Do people think The White Stripes are a little too daring/successful, and that's why they like this band?

I don't like Bad Company though. Humble Pie and Ruby did this better than the above.

I'd have to say that depend on how you define blooze rock, but I'll save quibbling over definitions that for the what is punk thread.

Yeah - stop failing on this point.

This album is sleazy, and tends more towards an almost glam/T-Rex feel to me. Diss at your own risk suckaz.

Its not that standard a term that you couldn't quibble over definitions if you like. But come on...in the context of Radcliffe's point it should have been clear what he was talking about. Punk wasn't rebelling against the Stones. The Dolls and the Ramones had most of the same influences as the Stones.

No, they were pretty clear about it being against the Stones, Who and other Dinosaurs.

That said, I would never lump in Mick n Keef with the likes of Bad Company, etc.

I'm just saying, if you're gonna call something blues rock how are you gonna leave the stones out? If by spelling it blooze, suddenly it is nothing but a pejorative, that's fine. But heavily blues influenced rock is exactly what the stones were and my point was that a blanket condemnation of a style, in this case heavily blues inflected rock, is silly because it is not so much the style but the bad examples of the style that suck. Hell, what about the Allman Brothers?

Thus, this record which I really don't give a fuck about and have never heard can be blues rock and be good or bad. That's all I was saying.

I call mostly bullshit on this. The Clash even toured with the Who.

Do you really believe this? I wouldn't say that the Stones are a heavily blues influenced band, at least not in the same sense as Cream, John Mayall, Led Zeppelin, etc. Stones roots are more Rhythm and Blues even if there is some blues influence.

In any case, you've logged enough hours in chatzy to know what Radcliffe means when he calls something 70's blooze. You're just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

If you really think adding rhythm and blues is substantively more significant than the spelling of blooze than sure.

I totally agree there was some shitty blues rock in the 70s, lots of shitty blues rock, repugnant, fecal covered blues rock that I'd not wish on my worst enemy. OK, that's not true, fuck that guy. I just think to act like the Stones weren't blues rock is silliness. They just weren't as shitty as most of the others. And I think if you can point to good examples of blues rock artists then it follows that you don't get to just cast aside an album just by virtue of it being blues rock.

The addition of Rhythm and Blues is very substantive. It not only is a differentiator between the stones and what I'm calling Blues Rock but its a huge, shared influence between the Stones and early punk. There is a reason beyond relative quality why someone might like the Stones but hate Led Zeppelin and visa versa.

I'm not just taking two buckets of blues rock and dumping the bands I don't like in one. I like Cream albeit not nearly as much as the stones and I have a John Mayall album that I really like. You can call Edgar Winter and the Stones both blues rock if you want to paint with a very broad brush. It's kinda like labelling both radiohead and the strokes as alt rock and acting like there aren't big stylistic differences that go beyond whether they are equals in terms of quality though.

I'll grant I paint my genres in general with a pretty broad brush and I'm fine with that. Still don't think just assigning an album to a genre is an accurate way to say if it sucks or not.

Most of the Stones' lauded albums have too much blues influence for my taste. Sure there are bluesier rock bands out there, but to deny that the Stones were a blues-influenced rock band is just silly.

This Black Keys album is not as rocking as I expected, and I suspect I'll give it one more listen and never again. I just don't think it's my thing.

I don't think anyone has denied that the Stones were blues-influenced. They may have started as a blues band (certainly in their days as Little Boy Blue and the Blue Boys), but they took their sound somewhere else entirely, which is why bands ever since have been compared to the Stones rather than their collection of influences. To call the Stones blues rock is like calling the Beatles a skiffle band.

To frame this argument more accurately, no one is ever going to confuse the Black Keys with the Rolling Stones. They'll confuse them with George Thorogood.

Everybody's really into operationally defining their rock & roll today.

personally, i hate the White Stripes and love this band. nothing to do with daring/successful...i just think BK have way more SOUL. especially this new album. only one real listen and i'm already thinking AOY potential here.

surprised to hear the negative remarks on the live show too. saw them open for mmj and they were incredible. i've got tickets for their show here in june, but i'm wondering if it will still just be the two of them? it would be interesting to see how these new songs come across if it is.

I thought they were great live as well. That drummer brings it.

I think this album departs from the blues sound that they've mined for so long.

I think what separates the Black Keys from 70's blues is that they've never hung their hat on blues virtuosity. They've tempered their blues influences with lo fi and DIY that I don't see the George Thorogood comparison.

Yeah, HUGE difference between these two. Like, not comparable.

Basically the same thing. You only WISH they weren't.

Or try this as something comparable, especially once Rodgers starts singing:



Just face it, you guys really suck.

Why would anyone actually care?

I like them both but I don't think one band is necessarily more daring than the other (though one is clearly more successful), though it could be argued that the more successful owes as much of it's success to its self created image as it does to it's music.

And Radcliffe, if you are looking for an album that sounds like shitty 70's rock, try that Sweet Apple. THAT is a toilet full of shitty rock cliches.

So you like it then.

No, I don't, actually.

cmon don't lie.