Rolling Stones: Classic or Dud

I like albums that it seems other people don't think about much, like Emotional Rescue, Aftermath, It's Only Rock N' Roll, Tattoo You.

It seems like people get hung up on the "classics" they made, most of which appear on Hot Rocks 1 + 2, I guess. But, I almost shun all that stuff in favor of the laid back good-time blues riffing stuff. I've noticed most of the Hot Rocks stuff is kind of angry or emotional. There's plenty of Stones that sounds nothing like that stuff. I like it all, though.

Better to burn out than to fade away, as it goes...

They never released an album that was the equivalent of masturbation, as many bands do after a while. I can't think of one self-indulgent turd amongst the whole lot of 'em. They're a good, consistent rock band. Seems kind of ludicrous to deny that.

to me, they're classic enough that they've yet to expend all of their credit. i give them 'til 2010 before i may have to call them a dud.

I'll have to echo neuromancer's disregard for charges that the Stones "ripped off" the blues. Sure, they utilized the blues, played with it, turned it over under sideways down, and made it unspeakably boring as well, but they never made false claims to its invention -- except perhaps when the stole "The Last Time" from the Staple Singers and credited "Love In Vain" to "Woody Payne" instead of Robert Johnson.

when you factor in all of the contributors, with the obvious exception of party-pooper ned raggett, freaky trigger becomes THE pop site. we write about madonna and destiny's child and janet jackson, which allows tom to pen lengthy examinations of mazarin and charlemagne palestine. (which i prefer, actually, because when he goes straight pop, we get *shudder* that jessica simpson "interview," post-modernism that'd make eggers proud.) he'll struggle to find the pop in these artists, but will ignore the far more obvious pop in artists like the stones because they're "classic rock" and are white boys playin' the blues.

I dont like rock and roll as an attitude much - it seems played out, of its time, interesting for sure but as inspirational and relevant to me as flappers are, or young edwardians, or any other historical cultural movement.

Simon Reynolds once wrote that, for him, there's something resolutely unlovable about The Who; I feel that way about the Stones, but even stronger.

Anyway I suspect that if you cross-reference the outcome of this thread with The Smiths thread you'll very likely find out that you either like The Stones or The Smiths (who indeed seem like the perfect anti-thesis of The Stones: weak, safe, effeminate, boring, etc.)

I think after 30 years it's hard to imagine anything safer than the Stones, too. Of course they were 'dangerous' in their time, but this is what I mean by the historical interest of rock and roll. (I'd hardly claim any different for the Smiths, at least musically.)

Patrick - almost everyone in the focus group gives a 9 or 10 to two or three pop tunes. It's just the marks then drop because of the averaged-out nature of things. And R&B and Hip-Hop do well, which pretty much define the pop charts now in the way that - as you rightly say - the Stones did 30 years ago. (I think "Satisfaction" is a genius pop single.) But by all means, everyone on this forum join in next time, please. The more the merrier.

Jagger's Voice? It's a question of mannerisms. Some mannerisms I like - some I don't like. Jagger's, in general, I don't.

omar: well, i love both the stones and the smiths. ;) however, i reckon that if i got into the latter before the former, that might not be the case: if my teen years were soundtracked by the smiths, i imagine my tastes might be quite different.

i don't think it's possible to love the stones and not, at the very least, *like* jagger's voice. it's very non-threatening: you can shout along with the music and never have to worry about sounding worse than him. he's one of those singers i wish would always shout because they're voices are really awful when they sing, though he wasn't totally without his charms as a singer.

Dan, the original question was:

"brash, brassy rock gods or bloated, pathetic blues thieves?"



and...



Ally said they'd turned into duds merely by sticking around so long.



So, I was just addressing two ideas at once. (First of all, how could 

they be bloated? They're all scrawny mofos!)



As far as the self-indulgent speil, what I meant was that they stayed 

true to their formula, making decent blues rock music. Yes, I know the 

whole rebellious schtick is self-indulgent, being that they do what 

they wanna do, etc., but I meant, they never produced some barely-even-

music artistic piece of crap halfassedly, like so many other bands.



Sure, you could say "Their Satanic Majesties Request" is a self-

indulgent piece of crap, but I happen to like it quite a bit and it's 

not too different from their other stuff.



"2000 Man" is a great tune off "Satanic", covered decently by a punk 

band called the Groovie Ghoulies and "Summer Romance" off the 1981 

"Emotional Rescue" is a great tune covered by another punk band called 

New Bomb Turks. If you listen to both cover tunes, without any prior 

knowledge of the Rolling Stones, you'd swear they were from the same 

album, probably made in the late '70's. And yet, those two songs span 

almost 20 years.



Point being, their "artsy-fartsy" stuff *and* their later "dud" 

material are still, basically, the same great kind of rock and roll as 

ever.



Now, THAT was a tangent, Dan!
― , Thursday, 22 March 2001 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)  link

ANYHOW, lots of replies. First of, I think it's "ludicrious" to claim that anyone who thinks that the Stones AREN'T consistent is wrong. You like them. I generally do not. End of story. It's like me telling the entirety of the Manics thread that they are idiots because several of them preferred EMG to THB. I mean, clearly I disagree so vehemently that I could spit blood out my mouth thinking about it, but they aren't being ludicrious or stupid. It's just what they think.

The Stones to me are a great singles band when they were good, but their albums tended to bore me. And yes, Kris has a great point: they were designed to be indulgent masturbatory rock. You could make a case that all rock is meant to do that - I mean, can someone please explain to me what albums are if NOT indulgent? You aren't exactly curing cancer if you're doing music, despite loads of artists' insistance that if you sing about changing the world, it is the same as doing something about it... ;)

And no, it did not take the Stones, for me, 20 albums to wear out their welcome. They wear it out, for me, about halfway through Hot Rocks. If the dadrock band is not called "MANICS" or "WHO", I am not interested, to give full disclosure. I only like the Stones in theory, because Mick Jagger is such a talentless, ugly man that it's fascinating - it's the ultimate triumph of someone who just really WANTED to be famous tricking the world into making him famous, based solely on personality. That's a kick ass thing, and he's great and fabulous for it; if he wasn't a "singer" he'd have been a tv presenter or actor, just because he really wanted to be a star. It of course works both ways - Mick might be ugly and unable to hit a note with a hammer, but the rest of the band are so dull that no one would've bought them without Mick.

As for FT: what are you talking about, "when you factor in all the contributors..."? As far as I can tell, 90% of any activity on this site comes from Tom. What, because you, Solinger, posted a Destiny's Child piece (which, I might add, is like the 5th piece on that song on NYLPM - can we give it a rest people? At least review a DIFFERENT DC song, look for their album on Napster or something), suddenly it's all pop and sunshine and glory? Tom does post a lot about pop music because there is a lot about pop music on this site and the contributors here are LAZY SODS, including myself, who don't write anything a good portion of the time. I mean, what is Pop Eye if not about Pop? Poor Tom, getting maligned on being a wuss rocker when he does so much work. :)

And where do I fit in, not really liking the Stones and REALLY hating the Smiths? :)

as far as the albums go, i was trying to be fair to both the manics and the stones. clearly you could give or take albums, depending on your particular opinion!

the stones have accumulated a great "legend" over the years and, going back to the weezer thread, very little of it fuels my interest in the group. besides jagger and everything surrounding him, who is a source of personal inspiration.

my comments about f.t. were meant to be taken as tongue-in-cheek. clearly none of us would be here, that is to say in this forum, if it weren't for tom and his ideas about pop.

and you fit in as that very rare hybrid, the manics-who worshipper. ;)

As for me being a party-pooper -- hm, you mean my disdain for singles last year, or my disdain in general? ;-)

Woops, was that fontswitch my fault? I forgot to close the endtag. I just thought it screwed up my message, but it appears to be screwing up everyones?? I just ended the tag, so maybe it'll look normal again?

A long time ago, galaxies away, I went through a brief period of trying to like them, but everything about them rubbed me the wrong way: voice, style, lyrics, attitude, general crankiness. I just couldn't stand them -- they always sounded like a glorified dumb bar- band. I gave up, and then I realized that it's okay to dislike bands that rock critics think are classic.

And I like the Smiths, so I guess that makes me a pussy.

Some further thoughts: for me The Stones are year zero, i don't care about Elvis or any other blues guys they ripped off. and with year zero's you just need a lot of mythology, I would say mythology + intensity + riffs = rock 'n roll. Now regardless of The Stones becoming old farts, I immediatly forget when I put on "Beggar's Banquet" or "Let it "Bleed", for that moment you live in that record and what you get is: psychotic cops cracking skulls, cities burning, lots of knife-pulling, mountains of drugs, under-age girls, armies of rapists flooding the streets, the danger of getting hit by a stray bullit at any moment. Now, in real life I'm a very sweet, liberal, no- violent guy, but this shit excites me. :) Anyone remember the way Guy Pellaert drew them in "Rock Dreams"? A bunch of English dandy's dressed up in SS uniforms drinking tea with naked little girls on their laps. So you see why I don't really find The Smiths very interesting ;)

With the Stones though, the cult of Mick n' Keef is far more important than the actual music. The court cases, publicity stunts, Brian Jones' death, Altamont etc all loom large over the music. The press seem to perpetuate this to such a ridiculous level - I mean who wants to hear about Altamont again and again? If you strip all this away and get back to the music it's pretty obvious that Jagger is a fairly average singer and that a lot of their material lacks the kind of excitement that you might expect it would have if you'd read about it first.

Also I was talking more about the mythology in the music itself, the images of the lyrics (although eventually the spilled out into the real world). All those tales of debauchery eventually become stale, though Nick Kent's 'Twilight Babylon'(in The Dark Stuff) is a great read about the Stones in the 70s, very sick and amusing. Also some brilliant characterizations esp. of Mick 'n Bianca Jagger (man, did he see through them :)

As for Rock Dreams, it's a great book but the whole Godstar decadence trip on the Stones didn't wash with me. It would have worked better for Led Zep I think. Generally though it makes the best case for classic rock and pop of any book out there - some of the images are just magnificent, capturing everything you need to know about a star in one image (the Brian Wilson one stands out).

aside from the odd single ("under my thumb" may be my favourite), a ho-hum dud i wouldn't bother thinking about if they weren't so acclaimed. stiff and wooden rhythm section, mechanical faux-blues vocals. give me the stooges any day. "hand in glove," "handsome devil," or "what she said" are infinitely heavier, more biting, harder rocking, and more dangerous (since when is macho more threatening than effeminate?). in fact, the idea of the stones, an institution as thoroughly mainstream as kellogg's corn flakes, being threatening at all is positively hilarious.

ah well. better get back to stephin merritt and iancu dumitrescu.

I'm prepared to throw my theory out, although since i was re-reading The Dark Stuff I noticed how Kent was fascinated by Mozzer's fear for thugs, crowds and rude violent behaviour (I put 2 and 2 together and built myself a hypothesis, nothing to serious, so I'll take those comments on the wooden rhythm section & the heavyosity of The Smiths with a pinch of salt).

"Oh, I bet they'd be billionaire marrionette ghouls by now..."

Abkco has just up the original 'Drag' version of the "Have You Seen Your Mother..." promo film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HARY3-RYy90

...and here's the clip that would replace it, featuring insane footage of their '66 Royal Albert Hall shows.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVY9I0XP-g8

Get a real job, Jagger … pic.twitter.com/qB6CLQ4wGt

— Super 70s Sports (@Super70sSports) March 15, 2023

all this time i've been thinking they're a rock'n'roll outfit.

it's only rock'n'roll (but Mick hopes people don't think they're a rock'n'roll outfit)

I don’t know what the heck Mick’s stylist was on, but love this iteration of the tune

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyyoaWjVXYM

He could bring back the kneepads but this time they’d be primarily preventative aids

Tour Kicked Off In Houston (didn't go)...Did Not See That Back Half Of The Encore Coming

Setlist

Start Me Up
Get Off of My Cloud
Rocks Off
Out of Time
Angry
Beast of Burden (fan-voted song)
Mess It Up (live debut)
Tumbling Dice
You Can't Always Get What You Want (followed by band introductions)
Little T&A (first time since 2016; Keith Richards on vocals)
Sympathy for the Devil
Gimme Shelter
Honky Tonk Women
Miss You
Paint It Black
Jumpin' Jack Flash

Encore:
Sweet Sounds of Heaven
(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction
100 Years Ago (first time since 1973)
2000 Light Years From Home (First time since 1989)

Also: Mick Met Tarkus

no Gomper? disappointing

i think those last two songs only occurred in someone's imagination.

(running away with them?)

some encores just wanna be played all night

I don't have that much time to jam

The thought of 80 year old Keith singing “her 80 year old tits and ass” is *vomits*

well, he has been married, by all accounts, happily since 1983, so congrats to him loving his wife like this.

Patti was so great in They All Laughed!

^On MAX now, for the curious.

Anita Pallenberg docu "Catching Fire" is really good for the anecdotes and old footage. We never really get a hold of what made her click, though. Seems the children in the 70s Stones' circle were the ones who really suffered.

Watching the DVD of their tour closing Leeds show from 1982, it's fun and amusing to watch. They sound great - I really wish I could've seen Keith like this, he's in top form - but the clothes are kind of ridiculous, in a way that seems partly intentional. First time you see Mick, his first name is in big letters on his red and white jacket with the puffed up sleeves. Wyman looks like they caught him in the middle of a jog and he was like, "oh, we go on NOW?" and then he just jogs directly to the stage and plays as is 'cause at this point it's just a job so whatever. Seeing Wood open the show with a cigarette in his mouth (where it will stay) is hilarious to me - like I've seen musicians quickly put one out or spit out their gum before kicking off a show, but no, not Wood.

I think this whole show is in broad daylight - when's the last time the Stones have done a show completely in the day? You'd think they'd be more inclined to do that now in their golden years.

^^^
Wyman joggin’

yeah the stage looks are so fun because they make so little sense

Bill just thinkin baout his next cup of tea
http://www.chief-moons-gallery.com/LEEDS-3A.jpg

lol

Mick is wearing white Capezios? with knee socks?
go off king

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tv7SPkS8g_c/VyOikdxRMjI/AAAAAAACLCc/-L8HS09jgZoYN1wWqYVv138jcCO4bGz7QCLcB/s1600/Denis-O-Regan-The-Rolling-Stones-Tour-1982-8.jpeg

“This bass looks easier to play…”

Seeing Wood open the show with a cigarette in his mouth (where it will stay) is hilarious to me - like I've seen musicians quickly put one out or spit out their gum before kicking off a show, but no, not Wood.

Have you seen the Some Girls '78 live show? He keeps dropping cigs every time he sings back up. He must have gone through a few packs that night.

Bill Wyman is simultaneously the least and most rock n’ roll figure the business has ever seen

“It’s one of those things that’s best left unexplained”

“The authorities said … just leave it alone”

xxpost explain the “most” part to me lol

The most part is detailed in his memoir Stone Alone. That, and things like him finding ancient Roman coins in his back yard and making a song called "Je Suis un Rockstar" which is the best of all solo Stones singles.

Wyman reminds me of Lurch or something

you rang

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-c0BShYBobAE/VCNAgCDJ-5I/AAAAAAAAroY/7EQXkHDP100/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/Bill%2BWyman%2BSB%2B25666.JPG

Have you seen the Some Girls '78 live show? He keeps dropping cigs every time he sings back up. He must have gone through a few packs that night.

LOL, I forgot about that! (I have a copy of it) It's a bit late for this but I hope he's stopped smoking - it's pretty crazy that he got lung cancer, refused chemo because of his hair, and yet by the looks of everything is now in remission.

je suis un little teapot

https://www.rollingstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/rs-231303-bill.jpg

methinks he is the least essential member of the major brit rock acts of the 1960s: like, maybe he's at the level of Pete Quaife or Chris Dreja or Jim McCarty, or Keith Relf (I don't think Relf was very good)… it doesn't matter that he's on or not on any particular Stones record, or probly Keith Richards contributes better bass parts… but y'know who disagrees? Dylan said that they lost a step too many when he left after Steel Wheels… like, really, Bob? you think they sounded like sleepy John estes in 1990, and then Wyman left and they might as well have sounded like Dangerous Toys?

they sounded great last night! really -- tempos were good, support musicians including drums, bass, keys were more locked in than in recent years, mick sounded great, and that guitar "weave" is inimitable. when the big screen focused on keith's poor gnarled arthritic fingers it seemed a wonder he could do anything up there, but they make it work. and during the stage bows, when the support folks peel away to leave the three of them standing there, anyone not moved by that has no heart.

I can always tell when Wyman plays on those '70s records as opposed to Wood, Taylor, or Keef.

I think this whole show is in broad daylight - when's the last time the Stones have done a show completely in the day?

three weeks ago!

https://www.setlist.fm/setlist/the-rolling-stones/2024/fair-grounds-race-course-new-orleans-la-babb9fe.html

“I was dreamin last nigbt / I was crying’ like a child”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyFg_iWZedM

It looks like Keith's playing the opening riff real hard - and after that it's a loop of what he just played because he's just miming after that as he softens up his strokes, even missing the beat occasionally. Am I seeing that right? He doesn't have any pedals by his feet so I guess someone's doing it offstage? (I'm not a guitarist so I have a very shaky familiarity with this.) Not complaining though, Keith's arthritis will only get worse and it probably makes sense to save his joints for a solo rather than wear them down from repeating the same figure over and over again. You see the same thing play out when the riff changes.

i think that's all live, bird.

It looks like Ron is playing the same riff? ie. covering where Keith looks like he's missing it.

Yeah, I was about to post what visiting saw, but when I went back to those spots, I think I was hearing really Ronnie off-camera playing those notes when Keith was sort of relaxing or softening up his strokes.

Like at 0:30, look how vigorous Keith plays on the downstroke - that's pretty much how I picture Keith all the time, but I'm not sure anyone with arthritis can really sustain that without getting a sore wrist. And just seconds later, like at 0:35 or 0:36, he's relaxes a lot more, to the point where he isn't dead on the beat like before. But then the camera eventually moves left and you see Ronnie's playing the same notes.

Great performance though, I'm glad they brought this song back. It was the highlight when I saw them in 2019 and it was one of the few numbers where the massive echo heard in the nosebleed section worked in its favor - it sounded like a ghost train out of hell with with Charlie's drums rumbling forward and Mick's harmonica wailing the whole way.

oh yeah no doubt he plays this song differently than the 60s/70s when he was chomping down on the rhythm all the time. back then there was a simpler division of labor. now they call it the "weave" where they're constantly and intuitively trading voices. keith's arthritis has taken away a lot of dexterity, and the larger ensemble does a lot of gap-filling, but at the same time there is something even more primal going on where they use rhythm and volume and timing. because of their age it sometimes doesn't *look* like they're doing it. gosh i just love this band.

i went both nights at metlife -- one of them (ironically the one with the much better seats) i made use of their "lucky dip" web option for fast-fingered fans who want to save some bucks and don't care where they wind up sitting. they pulled out a whole bunch of songs they hadn't played the previous night. some were tour "firsts." i never thought i'd hear "rambler" though. i thought it had gone the way of "brown sugar."

you can kind of tell from ron wood's expression at the end they're just as surprised they pulled it off as anyone else.