He's right - Bowie is a poseur.

Sting - not even worth the respect of poseur status.

Any singer from American Idol - lower than pig fungus.

RawData: Bowie is a poseur.

You sir are a ... I don't like your tone of ... let's just say I disagree.

FTA: "I can't think of anything else he's done that would make my hair stand up."

Maybe the dumbest dumbass utterance to come out of that drug-addled ponce ever.

Look, I like the Stones, love them, even, although they haven't had a top album in over 35 years.

But to trash Bowie is ignoramus nonsense.

He's done some pretty amazing stuff.

Bufu: Maybe the dumbest dumbass utterance to come out of that drug-addled ponce ever.

I concur. Can anyone name one thing Richards has done on his own that has ever merited more than a vaguely satisfactory "Eh... not bad"? I mean, other than still being able to walk upright after snorting half the GNP of Bogata?

This is typical working class hates the intellectual class stuff. Happens in England all the time (see also: Oasis vs Blur).

By the way, Keith, when was the last time you wrote a good song? Bowie's back catalogue is full of fantastic, groundbreaking and very memorable songs. The Rolling Stones had quite a few of the same, but not in recent decades :-)

other than still being able to walk upright after snorting half the GNP of Bogata?

Or, snorting the remains of his dad?

Richards is a superb guitarist, has some of the best licks in all of rock and roll, but why he has to slam Bowie, who has created some truly visionary stuff that has stood the test of time, is beyond me.

Come to think of it "Rebel, Rebel" is the best "Stones" song since 1974.

Suck it, Keith.

I think the stones and bowie are both fantastic.

Mr. Richards, you sir, are a tit! In fact, your a big hairy one with a little boil on the bottom.
To me Keith Richards does not equal The Stones, he's on his own when he says things like this.

RawData: He's right - Bowie is a poseur.
How exactly is Bowie a poseur? Does he have a history of Milli Vanilli-isms that I am unaware of? Or are you being one of those hairy, boily things that I previously mentioned?

yeah....songs like "Life on Mars" and trend setting records like "Low" and "Lodger" is real poseur stuff.

Yeah,Bowie sure liked to play dress-up and was really into "image" but he also wrote many dozens of masterpieces as well.

Meh.


I adore Richards but he may be a bit out of touch.


Supposedly Tchaikovsky despised Brahms.

Also,I read that Sam Peckinpah often slammed Kubrick but many of those who actually knew Sam said that he would sit alone in his private screening room and watch Kubrick films over and over again.

"Richards said that 'Changes' [...] was the only song by the artist that he could "remember"."

Maybe this has less to do with the quality of the music, and more to do with Keith's altered state of mind. Maybe if Bowie repeated the same lines over and over then Keith would be able to recall them.

/I can't get no satisfaction
//I can't get no satisfaction
///I can't get no satisfaction
////I can't get no satisfaction
//I can't get that damn song out of my head

I think he's just bitter, because the last time either band, Bowie or The Stones, had a number one hit was in 1985... When Jagger and Bowie teamed up for Dancin' in The Streets. Hurts, don't it?

Actually it's interesting that Kieth'd be taking potshots at Bowie considering how both bands started, peaked and charted in almost exactly the same curve, only following separate musical paths. You'd think he'd be more mellow, even nostalgic about the Bowie/Stones era of Brit-rock, but no, still a crabby addict to the end.

/love both bands, but Bowie's "pose" (lol like the stones never posed, my god) kept current far better than did Kieth's dino-rock.

He's still bitter Bowie asked Jagger to the prom and not him.

There go all my dreams of a Richards/Bowie threeway with me in the middle....

On a more serious note, I love them both. Both kick ass.

I like David Bowie, he talks like a jerk but he could eat you with a fork and spoon.

Keith is a joke. A walking talking caricature of himself.

I'd rather listen to Bowie than the Stones. Stuck it, Keith.

This just in: Keith Richards doesn't like another musician.

fark him. It's good to know that he got his comeuppance when he met his idol, Chuck Berry. Chuck treated Keith like Keith would treat 99% of the other musicians out there. A World-Class A-hole.

He says Bowie is all posing..... this nearly 70 year old cartoon of what a rock star should look like?

I like some Stones stuff....but most of it is unmemorable to me. Its basically how can we make another song out of the same sloppy 3 chords.

Meanwhile, although I may not love everything Bowie has done, its miles, and miles ahead of anything the Rolling Stones ever did. If Changes is all Richards can come up with, its because its simple enough for him to understand.

Still...I'm amazed by Scary Monsters. Loved Heathen. Bowie actually grew with time. Keith wants to stay back in the Stones Golden age. My son loved the Stones until he saw them on the Superbowl and they sounded like a bunch of hacks. NOt saying the Stones suck. Again I like some of their stuff. But 90% of it is re-hashing the same old ideas now. The idea that rock was only 3 chords died long ago....thank god. Keith is far more the persona act/poser IMO.

I happen to like both Bowie and The Stones, but if Richards really said this stuff, it knocks a few cool points off his score. I thought he was better than that.

Cygnet Committee (new window)

That is all that needs to be said about that.

He'd better walk before they make him run.

RawData: He's right - Bowie is a poseur.

Listen to Moonage Daydream and Pretty Things and get back to me.

Sting - not even worth the respect of poseur status.

Alone, yeah. But check out "Outlandos D'Amour". Great Police album.

GibbyTheMole: I happen to like both Bowie and The Stones, but if Richards really said this stuff, it knocks a few cool points off his score. I thought he was better than that.

Nah, Keith is always an ass about stuff like this. And it's totally about image, too, he trashes people like Elton John and Bowie so he can be the badass dishin' out a beatin' to the queers.

/still loves the Stones
//Richards doesn't play at all on Moonlight Mile, my favorite Stones song.

Kief obviously hasnt listened to this album either.

Olympus Mons: He says Bowie is all posing..... this nearly 70 year old cartoon of what a rock star should look like?

I like some Stones stuff....but most of it is unmemorable to me. Its basically how can we make another song out of the same sloppy 3 chords.

Meanwhile, although I may not love everything Bowie has done, its miles, and miles ahead of anything the Rolling Stones ever did. If Changes is all Richards can come up with, its because its simple enough for him to understand.

Still...I'm amazed by Scary Monsters. Loved Heathen. Bowie actually grew with time. Keith wants to stay back in the Stones Golden age. My son loved the Stones until he saw them on the Superbowl and they sounded like a bunch of hacks. NOt saying the Stones suck. Again I like some of their stuff. But 90% of it is re-hashing the same old ideas now. The idea that rock was only 3 chords died long ago....thank god. Keith is far more the persona act/poser IMO.

A couple of points:

1. The Stones are way more then just "the same sloppy three chords". Do you even play an instrument?

2. That being said, complexity has nothing to do with whether the song is any good or not. In fact, many of the "best" songs are very simple. See Buddy Holly or the new Wilco record. The list goes on forever...

3. Neither the Stones' or Bowie's new music is appreciated by anyone that is not a hard core fan of either, so what does it matter? These are the same people that say every new McCartney record is "the best on since Band on the Run", when in reality it is boring like the last 10 were. You like Scary Monsters. Good for you. Just realize that everyone who is not really into Bowie would rather listen to Ziggy Stardust.

4. I find it funny that an old man who dresses up like a pirate to play rock music calls anyone a poser.

The Stones are/were great. Bowie has some really great stuff. I'd have to go with the Stones over Bowie, but Keith should still STFU.

Boritom 2008-05-01 09:18:02 PM
Bufu: Maybe the dumbest dumbass utterance to come out of that drug-addled ponce ever.

I concur. Can anyone name one thing Richards has done on his own that has ever merited more than a vaguely satisfactory "Eh... not bad"

I can. Keith's solo albums are what the Stones SHOULD sound like
but don't: Great songs played well by a guy not worried about his
next 'hit'.

NOT THAT I ENTIRELY AGREE WITH KEITH but I do think Bowie peaked a long time ago, say around 'Station to Station'.

mfaby

Can anyone name one thing Richards has done on his own that has ever merited more than a vaguely satisfactory "Eh... not bad"

Both Keith's solo records are fantastic. Solid rock with great grooves and hooks played by tremendously talented, soulful musicians. But, I think I'm in the minority on this one.

Still, having said that, Keith is a tool for not recognizing the colossal influence and stunning achievement that is Bowie's musical career. I dare say that he is a more important figure in rock than The Stones - and I'm a pretty big Stones fan. In terms of innovation, Bowie's music rivals that of The Beatles. It's as if he picked up where they left off. DB is still releasing compelling music that's relevant and worthy of his legacy. The Stones, eh, not so much.

Damn, I'm a tool. Sorry mfaby, I read your post wrong. It looks like we're pretty much in agreement. Now let's go rock out to "999".

Bowie > Stones.

Bowie's pop hits could never compare with his album cuts.... Memories of a Free Festival, The Wild-Eyed Boy from Freecloud, The Bewley Brothers, Quicksand, We are the Dead, Up the Hill Backwards, Subterraneans....

...yeah, i'll take Bowie.

It's too late to be grateful, late again, hateful, etc...the European Cannon is still here (and aging gracefully!).

Good headline, subby. Keef is a jackass, always was always will be. Not a bad guitarist, Stones are a decent rock band, but nothing innovative. My guess is that Bowie is getting a laugh out of this.

Too bad . . . I like Richards, but man he has lost his marbles. Does he really have his head so far up his own ass? First he says some stupid crap about Zepplin a few weeks ago, and now he's busting on Bowie? The Rolling Stones are great because they are a unit whose sum is greater than the combined individuals. Bowie is great on his own. Bow down Keith, he's better than you . . . not greater than the Stones, but greater than you alone.

Never talk crap about your contemporaries again (unless they damn well deserve it).

Is Keith Richards The Sovereign? No? Then he should just shut the fark up.

Bowie's last few albums aren't perfect, and do pale in comparison to his previous stuff, but they're worthwhile, good records, and it does sound like he has something left to say. Meanwhile, the last few Stones albums have been jokes, pathetic attempts to justify a tour.

/i was going round and round this hotel garage
//must have been touching close to 94

Keith Richards is an idiot. His guitar playing is mediocre at best, I can't think of any less deserving of the "guitar god" status he has enjoyed. I mean that in both the creative and technical sense.
He ripped off Chuck Berry like everyone else, and he was one a thousand rockers ripping off blues licks in the sixties. The twit got lucky. The Pretty Things did it better than the Stones. What Bowie did was far more innovative and ballsy. Bowie did his share of borrowing and wearing influences on his sleeve but his work forecast glam, metal, punk, industrial, just to start with. What have the Rolling Stones given us? They laid the groundwork for pedestrian bar rock.

When was the last Rolling Stones album of relevance?

Bowie's last albums have all been diverse and awesome: Reality, Heathen, Hours, Earthling and Outside.

DB was awsome in labrynth. Richards is a tool, a very rich tool

"Low" and "heroes" are two of the best and most interesting records of the last half of the 70's.

"The Idiot" is good too [in its own way]... just not as good/great as the other two...

clarification:

Bowie's "Low" and "Heroes" are ...etc.

Iggy Pop's "The Idiot" is .... etc.

/ yes i know that Bowie helped write "the Idiot".... I'm pretty sure he wrote all the music, and Iggy wrote the lyrics... Bowie might've helped with the lyrics too.

The Stones are awesome, Bowie is awesome. That is all.

Sometimes I get in a Bowie mood, and create a smart playlist in iTunes with all Bowie on shuffle. Sometimes I get in a Stones mood.

The Bowie moods might slightly outnumber the Stones moods, but it's close. Glad Keith is still biatchy and cantankerous. Wouldn't take him for a Bowie fan anyway.

lumberjackbreakfast:
He ripped off Chuck Berry like everyone else, and he was one a thousand rockers ripping off blues licks in the sixties. The twit got lucky.

Perhaps they emulated or were influenced by Chuck Berry.

ELF Radio: Bowie > Stones.

Bowie's pop hits could never compare with his album cuts.... Memories of a Free Festival, The Wild-Eyed Boy from Freecloud, The Bewley Brothers, Quicksand, We are the Dead, Up the Hill Backwards, Subterraneans....

...yeah, i'll take Bowie.

Quicksand is just amazing. Incredibly complex chorus in that song. I guess some people might disagree. Not because the chorus is simple, but because they might have another opinion on which part of the song is actually the chorus... That's the beauty of some of Bowie's work. It really challenges the way modern music is written.

/Not sure if that made any sense.

I'm just glad we aren't talking about the goddamn Pixies.

RawData Sting - not even worth the respect of poseur status.

You know how I know you're not a musician?

/or at least, not a talented one
//I keed
///no, I don't

Davescookies: I'm just glad we aren't talking about the goddamn Pixies.

Bowie was a big fan of the group. (He even covered "Cactus" on Heathen.)

I_Love_Cheesecake: Davescookies: I'm just glad we aren't talking about the goddamn Pixies.

Bowie was a big fan of the group. (He even covered "Cactus" on Heathen.)

You use the past tense like the guy's dead or something. Bowie lives! In NYC part of the year, London the rest. But that's not important right now.

Ashes to ashes, funk to funky
we know uncle Keith's a junkie...
strung out in heavens high
hitting an all-time low