a case of the blues?

mc wrote:

Iggy and James's Ballad of Holllis Brown is great

its amazing, i love that song

i loved those sessions, that guitar sound is amazing, i still wanna be able to play that way

i wonder if there was any more stuff done at those sessions than was released

This is a really interesting topic! Lately I've been sort of thinking about the difference between The Stooges and punk in general, between punk and other genres of music, and between early punk and contemporary punk. It seems that, as many others have already said, punk music should carry an "I'll do it my way" attitude, and this should come across in both the lyrics and the style. What makes The Stooges great is that they successfully do both; the sound itself was new at the time, and it remains distinct to this day, no matter how many groups pattern themselves after it. Lyrically, the band is bleak and realistic; they don't bullshit around or sugar-coat anything. They accomplish this without compromising their lifestyles and, more importantly, without glorifying them either. This is why their songs are so beautifully melancholy at times; when life sucks, it sucks. "Dirt" has got to be one of the most honest and emotionally-vibrant tracks I've ever heard: very, very blues-y.

The honesty of The Stooges is what really sets them apart, and also why I don't enjoy The Stones, Jim Morrison, or contemporary punk groups very much. The swaggering, "look at me, I'm being rebellious" attitude is almost childish in comparison, in my opinion. It's just hard to take seriously. Compare that to any number of Iggy's projects: he'll be a screaming lunatic at one moment and musing over his burnt-out friends and drug problems the next: that was his life. Also, a lot of the "do it yourself" sound of punk seems to be dying; well, the very fact that there is an established "punk" sound sort of spells out the end. I don't want to be pessimistic, but there really needs to be a bit of innovation; even The Clash, which has a pretty classic "punk" sound, dabbled a lot in reggae, rockabilly, and dance music (actually, they died out right at the time when they turned their backs on diversity in style). The founders of punk - The Stooges, The New York Dolls, Lou Reed, Patti Smith, David Bowie, The Velvet Underground, and others - typically didn't have much of what is now known as a "punk" sound at all...they just produced startlingly original music. Even the delivery was something new (I don't think you'll find anything as comparatively unheard-of or creative as David Bowie's alter egos, the New York Dolls' outfits, or Iggy Pop's antics today). To me, that, not any formulaic style, is exactly what punk needs to be.

mc wrote:

Iggy and James's Ballad of Holllis Brown is great

where can I find that mc?

also nofun - I'm glad you like this topic ,and I really like your comments on honesty and originality, I couldn't agree more. I also don't like bands and singers who are self-consciously punk or rebellious or something, it spoils a lot of The Stones' stuff for me too. The minute a show-offy, manipulative element of any kind creeps in I start to lose interest, and the funny thing is it's usually quite easy to tell when a band's being totally sincere and when they're not.

nofun84 wrote:

the sound itself was new at the time, and it remains distinct to this day

The honesty of The Stooges is what really sets them apart, and also why I don't enjoy The Stones, Jim Morrison, or contemporary punk groups very much. The swaggering, "look at me, I'm being rebellious" attitude is almost childish in comparison, in my opinion. It's just hard to take seriously.

Also, a lot of the "do it yourself" sound of punk seems to be dying; well, the very fact that there is an established "punk" sound sort of spells out the end.

The founders of punk - The Stooges, The New York Dolls, Lou Reed, Patti Smith, David Bowie, The Velvet Underground, and others - typically didn't have much of what is now known as a "punk" sound at all...they just produced startlingly original music. Even the delivery was something new

To me, that, not any formulaic style, is exactly what punk needs to be.

About quite a lot yr writing I exactly think the same! cheers

In my opinion also the Sex Pistols had that same 'childish' attitude. (Although I do like the sound in some of their songs) The Stooges in these day's wanted to make NEW music..and Iggy especially was focussed on action/reaction, to disturb...to WAKE UP the suckers with good and real music. Actually he/The Stooges still aiming on this. (600 post)

I think Ballad of Hollis Brown only appears on Revenge's Open Up and Bleed cd from 1988. I'll try and rememember my rapidshare password and post a link.

I'm guessing also that if you've got "I'm a Man", that you've also got "I'm so Glad" another great blues number from the same sessions. And what about the Stooge's version of Purple Haze anyone need to hear that?

HSJW yeah I think there is definitely more from those sessions that has not been released, I've seen a couple of hours worth of stuff listed by several traders, many tracks just listed as "Stooges Jam". I think the best of it has probably been released though.


Edit: I've now seen that all these 72 demo tracks are also available on Bomp's Wild Love except for Purple Hazze.

ZinZin wrote:

In my opinion also the Sex Pistols had that same 'childish' attitude.

I would completly disagree with that. The Sex Pistols were amazingly honest about Britain at the time there was "no future", they were being manipulated by big music industries like "EMI" and "liar"s like Malcom McLaren. Did you know "Anarchy In The UK" was actually taking the piss out of all those people that acted like they were rebellious. The simple truth was the Sex Pistols WERE rebellious.

What annoys me is bands like Greenday and My Chemical Romance who act like they're rebellious when they've done NOTHING original.

GFE...yeah they were honest about Britain maybe..but that's politics.....Lyndon was the only one who was pretty serious about this..but politics and music? to me the combination sucks. A bad marriage!
They were rebellious..agree with that...against a lot! But in my eye's not really seriously engaged with the music and with themselves what they really wanted with it (Maclaren ruined them with his idea's)..of coarse they were rebellious!!

thanks mc, I actually haven't got 'I'm so Glad' though!

also GF#E, I'm glad that you pointed out that the Sex Pistols didn't just have a 'childish' attitude, they were better than that. and just how do politics and music suck, as ZinZin says?

oh, and the Stooges doing 'Purple Haze' mc? tell me more!!

Putting them up now (can I post links in this thread or should I use the bootleg section??HL) And yes I'm glad the Stooges never got sucked into the Trans Love Energies revolutionary thing.

Links to Iggy and James demos (Ballad of Hollis Brown, I'm a Man, Purple Haze, I'm so Glad) from 1972 in bootleg section now.

Nadja you're gonna love these!

thanks a million mc!!

ZinZin wrote:

but politics and music? to me the combination sucks. A bad marriage!

I completly disagree I think politics and music work brilliantly together. The Sex Pistols, Marilyn Manson, The Clash and The Dead Kennedys all write brilliant political songs. People tend not to like dealing with reality so bands who give ignorance a kick up the ass tend to annoy the system.

ZinZin wrote:

But in my eye's not really seriously engaged with the music and with themselves

The Sex Pistols never tried to be serious, its actually rather strange. The Stooges tried to be as serious as possible about their music but were seen as a novelty act at the time. While the Sex Pistols made fun of the country, their music and themselves but were taken really seriously at the time.

G, F#, E wrote:

ZinZin wrote:

but politics and music? to me the combination sucks. A bad marriage!

I completly disagree I think politics and music work brilliantly together. The Sex Pistols, Marilyn Manson, The Clash and The Dead Kennedys all write brilliant political songs. People tend not to like dealing with reality so bands who give ignorance a kick up the ass tend to annoy the system.

.

Exactly.

ZinZin wrote:

GFE...yeah they were honest about Britain maybe..but that's politics.....Lyndon was the only one who was pretty serious about this..but politics and music? to me the combination sucks. A bad marriage!
They were rebellious..agree with that...against a lot! But in my eye's not really seriously engaged with the music and with themselves what they really wanted with it (Maclaren ruined them with his idea's)..of coarse they were rebellious!!

I kinda agree...there are very few artists who don't rub me the wrong way when they're being political. One is Bob Dylan, basically because he told everyone from the start not to look at him as some sort of spokesperson; any highly public figure who gets grouchy when people start hanging on his every word is ok with me. And also because of his honesty combined with a crazy sense of humor: he'll be singing about how he hopes war-mongering politicians will die so he can follow their funeral parties one moment (Masters of War), then spinning off hilarious Strangelove-ian political jabs the next (Talking World War III Blues). There's sort of a combined naivety and world-weariness that comes across as pure brilliance. The Clash are ok too: they had the same sort of aura for a while, combining idealism with just enough light-heartedness to keep from getting annoying (Julie's in the Drug Squad, for one, and even Rock the Casbah to an extent).

Most artists, though, whatever their genre, just bug me when they get on their soapboxes. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but I resent it when I feel an artist is using his or her popularity and media access in order to push a political agenda, especially since a lot of musicians don't really seem to know what they're talking about. It's pure manipulation. It doesn't take much intelligence or any guts to say, for example, "Bush is a moron," or to take this as an album theme. It's not a very original political stance, and a sizable portion of the public isn't even going to bother disagreeing (unless you're the Dixie Chicks, who just had rotten luck).

No comment on the Sex Pistols, though, as I'm not really all that familiar with their music (or British politics).

Quote :

Most artists, though, whatever their genre, just bug me when they get on their soapboxes. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but I resent it when I feel an artist is using his or her popularity and media access in order to push a political agenda, especially since a lot of musicians don't really seem to know what they're talking about. It's pure manipulation. It doesn't take much intelligence or any guts to say, for example, "Bush is a moron," or to take this as an album theme.

i agree entirely with this statement, and specifically this one;

Quote :

It's not a very original political stance

i hate ppl bandwagon jumping, its the only thing worse than someone (ab)using their 'position' to preach - i hate that specifically 'preaching' annoys the crap outta me, probly why i hate obama so much , thats all he is 'southern preacher' no other modes, hence why he's no fit president - digressing, but i hate the fucker, anyway - (oh and i dont support mccain either btw, ive tried to look for a good side in his policies and character etc, and found some things, but he keeps letting me down - hilldog shouldve been nominee) anyway, yeh i hate preaching, and esp from hugely wealthy bastards like bono and geldof

i saw the most hilarious ad a while back, havent seen it since, not surprised they may have pulled it, but it was paul mccartney, the £800m beatle - asking us, the great unwashed for money to support the womens olympic team, actually even funnier was i think it was paralympic team, and its not funny because of that, but because of the debacle with heather mills, and the whole thing about the divorce, i dunno how she got any money, she mustve had great lawyers to work with her story; she didnt have a leg to stand on

...sorry, both for the joke and, well she kinda had it coming, lol

nah, shes probly alrite, never, and dont want to, meet her

anyway, yeh the preacher rock thing is somehitng i hate, and what turns me off a lot of music, and the way ppl think just cos of america and iraq and iran etc etc they have to tack on an extra song about it, and make it an album of the times kinda thing

like kings of leon, i like their music, but an interview about the upcoming album whiff of this, theres some song on it about the war, i just thought...nah, dont its not worth it, cause in the end, itll only age the album, by having it stuck in a particular time, dylan wrote about war at the time of war, like a deliberate coincidence lol

nofun84 wrote:

It doesn't take much intelligence or any guts to say, for example, "Bush is a moron," or to take this as an album theme.

Greenday, right? American Idiot is an awful album from an awful band.

I like bands that actually do something when it comes to politics not in a Bono preacher way but in an active way. The Dead Kennedys are a brilliant example of this, Jello Biafra is a Stooges fan to which helps. "Holiday In Cambodia", "California Uber Alles" and "Nazi Punks Fuck Off!" (actually 80% of DK's back catalogue) are brilliantly, funny, satirial lyrics with great, inventive music to back them up.

Jello Biafra actually even ran for govenor oof California! He had a full campaign as well. Most of it mocked the other partys. For instance the Republican candidate has a "Clean Up Our Streets" agenda and was photographed sweeping up leaves. Jello was photographed hoovering them up

Bono

to return in some measure to a 'blues' theme I think next up is the extended 'I need Somebody'!

couldn't be bothered to start a new thread, but I'm just getting into the whole blues scene, I mean the older blues scene especially, I've heard some names and I've been listening to some Albert King recently but don't really know where to start, can anyone recommend any blues guitarists, the greats and/or the less well-known? Thanks.

Quote :

but don't really know where to start, can anyone recommend any blues guitarists, the greats and/or the less well-known? Thanks.

its more a personal taste thing, blues is so different, as much as music is itself, so many different facets etc

how 'old' do yo mean, because my faovurite type of blues is country blues, and recently ive been gettin into blind blake

i'd think buy a blues compilation of stuff, i like the 'document' i think its by stuff, i have a 10CD thing called Goin Mad Blues, country blues stuff, i have another one called Digging Deeper, another 10CDs of country blues - ithink u get i like country blues lol

just start with a compilation i'd look 'genre wise' frist rather than artist wise, just a thought

Nadja, try John Lee Hooker, he moved to Detroit
and is pretty cool.

thanks TED, think I will, he's one of those names always floating around! like T-Bone Walker, Muddy Waters etc.....

Muddy Waters is amazing.

For some more modern blues which sounds older check out Seasick Steve. Hes got a great blues sound.

TED wrote:

Nadja, try John Lee Hooker, he moved to Detroit
and is pretty cool.

yeh you have to get into JLH Nadja!! its just a requisite fr blues listenin!

he's my favourite probly, then lightnin hopkins, then howlin wolf, then probly mississippi john hurt, dont have a 5th yet, maybe buddy guy

I was even thinking Bo Diddly ..... but he might just be too ROCK .... I'm not sure