stooges 2009 prospects?

Iggy and the Stooges sexy dangerous and fun
Sex Pistols not.

TED wrote:

Iggy and the Stooges sexy dangerous and fun
Sex Pistols not.

And we have a WINNER!!!!

TED wrote:

Iggy and the Stooges sexy dangerous and fun
Sex Pistols not.

The Sex Pistols never tried to be sexy whereas The Stooges shows were always very sexually charged. I mean for god's sake compare John Lydon to Iggy Pop, its not suprising is it?

The Pistols were dangerous even if they are seen as a joke now. And to be honest Iggy - although he remains the greatest live performer of all time - doesn't have the same edge he used to. Its just a thing that happens as musicians get older but it doesn't effect what matters: their music.

And I'd argue that both The Sex Pistols and The Stooges are incredibly fun...in a demented sort of way

Quote :

doesn't have the same edge he used to. Its just a thing that happens as musicians get older

dunno about that, i think theres still a danger element to a stooges show, the danger was always calculated, as in iggy has said, where ppl thought it was random, he had actually sat in the local library thinkin about all these moves

granted the more extreme stuff, such as vomiting on stage, or watever, that kinda of danger isnt present, iggys not as ''i dont care if you paid to see me, that doesnt give you a right to a performance" - thats a paraphrase to what he said once in 77, but that kinda selfish or anti-zoo animal approach isnt there, he very much wants to give the crowd a good show and a good time

i would agree the crazy "oh shit" moments arent there, for fans at least, but im sure that 'lay people' who arent aware of the stooges at all, but may see them in passing at a festival or something, i think its 'dangeruos' in a fun and exciting way

i agree though, pistols werent about sex, few bands can pull it off, stones, zeppelin even, but esp jagger and iggy, and morrison to an extent, but that sexual energy isnt something most people can pull off, but pistols werent about that -and as you say G, just compare the frontmen!

G, F#, E wrote:

TED wrote:

Iggy and the Stooges sexy dangerous and fun
Sex Pistols not.

The Sex Pistols never tried to be sexy

of course you're right. You might say their aim was rather to be repugnant - actually it turned out that Lydon's venom combined wonderfully with Jones's violent guitar to produce music with a lasting impact. I've not heard any song with uglier and more hard-hitting lyrics and subject-matter than 'Bodies', and few songs with such a strong guitar sound. Lydon really had something to say at that time, and REALLY said it. But I'm sure they enjoyed it all as well - they would've just wanted to make music in the first instance, I guess, as you say G the 'fun' element was definitely also there!

Nadja wrote:

of course you're right. You might say their aim was rather to be repugnant - actually it turned out that Lydon's venom combined wonderfully with Jones's violent guitar to produce music with a lasting impact. I've not heard any song with uglier and more hard-hitting lyrics and subject-matter than 'Bodies', and few songs with such a strong guitar sound. !

Oasis stole the intro riff and made into a whole song "Bring it on down". Which I think is more mega in every possible way. "You're the underclass. You're the outkast"

what, Oasis ripped off 'Bodies'?

in my opinion it's a song that can't be bettered.
and actually 'song' is a pretty feeble term for it...it's a blast of furious sound, energy and complete and utter rancour.

Nadja wrote:

what, Oasis ripped off 'Bodies'?

in my opinion it's a song that can't be bettered.
and actually 'song' is a pretty feeble term for it...it's a blast of furious sound, energy and complete and utter rancour.

Of course they have. Everything that was early Oasis sounded like a stone roses fucked up on Sex pistols, Trex and Beatles.
Oasis was almost boogie rock at some times in their early days.

The intro riff of Bodies is more or less the same as the main riff in Oasis - Bring it on down.
Have a listen. It's good stuff. Not to top what you think of bodies, but still. Eh. Good stuff

Now for my opinion You have every right to look worried

Ah yes Oasis...the crap version of The Stone Roses.

G, F#, E wrote:

Now for my opinion You have every right to look worried

Ah yes Oasis...the crap version of The Stone Roses.

...btw...nothing personal aganst rabid fans of the gallagher's, BUT...

Oasis is one of the gayest, lamest, poser bands of all-time...

i mean seriously...those 2, individually and collectively, take the term "wanker" to a new level...

jimmyo wrote:

G, F#, E wrote:

Now for my opinion You have every right to look worried

Ah yes Oasis...the crap version of The Stone Roses.

...btw...nothing personal aganst rabid fans of the gallagher's, BUT...

Oasis is one of the gayest, lamest, poser bands of all-time...

i mean seriously...those 2, individually and collectively, take the term "wanker" to a new level...

Not to mention the monobrows. I mean honestly, they're one of the most commercially succesful Brittish bands of all time yet they can't find time to pluck the space between their eyebrows. Shocking. And don't get me started on their egos and their music...

Please allow me to simplify.

FUCK OASIS.

I saw them live opening for U2 once. That's all I needed to see.

Why did U2 have Oasis as a support band?! How you can go from the mindblowing genius of The Pixies to the shear shitness of Oasis all in the space of a few years is amazing.

G, F#, E wrote:

Why did U2 have Oasis as a support band?!

Fucked if I know. Perhaps U2 needed some comedy relief to get relaxed before their show. Plus it HAD to be a confidence booster.

Quote :

Why did U2 have Oasis as a support band?!

dont bands usually put a shit band on, so they look all the better lol

i hate oasis, all they do is rip off a trex riff, a bowie or beatles melody and they have a song, oh sorry i forgot shit lyrics thrown in to make something thats supposed to ressemble a rock album haha

I have to admit...I hate Oasis, Stone Roses and U2 all pretty much equally.

i have a friend who enjoys oasis, but i think they're just god awful. u2 ... one of the worst shows i have EVER seen.

Haha I see no love for the Oasis mancs in this thread. But what I'v learned since I was little, I'v been into them since I was 8 years till now 21 years, is that people either doesn't like them or they love them.
Some of the people I know hated them for 5 years but then changed and started to like them.

But seriously. You don't start with calling them posers since they more or less don't care or they make fun of most of it that has come with their fame.
And the rip off thing is the oldest trick in the book. Both Beatles and the R.Stones lifted their best stuff from their favourite blues listenings.
And Noel G from Oasis has never pretended about them being inventive in any way. He's been slagging and joking around with artists saying they're for real because they're original.

I think most people get off at their so called attitude. I mean. They're hardly any serious at all. They're just being jerks into mics when interviewed and saying shit when they know it's being written in the papers.
But I can understand some don't go for that. I mostly just laugh at how stupid most of their stuff they have to say is.
But then I don't need them go talking about them trying to save the world or anything like that, being originals or anything like that. What they'v had in mind is that they'll die someday, and they might as well go fucking while doing it.
That Manchester city, alcohol and drugs. I think.

to be honest Borntohula...I'm not bothered about their attitude. I just find their music very bland!

And that has to do with taste. Which most people have. You're still this good rebel even how or not you feel about music.

If everyone did agree on msuic, we wouldn't have any struggle would we eh? Something that's very important when it comes to making magic.

Shakes wrote:

i have a friend who enjoys oasis, but i think they're just god awful. u2 ... one of the worst shows i have EVER seen.

What year was that?

03/26/2001 at the national car rental center (now bank atlantic center) in sunrise, fl

Shakes wrote:

03/26/2001 at the national car rental center (now bank atlantic center) in sunrise, fl

You're shittin' me, right? I was there too!

That show definitely wasn't their best, I'll give you that. Bono forgot to bring his balls, his voice was weak as shit.

Loose1969 wrote:

Shakes wrote:

03/26/2001 at the national car rental center (now bank atlantic center) in sunrise, fl

You're shittin' me, right? I was there too!

That show definitely wasn't their best, I'll give you that. Bono forgot to bring his balls, his voice was weak as shit.

hahaha, no, i still have the ticket. i remember hearing something about him being sick. it took me a while to track down a copy of the bootleg (still need to grab the dvd), but yeah - i went with my parents, and it was fun to go with them. i remember we were supposed to go to first night, but they were sold out, so we opted for night two. i was disappointed that pj harvey had to cancel, but what can you do.

Even the Pistols are better than U2