Faces - How do you rate them?*

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by antonkk, Jun 3, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. antonkk

    antonkk Senior Member Thread Starter

    Location:
    moscow
    What do you think? Certainly one of the most exciting and rock'n'roll UK acts of the early 70's.
     
  2. vinyl diehard

    vinyl diehard Two-Channel Forever

    Great band. The players were top drawer.
     
  3. Zoot Marimba

    Zoot Marimba And I’m The Critic Of The Group

    Location:
    Savannah, Georgia
    Faces were awesome, screw anyone who says otherwise.
     
  4. Flaming Torch

    Flaming Torch Forum Resident

    A great band in their own right. The 4 studio albums probably do not do them full justice but live or studio I always enjoy the music they made.
     
  5. Zack

    Zack Senior Member

    Location:
    Easton, MD
    GREAT band!
     
  6. Mad shadows

    Mad shadows Forum Resident

    Location:
    Karlskrona- Sweden
    Could have been one of the great bands of the 70ties if they had been more focused.
     
    Guy E, fiscus1, JoeRockhead and 9 others like this.
  7. jwoverho

    jwoverho Licensed Drug Dealer

    Location:
    Mobile, AL USA
    Poor Man’s Stones? Faces had a joy and melancholy that the Stones seemed to lack, along with being a beloved band, which the detached and cool Stones seemed to be above.
    Faces also had fun, while the Stones seemed too serious to really enjoy themselves at times.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2018
  8. EdogawaRampo

    EdogawaRampo Senior Member

    Great band in their own right.
     
  9. OldSoul

    OldSoul Don't you hear the wind blowin'?

    Location:
    NYC
    The Stones have rarely ever seemed serious.
     
  10. richard a

    richard a Forum Resident

    Location:
    borley, essex, uk
    Great band.
    And they sure knew how to party!
     
  11. correctodad

    correctodad Forum Resident

    Great band in their own right. End of!
     
  12. rikki nadir

    rikki nadir Gentleman Thug

    Location:
    London, UK
    A poor man's Small Faces? (runs for cover)
     
    e.s., Lonevej, Mal and 3 others like this.
  13. Deek57

    Deek57 Forum Resident

    "Poor man's Stones" ?, that's a little insulting Faces are/were a great band. A shame that their career was only four and a "half" albums. Love 'em, one of my favourite bands ever..
     
  14. lennonfan1

    lennonfan1 Senior Member

    Location:
    baltimore maryland
    had they had more classic tracks like Stay With Me they'd be mentioned with Led Zep.
    I bought Nod when it came out. Loved Stay With Me and a couple others but overall thought it a bit weak.
    I still can't understand why Rod's solo albums during this era were so much better.
    Tried again with Snakes and Ladders but just couldn't really warm up to it.
    Overtures and Beginners (live album) was the most enjoyable of all to me.
    I respect them, they were fun to watch live but overall I found the songwriting a bit wanting.
     
  15. tmwlng

    tmwlng Forum Resident

    Location:
    Denmark
    Never thought of them as the poor man's anything, let alone the Stones. There was a tighter camaraderie, devil-may-care, party atmosphere over the Faces. Very garage-y in some manners, actually. Had they not been successful musicians, even before kicking off this particular group, I could easily imagine them just being buddies, hanging in the basement and just drinking and laughing and playing kick ass music.

    Can only imagine they had a huge influence on some of the things happening stateside in ensuing decades... Replacements, Guided by Voices etc.
     
  16. egebamyasi

    egebamyasi Forum Resident

    Location:
    Worcester, MA
  17. dkmonroe

    dkmonroe A completely self-taught idiot

    Location:
    Atlanta
    They were a great band in their own right. They had more of a soul/R&B thing going on than the Stones did at the time. They were much less serious and much less at pains to have a mystique. What you see is what you get. Stewart and Lane were such unique personalities that it'd be a crime to call them "poor man's" anything.
     
  18. slop101

    slop101 Guitar Geek

    Location:
    So. Cal.
    Better than the Stones, thank you.
     
  19. Kiss73

    Kiss73 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Scotland
    I don't get the comparisons to be honest (other than Ronnie being in both).
     
    mark winstanley, starduster and Zeki like this.
  20. Rufus rag

    Rufus rag Forum Resident

    Location:
    UK
    ^^^Bingo
    If Jagger could sing like Rod it might have been a close call!
     
  21. For what it’s worth I listen to “ooh la la” lots more frequently than any stones record... every song is a killer. Certainly not just a poor man’s Stones!
     
  22. JozefK

    JozefK Forum Resident

    Location:
    Dixie
    The World's Greatest Bar Band
    Apparently that's your idea of a good thing
     
  23. Yankeefan01

    Yankeefan01 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY, USA
    That's about the way it was for me to back in the day. The live album was the only one I came back to. The studio stuff had a couple good tunes but too much filler.

    Did Rod Stewart save the best stuff for his solo albums?
     
    lennonfan1 likes this.
  24. dkmonroe

    dkmonroe A completely self-taught idiot

    Location:
    Atlanta
    They're two streams of the same river. It's not exactly apples and oranges.
     
  25. wiseblood

    wiseblood Forum Resident

    Location:
    Boston, MA, USA
    I don't agree with that sentiment at all. I think we see Keith in modern time joking-about on stage much like he was doing in the early days (watch him wag his finger on the TAMI show during "Around and Around") but watch them in 1972. That band was SERIOUS and I appreciate that. I don't need a bunch of guys joking around on stage. Just play the songs brilliantly and mean them. That's why I like the Stones, actually.

    The Faces were a good band. Most of me wants to use the term "serviceable" but many would see that as a knock on them. I mean, they were quite good, but legendary? Not really. History has revealed how most feel about them. They have a fabulous box set from 2004 and they're mostly forgotten about outside of these types of circles. That's fine. We know the score of what they did well and what they didn't achieve. Ron left. Rod left. It was what it was - a pretty good band.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine