|
Post by Isaac Ryan on Nov 7, 2020 17:43:33 GMT
John Edwards is not a session musician with Quo. That’s fact . You can have an opinion about his playing, singing, songwriting but you can’t say that is a session musician with Quo as it’s factually incorrect to do so. A 35 year long session If I were Rhino I would have joined full time
|
|
|
Post by Isaac Ryan on Nov 7, 2020 17:58:30 GMT
Still waiting for someone to say John Coghlan is a session musician that came in to replace Alan Key for the live shows they were starting to have. That would be equally as silly. John Edwards was a replacement for Alan Lancaster yes, but a session musician 35 years later Really?
|
|
gav
Veteran Rocker Rollin'
Posts: 2,152
Favourite Quo Album: On The Level
|
Post by gav on Nov 8, 2020 1:27:16 GMT
Back to Jagger, it's a funny juxtaposition, Quo and the Stones. Both ought to be in the same ball park, they're both rock bands who, er, rock. But there's a massive cultural divide, maybe even a class divide.
Jagger seems to look down on bands like Quo. Was Jagger ever really down with his audience? Quo were a working class band, but the Stones seem to be somewhere closer to middle. And that has been evident in Jagger's ascent to the top. Or maybe he only likes bands who display their blues credentials as blatantly as him?
The Stones were there during the counter culture, they maybe even invented some of it, subverted it, at least wrote about and reflected it. They and The Beatles were synonymous with 60's and early 70's pop culture. Top of the tree. It's academic, an intellectual topic. Whereas, where are Quo's cultural references? They have none! Pure entertainment, and viewed as pretty mindless at that by the academics no doubt.
I'll stick my neck out and say that most of Quo's audience are people who love the experience and keep going back, whereas the Stones are more likely a cultural phenomenon who people want to go see on their bucket list as a one off....maybe???
Then there's the music. I think Quo have pulled off a much harded trick than the Stones - to write hard rock music with highly accessible melody not rooted in pure blues, whereas much of the Stones material tends to be (granted, they had a glorious mid to late 60's semi-experimental phase) and has been ever since - rooted in the same bluesy drawl, much of a sameness.
Don't get me wrong, the Stones i love, i love! But i think the massive hype that has always surrounded them (also the legend of "Keef") distorts the perspective massively in their favour and kind of undermines the legacies of others. Not that that's intentional on their own part, but they've obviously been big, big news for decades, an easy sell. And yes they were massive in the 60's. I just think they've put in less hours to achieve that, and yeah, life ain't fair, and it's not a competition and all that....
But if you let rock stars critique other rock stars, then it kind of is! Competitive, that is. We're all a wee bit biased here though!
Never mind.
|
|
|
Post by asthequoflies on Nov 8, 2020 11:34:21 GMT
I think 'snob' is the word you're seeking when it comes to Mr. Jagger, he can be very disdainful and most definitely aspired to social climbing as soon as he was successful.
Jagger (and Jones) were middle class, aspiring to be upper middle class. Keef, Charlie And Bill would have been considered working class.
Two sides of Jagger really; in 1968 he and Faithful attended a high society shindig, Mick upon meeting the host proclaimed "I'm here to learn to be a gentleman". At that same time he and his band were seen by the establishment as a truly subversive force, even being jailed in 1967.
The other side is the libertarian, the debauched Knight of the Realm. Mick may have given up drugs by early 80s, but he is notably still addicted to rock'n'roll and sex. He is a Conservative financially, he is Knighted, but his social values are libertarian and even bohemian in a way. Decadence and debauchery, not with drugs but with women, are his obsession. He's written about it enough.
So we have the very English gentleman, but also the naughtiest Knight (as one book on him was titled).
Perhaps Lord Byron but with a tendency for English tea with his decadence.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgirl on Nov 8, 2020 14:01:12 GMT
I think 'snob' is the word you're seeking when it comes to Mr. Jagger, he can be very disdainful and most definitely aspired to social climbing as soon as he was successful. Jagger (and Jones) were middle class, aspiring to be upper middle class. Keef, Charlie And Bill would have been considered working class. Two sides of Jagger really; in 1968 he and Faithful attended a high society shindig, Mick upon meeting the host proclaimed "I'm here to learn to be a gentleman". At that same time he and his band were seen by the establishment as a truly subversive force, even being jailed in 1967. The other side is the libertarian, the debauched Knight of the Realm. Mick may have given up drugs by early 80s, but he is notably still addicted to rock'n'roll and sex. He is a Conservative financially, he is Knighted, but his social values are libertarian and even bohemian in a way. Decadence and debauchery, not with drugs but with women, are his obsession. He's written about it enough. So we have the very English gentleman, but also the naughtiest Knight (as one book on him was titled). Perhaps Lord Byron but with a tendency for English tea with his decadence. What a great post. Really loved reading that.
|
|
|
Post by Mrs Flittersnoop on Nov 8, 2020 15:31:05 GMT
That's right twentytwenty, it is subjective. But one can objectively recognise a band are among the greats for a reason. I was no fan of the BeeGees but recognise they are considered among the top pop writers in popular music. I prefer every note Bob Dylan played to anything by the BeeGees, doesn't mean the BeeGees are crap, they are held in very high esteem as great songwriters. Whether an individual likes the Stones or not, they are considered one of the true greats and for good reason.
Really Dylan's one mistake is that he didn't write Stayin' Alive.
|
|
|
Post by Mrs Flittersnoop on Nov 8, 2020 15:32:36 GMT
So everyone who’s not a founding member in their respective bands in the whole world is a session musician by your books? Not in my book. Only session musicians are session musicians.
Edwards is a session musician.
Jimmy Page was a session musician. Your point? ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Mrs Flittersnoop on Nov 8, 2020 15:38:26 GMT
So you’re telling me Rhino has not been a member in Quo for decades!? And an essential songwriter for the band as well. Jeff was in the band for a decade and a half. They’re members of the band - fact. still a session musician who Rossi if he wanted too could easily get a replacement for Rhino if they had a fall out & Rhino is a yes man for Rossi. So he may of written songs for Quo big deal, but he is NOT a founding member of the band - that's a FACT. Risky definition! We've seen that Francis can easily get a replacement for just about anyone in Quo ... and indeed has done just that! And there were only two founding members in any real sense, Francis and Alan. (QED.) Who knows, given time and a chance, maybe Francis will even find a replacement for himself? Would any of us be surprised, really? ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Mrs Flittersnoop on Nov 8, 2020 15:53:55 GMT
I could never stand the stones. Never understood how they could be so big One transcendent album and a lot of hype. Oh come now. Out of Our Heads was good too :-) (Particularly the US version.)
|
|
|
Post by Mrs Flittersnoop on Nov 8, 2020 16:06:42 GMT
I got to Mick by going backwards. Thank you for the post BTW. Mick er ... what Backwater said, basically. He really sounds like he got up too late, he doesn't always sound like that, and he's being a real snoot. I think he is a bit like that, which is one reason Keith is always having a pop at him. What really pissed me a bit is Annie Nightingale brown nosing him. Really she should know better. I don't know who "voice 3" was but cold coffee to him. I don't know if Proposing is derivative, because I've never come across anything it sounds like it's derived from. I loved it, it was one of the songs that got me into Quo, never mind the old stuff. I think Mick is a great singer. I always thought so. No idea why, it's just what he does, he does that Mick thing and it works. He didn't sound like anyone else. Keef of course has to be jealous of his moves, as he only leaves his sofa to fall out of trees Mick was the biggest piece of luck that Keith ever had (Kieth was the biggest piece of luck Mick ever had,and we're talking about a man who "married" Jerry Hall here.) Or possibly Andrew Loog Oldham for both of them. Quo on radio, I'm not in love? What's the old boy talking about?? Maybe he really IS on something.
|
|
|
Post by vivfromcov on Nov 8, 2020 16:10:48 GMT
Just listened to the clip. Jagger sounds like he’s out of his head & so lethargic. By the way WYP went on to reach no’2 in the UK (sold 475k) in 1980 & was massive right across Europe & beyond with sales over 2 million worldwide. Also during the past 20 years Quo haven’t needed session players on stage for their live shows!!!! You could be opening a can of worms with that statement! tenor.com/view/movie-time-movie-theater-watching-michael-jackson-gif-3579864
|
|
|
Post by vivfromcov on Nov 8, 2020 16:26:09 GMT
So basically Annie Nightingale was sticking up for Quo due to the fact Mick Jagger and the other chap obviously hated them! Yeah, I think she does actually like Quo, but as she hadn't been concentrating (and probably not listening to the song), unfortunately she opened up the conversation with the negative stereotype which the other chap and Mick jumped onto. I think she then tried to back track slightly but Mick had not obviously listened to the song properly either if he thought it was 10cc!
|
|
|
Post by americanquo on Nov 8, 2020 16:37:30 GMT
One transcendent album and a lot of hype. Oh come now. Out of Our Heads was good too :-) (Particularly the US version.) I didn't say 'good.' I said transcendent. Quo had more than one, for me, maybe as many as four or five. The Stones had Sticky Fingers and that was it. Others were Very Good, and some more were good, but Quo Lite had more overall good albums than the Stones. Post 1978 not one of their albums is worth owning, only single songs here and there. And they left the best song off of Goat's Head Soup.
|
|
|
Post by Mrs Flittersnoop on Nov 8, 2020 17:02:28 GMT
Oh come now. Out of Our Heads was good too :-) (Particularly the US version.) I didn't say 'good.' I said transcendent. Quo had more than one, for me, maybe as many as four or five. The Stones had Sticky Fingers and that was it. Others were Very Good, and some more were good, but Quo Lite had more overall good albums than the Stones. Post 1978 not one of their albums is worth owning, only single songs here and there. And they left the best song off of Goat's Head Soup. I think the key for me is that I left off my Stones fandom after (or during) Beggers Banquet (acclaimed by some as their best), my ears are really early Stones ears. The other one I loved and still do was The Rolling Stones Now, which has a fine mix of blues covers and some of their moody pop hits or B sides. OOTH is my favourite though, there isn't one skipper track on it (in modern parlance). A friend of mine at school had Sticky Fingers and said it was the best, but the zip kept scratching her other record covers
|
|
|
Post by asthequoflies on Nov 8, 2020 17:38:57 GMT
Same here Mrs. Flittersnoop, those early albums are very underrated. OOOH is excellent, as is 12x5 and their very first album I've had in a lot this past week. I have a playlist of all 18 tracks from OOOH, amalgam of the US and UK versions.
Their run of singles in the 60s is an amazing run.
Mainly it is the second run I love, the albums generally recognised as true greats. To make one is what bands aspire to, to make four in a row is why that period 1968-1972 is referred to as their Golden Period. Those four albums are as mythologised today as they were impactful then, up there with the greatest rock'n'roll albums in popular music. Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main Street. An incredible run of quality.
Three others are continually critically lauded and listed as classic and make the Greatest Album Lists, but more importantly are held in the highest esteem by the fans - Some Girls, Tattoo You (two of my own favourites) and 1966s After-Math.
That's my opinion. Besides the marvellous singles run of the 60s, those 7 albums are transcendent and form the crux of why they are still revered. Transcendent as they are still so celebrated - written about, analysed, mythologised, and will always be issued and reissued for successive generations.
I have been a Quo fan since 1997 or so and the output 1970-1976 particular I think was their apex. They may not have albums as celebrated and written about akin to works by the Beatles, Bowie, Queen, Dylan..etc, but I do think Hello and Piledriver deserve to be rated as up there among the best 70s rock albums. I think they are excellent albums. And among fans, and for me, albums like Quo, Blue for You and On the Level I consider as examples of their best.
Differing opinions. A mate of mine is adamant Bowie was interminably overrated, and only has two true great albums. I think Bowie easily made 6 or 7 outstanding albums in the 70s, and his work particularly 1970-1980 will be rediscovered and written about for generations.
|
|