Originally Posted by
JeffCarney
Coming up! Keith's thought on Blues music, with comments on George Thorogood and Muddy Waters.
Anyway ...
Confused statement or not, Sabbath should be proud that someone who started not long before they did comments on them while discussing his thoughts on popular artists in modern music. Does that make their music some of the most well dated?
But this doesn't surprise me. Not because Richards already has made it clear that he doesn't like Led Zeppelin or show any respect for the "heavier" side of rock ... sans, I guess, AC/DC. Rather, because when they hit the "big time," Sabbath were always a bit outside the "old guard" of British Rock. And most of these guys who weren't pushing 1/10th the long term musical envelope which Sabbath were by the time they started wouldn't know squat about the dynamics, swing and utter brilliance of the music they originated just because it sounded loud and came from "unhip" Birmingham. It was easier to dismiss it because these guys came from the "scruffy" side of the tracks and weren't hanging out with the Andy Warhols of the world and making small talk at the hippest London parties. I absolutely believe this to have been a potential factor in shaping some of the more "hip" musicians' "impressions" of Sabbath in their earliest days. In his book on Sabbath, writer Chris Welch touches upon this perception by the British press when Sabbath came onto the scene. I certainly can't see why some of the established British musicians of the time wouldn't have bought into this as well, with lines about Sabbath probably being fed to them in what I would imagine were their beloved music papers.
Heck, a part of the press actually got some people to believe that this type of music which Sabbath originated required little skill to perform. And now, nearly a half-century later, I don't think it's very risky to suggest that if what other musicians think of you matters, Sabbath are pretty much at the top of the ladder with thousands upon thousands of young musicians studying their work. Indeed, if one premise to this statement is that a musician should care what a "peer" thinks, I suspect that the Sabs are so far above the Stones that the only "joke" is on Keith. And their respect amongst practicing musicians is probably met by few, if any, peer.
Edward Van Halen recently compared Iommi to Mozart. Bill Ward has legions of drummers studying his use of dynamics and swing, Geezer Butler
has been called the greatest rock bassist of all time by the late Ronnie James Dio (himself one heck of a bassist) ... I mean, these are just a few examples of THOUSANDS.
Hell, even Robert Fripp (who rarely has anything to say about his peers) has stated that Sabbath are "brilliant at what they do."
For my money, Sabbath had all the excitement of The Who, interplay capabilites which picked up from where Cream left off and yet had a ton more discipline and came up with an approach to rock which was unprecedented. I am still learning from those guys. Little things which sailed right over my head as a younger musician.
But particularly insulting about this is the disrepect shown to fellow British guitarist Tony Iommi, who is generally regarded by peers as one of the true "nice guys" in the business, places in similar territory to Richards in any "poll" of great guitarists and started out not long after Richards; as one of the most highly regarded players in the West Midlands at just 15 when he joined The Rockin' Chevrolets in 1964. Of course, Anthony Frank Iommi is a gentleman, so you won't hear him offer any response to Richards' opinion on "Metallica and Black Sabbath."
Bookmarks