smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | Michael Bennett <mrhonorama@ameritech.net> |
| Subject | Re: Stones to tour ... |
| Date | Thu, 12 May 2005 09:37:44 -0700 (PDT) |
[Part 1 text/plain us-ascii (5.6 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
First, Greg cites one of the most memorable articles I
have ever read. I know that everyone cites the David
Marsh/Lester Bangs era as the glory days of Creem, but
the years when Kordosh, Richard Riegal, Billy Altman,
Bill Holdship, John Mendelsohn (w/Eleganza) and the
inimitable Rick Johnson ruled the roost in the
late-'70s/early-'80s were great.
Second, Greg -- I wouldn't say that the classic era of
Stones was prostitution. And I don't know if I'd use
the word now, but I certainly don't get the feeling
that much of what they do comes from the heart, other
than the joy they get from performing. Does that
sound reasonable?
Mike Bennett
--- "Sager, Greg" <greg.sager@bankofamerica.com>
wrote:
> Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 06:17:09 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Hersh Forman <hiforman@yahoo.com>
> To: audities@smoe.org
> Subject: Re: Stones to tour ...
> Message-ID:
> <20050512131710.60697.qmail@web53007.mail.yahoo.com>
>
> You tryin' to say you like those songs???
>
>
> Who, me? Naaaah ...
>
> This is very reminiscent of one of my favorite
> pieces from the classic
> *CREEM* era of the late seventies. It was a J.
> Kordosh piece entitled,
> "Rush: But Why Are They In Such A Hurry?" It was
> screamingly funny, mostly
> because Kordosh was smart enough to let Neil Peart
> hoist himself upon his
> own petard; it was impossible after reading that
> article to see Peart as
> anything other than one of the most pretentious
> musicians on the planet
> (even by prog-rock standards, which is really saying
> something). It was so
> good that I can still remember large bits of the
> article to this day, even
> though I haven't read it in over twenty years. Keep
> that in mind as I
> attempt to reconstruct this from memory:
>
> The article starts off on the wrong foot in
> journalistic terms, because
> Kordosh can't get Geddy Lee to accede to an
> interview. Seems that the
> Gedster had taken offense to a *CREEM* joke piece in
> an earlier issue that'd
> had a composite rock-star character in it named
> "Geddy Lee Roth". Peart did
> agree to sit down with Kordosh on the record, and it
> soon becomes apparent
> in the article that this was mostly because Peart
> loved the sound of his own
> voice and had a heavy tendency to pedantic ranting.
> It also became clear
> that, if he had a sense of humor at all, even an
> electron microscope
> wouldn't have been able to detect it.
>
> Peart began the interview by excoriating Kordosh and
> his magazine for the
> "libelous and destructive slander" it had
> perpetrated upon his bass player
> and friend, and suggests in no uncertain terms that
> *CREEM* should either
> issue a printed apology to Geddy or close its doors
> in shame. He hints
> darkly that there would be serious repercussions for
> that particular piece
> of satire. Kordosh, wondering what exactly Rush
> intended to perpetrate upon
> his employer, asks him if there will be some sort of
> litigation involved.
> Peart's response, "Are we talking crimes or morals
> here?" leads Kordosh to
> suggest in the article that Peart, for all his
> speechifying, clearly spends
> a great deal of time talking out of his fundament.
>
> Moving on, Kordosh muses in his article that he had
> entered the interview
> puzzled as why Rush appeared so intent onstage upon
> not making any mistakes.
> "This struck me as strange, since their entire
> repertoire is a mistake unto
> itself." (The article is full of such snarky
> comments about Rush's music,
> another one being, "Geddy played -- excuse me,
> strapped on -- a Rickenbacker
> bass.") He asks Peart why Rush is so hell-bent upon
> recreating their studio
> material note-for-note onstage. "I mean, I've seen
> the Stones slop up songs
> beyond belief. I once saw Keith so stoned onstage
> that he went into the riff
> from "Brown Sugar" right in the middle of "Honky
> Tonk Women". It was pretty
> cool, actually. It sounded OK."
>
> "You don't like them," Peart says in response.
> Kordosh writes, "He didn't
> say it like it was a statement of disbelief. He said
> it like it was a
> command."
>
> "I think that they've written some good songs,"
> replied Kordosh.
>
> "There's nothing to their music at all," insists
> Peart.
>
> "I think that they know how to connect with people
> musically," Kordosh
> retorts defensively.
>
> "That's because they're whores."
>
> "A strong word ... a very strong word."
>
> "Yes, but not necessarily a judgmental one. It all
> depends upon how you feel
> about prostitution. Are the Stones astute marketers?
> Yes. Do they place any
> intrinsic value upon what it is that they're
> playing? No."
>
> The article was full of such gems. Peart described
> the Who as "a bubblegum
> band" and later made some denigrating comment or
> other about Paul McCartney.
> Kordosh writes, "I didn't say anything in response,
> but it occurred to me
> that, however harsh a term one wanted to use to
> describe McCartney's
> mercenary tendencies, the bottom line was that he
> could write, sing, and
> play music better than Rush and the entire National
> Hockey League combined."
>
> Now, Hersh, it's not as though I'm saying you're an
> arrogant snob like Neil
> Peart. It's just that it's impossible for me to read
> your reply without
> thinking of that long-ago *CREEM* story about Rush
> in which Peart said much
> the same thing about the Stones as you just did ...
> only he was deadly
> serious.
>
>
> Gregory Sager
>
Chicago Pop Show Report on Yahoo Groups: http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/chicagopopshowreport/?yguid=162827291
Music reviews: http://www.fufkin.com
My Space blog: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog&Mytoken=20050501203609
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.