has no direct bearing on the Stones themselves, about whom I have been meticulously accurate.

Did you acknowledge that one can dislike the Stones without being a hipster? If so, then... good! That's a start. Although I don't see why it should really matter if people here are hipsters or not hipsters or whathaveyou (inb4 a chlorine attack at a hipster convention forces us all to re-examine our tribal animosity against hipsters!), I suppose that so long as long as you're willing to concede that young people who dislike the Stones make a good point, that is enough for me.

>> I suppose that so long as long as you're willing to concede that young people who dislike the Stones make a good point, that is enough for me.

Not exactly. It just doesn't mean you're a hipster, or have bad taste, or much of anything, really. Tell me you don't like a band, and what am I supposed to say? No, you're wrong? You DO like that band? No, you can't proven wrong on that point, but you haven't "made a good point".

>>The only factually incorrect statement I have made is by saying that Scorcese is 90.

That's the only factual statement you've made, period. So you're batting zero. Hyperbole? Your one fact-based statement was hyperbole, and I'm not supposed to think you're trolling?

I also don't agree that Stones were considered MOR in 1962 or are being marketed to kids now. These aren't exactly facts so maybe you could make a case for these things, but you don't make a case, you just throw them out, and they're so counterintuitive and contrary to what everyone who is familiar to the Stones believes that it's pretty reasonable to assume that you don't know anything about the just making stuff up to troll.

Ouch. proofreading fail

There are two main points we've been considering here, Mr Holmes, both of which are completely factual.

1. That the tide of public opinion has turned against the Stones. That this is indeed the case has been clearly demonstrated within this very comment section; indeed, you yourself already admitted it was true. You knew we would bitch all along! Said so yourself.

2. The Stones suck. This fact is a somewhat harder to pin down, due to the partially subjective nature of "sucking", but their suckitude is supported through the objective, dispassionate analysis of the Stone's work, and furthermore its veracity can be observed indirectly by referring back to the results of Point 1.

There was a third point, something about hipsters something something I don't know, but as long as you're willing to back off the hipstophobia, we can let that slide.

You are welcome to present counter-evidence to dispute either of the above resolutions.

As for marketing their product towards children like a pack of predatory Joe Camels, you've already mentioned Scorsese's recent infomercial, and you've stated before that you were a Ke$ha fan. I assumed that her foray into Rolling Stones product placement was known to you already, without the need for me to elaborate, either on that or on any of the other various musical attempts to force-meme Jagger and Co that have been turning up in pop-culture since the band and their catalogue got bought up by Universal Music Group for a hefty, and potentially non-profitable sum.

>>Too bad the footage is in such bad condition

You can't always get what you want.

See I thought I became more of a hipster after I stopped hating them.

I don't really want this conversation to take a turn toward the serious, so just understand that I always use "hipster" to rag on people who seem to make a big deal out of hating something that's popular or established, particularly something that I like. I suppose that it would be more accurate to apply it to people who like things that are new, strange, and obscure, but I think those people are awesome.

She was hot.