Rolling Stones: Classic or Dud

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (940 of them)
I agree Patrick, it's also about the intro-riff to 'Brown Sugar', the way the female singer starts to wail in 'Gimme Shelter', it's about the swing in 'Sympathy for the Devil'. The Stones of course are bona fide boogie monsters, they swing. Watts is a great drummer and Keef has a knack for the right riff.

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 :)

Omar, Friday, 23 March 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

That Nick Kent piece is terrific, yes. If only all biographical rock writing as as psychologically compelling.

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).

Tom, Friday, 23 March 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

johnny marr proves you wrong too, omar.

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.

sundar subramanian, Friday, 23 March 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Eminem is as mainstream as Burger King, and that's exactly what makes him more threatening and dangerous than a cult act like, say, Belle & Sebastian (who will also be dad-rock 30 years from now, if they aren't already). "Gimme Shelter" may be an accepted classic and the *context* in which it is listened to and used may be safe, but its *sound* and *feel* will always be ferocious and full of life.

Patrick, Friday, 23 March 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

well I never said they were threatening now, did I? And of course it's a laugh when they play 'Street Fighting Man' these days. Used to be pretty heavy though. Ahem also effeminate was a bit of a joke since well for the longest time The Stones walked around with eye- liner and long hair.

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).

Omar, Friday, 23 March 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

This is tougher than it looks. I love the Stones, but suspect them. Maybe I should - maybe I do - dislike them. Is that possible? Like I say, this is a mite tougher than it looks.

the pinefox, Friday, 23 March 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I like The Stones..I've never loved them....some great tracks yada yada yada....but I never went through a period when I was really into them unlike other classic rock bands like The Beatles or VU. I cant explain why I was never into them but something about them doesnt sound as sexy and rocking as I always wished it would...

Mike Bourke, Friday, 23 March 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

one year passes...
Nobody did rock and roll better than the Stones. Name them... you can't do it guys because they are rock and roll. Yeah yeah, they're for shit now but back in the day, they wrote the fucking rules. More classic tracks than I could list here but if you don't believe me, dig out Beggars Banquet and put Streetfighting Man on repeat and don't turn it off until you think to yourself "Hello."

Roger Fascist, Friday, 26 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago)

one month passes...
Neal Pollack lets the air out of the Stones' tires. Read it now while it's still free.

o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 13:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Nice article. I saw them in Luxembourg in 1993 I think. 100,000 or more people in the mud and a couple of small puppets about 500m away jumping up and down with a Jagger the size of a mouse running from the left of the stage to the right of it.
It was really awful. I left after about 30 minutes just after Like a Rolling Stone. That was probably the best song of the evening. It wasn't theirs.
I think the Stones have achieved something no one else has. To be even more ridiculous than Michael Jackson.

alex in mainhattan (alex63), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 13:41 (twenty-two years ago)

It's a decent enough article, but what was he expecting? Pollack's a genius, I've just been for a nostalgic rummage in the McSweeney's archive and lol'ed at The Dark Goddess of Russia Is Horny. Has anyone read his book? Is it worth getting?

Mike (mratford), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 14:13 (twenty-two years ago)

I have not read his book, but. Every time I read him, I sort of laugh, but the parody seems about 30 years too late to me...

Ben Williams, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 14:46 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm interested to hear how the Stones-haters and the indifferent feel about the large swath of rock music made under their influence -- at times in flat-out imitation. You can argue that they did it better, but as near as I can tell, the Stooges could never exist if there hadn't been the Rolling Stones.

wl, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 15:34 (twenty-two years ago)

If they'd pulled a Buddy Holly after releasing the Satisfaction single, this would be a "Rolling Stones - what if?" thread.

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

g.cannon (gcannon), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 15:50 (twenty-two years ago)

I understand Neal's point (that they blow these days), but his argument seems awful shaky. "The Stones suck because hipper things are happening now," seems to sum it up. Yeah, well of course! The Stones haven't been hip since 1969! And also this idea that since they are no longer cool their old records are no longer worth listening to... that's just silly.

Yancey (ystrickler), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 16:16 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think Mick Jagger is talentless. His voice is an acquired taste, but his phrasing's great. I'm listening to "She's So Cold" right now, and he's doing some very cool things with his voice -- the choppy syllables ("She - e's so cold"), the way he thrwwwwwwoooooooooooooooows his vowels (which he sort of stole from Dylan, but he stole a LOT from Dylan) and they sort of fizzle out perfectly and fry away at the end of the phrase, the way "so" becomes "suh" or just "ssss," the blend of raspy shouting and rapping and prettiness. A Jagger vocal is never one-dimensional. Not like, say, a Belle and Sebastian vocal. Jagger really gives you a lot to listen to in his performances.

Jody Beth Rosen, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 17:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Jagger is at his best in "Dead Flowers." His phrasings there are perfect. I can do them flawlessly.

Yancey (ystrickler), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 17:56 (twenty-two years ago)

I like the Stones too actually but I think they should have the decency to admit that their glory days (almost everything after Exile has been dud) are long gone, that they aren't twenty anymore and that their world tours nowadays are a farce. They remind me a little of the pope who refuses to die. They hold on to the throne of rock'n roll though they have lost it ages ago. And they don't seem to have taken notice of this. It won't be long and they will roll the stone Mick Jagger on the stage in a wheel-chair. It really is a joke.

alex in mainhattan (alex63), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 17:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Have you read John Strausbaugh's Rock Til You Drop? Terrible book, but I loved hating it.

Jody Beth Rosen, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 18:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Classic. Yes, they've stuck around WAY too long. But (with the possible exception of Elvis), there was no other white group covering r&b who actually bettered the originals more often than the Stones: "Carol," "She Said Yeah," "You Can't Catch Me," "Mona," "Route 66," "Little Red Rooster," many more.

Burr, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 18:05 (twenty-two years ago)

OK, so what should the Stones do instead of what they're doing? ("Die" is not a witty answer).

Ben Williams, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 18:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Ha, I was hoping to be the first to bash the Strausbaugh book! I skimmed through a few chapters and his ideas about rock music got lost on me when he said that ELO were worthless pop fluff. The whole naive "rock and roll WAS REVOLUTION, MAN! And then it got CO-OPTED by the MAN and people just listened to it passively instead of running out and breaking things!" conceit makes me want to vomit. I mean, sorry if I don't set fire to a police car after listening to Super Furry Animals, but I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything.

Nate Patrin, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 19:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh uh erm and the Stones are pretty much classic. No matter how much shit they dribble out now their stretch from 1968-1972 is just about as impressive as anyone's four straight years.

Nate Patrin, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 19:51 (twenty-two years ago)

"rock and roll WAS REVOLUTION, MAN! And then it got CO-OPTED by the MAN and people just listened to it passively instead of running out and breaking things!"

But Eminem has come along to CHANGE all that!

Jody Beth Rosen, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 20:09 (twenty-two years ago)

haha if that "eminem = saving rock'n'roll" guy had made exactly the same argt abt the stones — THEY DON'T GIVE A FUCK WITH THEIR ZIMMER FRAMES AND THEIR GROUPIES 4586349586 YEARS YOUNGER THAN THEIR WIZENED SELVES — then he hwd have been my hero forever the rest of the thread

mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 20:12 (twenty-two years ago)

The Rolling Stones are gonna save rock 'n' roll! Wow!!

Jody Beth Rosen, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 20:41 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm interested to hear how the Stones-haters and the indifferent feel about the large swath of rock music made under their influence -- at times in flat-out imitation.

Pretty awful, by and large.

Jody Beth - comparing a Jagger vocal and a B&S vocal seems odd - the one is operatic (i.e. meaning lies in what he does with the voice), the other theatrical (i.e. meaning lies in the relation the words and phrases have to 'natural' speech),

Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 20:50 (twenty-two years ago)

''OK, so what should the Stones do instead of what they're doing? ("Die" is not a witty answer).''

good point...don't know how i would anwer this.

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 21:09 (twenty-two years ago)

''OK, so what should the Stones do instead of what they're doing? ("Die" is not a witty answer).''

good point...don't know how i would answer this.

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 21:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Pretty awful, by and large.

Good answer, if a bit glib.

Does your taste in rock music run to the hard stuff at all? (Thinking of all the "wimp rock" stuff mentioned above.)

wl, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 21:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, sorry, it was glib.

I don't think I have a "taste in rock music" anymore. I like noise and aggression in music sometimes but for me the particular form of 'rock' as The Stones et al. practised it seems to diminish the noise and aggression, straitjacket it and make it an 'attitude'. (I love attitudes and striking poses but this particular one is 35-plus years old and doesn't connect with me any more.)

That's not a hard-and-fast rule, of course - but take the Stooges, who you mentioned. I like them, but the bits of them that draw a bloodline from the Stones (Iggy as onstage 'Rock God', the extroverted attitude of Raw Power as opposed to the introversion of "No Fun"/"1969"/"Dirt") are the bits that stop me loving them. And on the G'n'R thread I suspect I'd be one of those beside-the-point people who like the band for their 'genre synthesis' (the New York Dolls, too), i.e. for their pop qualities. The Stones tracks I do like, I like for those qualities too.

Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 21:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Jody Beth - comparing a Jagger vocal and a B&S vocal seems odd - the one is operatic (i.e. meaning lies in what he does with the voice), the other theatrical (i.e. meaning lies in the relation the words and phrases have to 'natural' speech)

Doesn't seem too odd to me... both bands play variations on fairly straightahead rock music, so it's not really apples and oranges. The B&S vocal sound is pretty monotonous, though; the entire range of emotions is sung EXACTLY the same way. It's not a very creative expression of feeling.

Jody Beth Rosen, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 22:16 (twenty-two years ago)

No it's a miscomparison because the rhythms of Murdoch's lyrics and phrasing bear more relation to normal conversational speech, so yes of course they're more monotonous - Jagger isn't trying for the same effects and can let his voice 'roam' around more. Or to put it another way, do you think Jagger would handle a Belle And Sebastian lyric better, or would he simply put more 'emotion' into it?

Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 22:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Good follow-up, Tom. Cheers.

wl, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 22:44 (twenty-two years ago)

I love the Rolling Stones so much that I would pay good money to hear Mick Jagger sing Belle & Sebastien, but this hit me where it hurts:

"Now let's remember the most fundamental fact of life, folks: everything good is the Beatles, everything awful and bogus and pretentious and gross and condescending is the Rolling Stones.
Okay?
Mainstream pop has routinely offered two paths... One is all about happy times and getting lucky and being not miserable, while the other, at its most fruitful, might lasoo you something venereal in the East Village if you yap long, loud, and boringly enough. If you're past age 23 and the latter is still your idea of fun then you probably thought Will Self's "My Idea of Fun" was too, and, pal-o-mine, all your ideas are wrong. About Everything."

- Mike McPadden in "Bubblegum Music is The Naked Truth"

Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 22:46 (twenty-two years ago)

No it's a miscomparison because the rhythms of Murdoch's lyrics and phrasing bear more relation to normal conversational speech

Most of Jagger's lyrics, save the occasional stutter, bear more than a passing resemblance to normal conversational speech. I can't even think of a case where this isn't so.

Jody Beth Rosen, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 23:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Or to put it another way, do you think Jagger would handle a Belle And Sebastian lyric better, or would he simply put more 'emotion' into it?

The amount of "emotion" wasn't my point (and I fucking KNEW you lot would get on my case about that, which is why I hesitated to use the word) -- it was the range of things Jagger DOES with his voice within the course of a single song, vs. Murdoch, who doesn't offer the listener that much variety.

I don't KNOW whether Jagger would cover B&S well, but to be fair, the stately Britpop of Between the Buttons and Their Satanic Majesties Request isn't really very different from B&S, is it?

Jody Beth Rosen, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 23:13 (twenty-two years ago)

If not more emotion, then certainly more motion, Tom.

Clarke B., Wednesday, 4 September 2002 23:14 (twenty-two years ago)

By normal conversational speech I meant the sort of things that might be said in a normal conversation. i.e. "A mile and a half on a bus takes a long time" vs. "I was born in a class five hurricane". All I'm making is the (I think fairly uncontroversial) point that you should judge vocal performances based on their 'fit' to the song - and in this sense both Jagger and Murdoch turn in good 'uns (the other vocalists in B&S don't, generally).

(Mind you I think the stately Britpop era of the Stones is staggeringly awful, loads loads worse than their 'rock' stuff (or even their disco stuff!) precisely because Mick sounds like he's having to squeeze his tongue into a corset for every song. How anyone can listen to "Lady Jane" and enjoy it is a great mystery to me.)

Tom (Groke), Thursday, 5 September 2002 05:15 (twenty-two years ago)

And by a normal conversation I mean a 'boring' conversation - B&S make the boring and mundane part of their 'art' a lot more than the Stones do.

Tom (Groke), Thursday, 5 September 2002 05:25 (twenty-two years ago)

How anyone can listen to "Lady Jane" and enjoy it is a great mystery to me

...just because he's sounding like he has to squeeze his tongue into a corset... it's quirky in a good way. also, it matches the harpsichord.

willem, Thursday, 5 September 2002 07:23 (twenty-two years ago)

That's "crossfire" hurricane, Tom ;)

A good alternative to "Lady Jane" is "Play With Fire." Similar mood, similar era, similar theme, much less mannered, much more biting.

Ben Williams, Thursday, 5 September 2002 13:17 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah but fritz the stones say very clearly and endlessly that "something venereal in the east village" is awful and "we" who aspire to it are horrible: that's why they're good, they write about the unvarnished inside of being nasty people

bubblegum is good too

it's a continuum

mark s (mark s), Thursday, 5 September 2002 13:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Plus, anyone who thinks the Beatles are all about happy times and getting lucky and not being miserable can't have listened to any John Lennon songs...

Ben Williams, Thursday, 5 September 2002 14:03 (twenty-two years ago)

The Rolling Stones: "Happy"
The Beatles: "I'm Down"

SO THERE.

Nate Patrin, Thursday, 5 September 2002 14:12 (twenty-two years ago)

hey hey I didn't say it - I just quoted the guy. But it did jump off the page at me when I read it. It seems honest, even if it's not right.

And yeah yeah the beatles weren't all sunshine and lollipops any more than the stones were all needles and spoons. That's a total red herring. But I think the strength in McPadden's attack isn't that he hates that The Stones are dark, it's that he hates that they are bogus and ... pretentious and condescending and, love em as I do, THEY ARE!

Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Thursday, 5 September 2002 14:19 (twenty-two years ago)

But that red herring is his whole argument... maybe there's something you didn't show us...

Ben Williams, Thursday, 5 September 2002 14:31 (twenty-two years ago)

I like them more than I used to but they still don't connect 100%. I don't know why. I figure it'll come at some point in all likelihood. Or maybe it won't. I like "She's A Rainbow".

As for the influence thing I guess the most obviously Stones-influenced artists I like are 70s Aerosmith, Patti Smith, and the Blue Oyster Cult. I recognize they're probably all more limited than the Stones but I like their voices or songs or beats more. They all added something else too. Zeppelin got into Stones-influenced territory sometimes but not usually on my favourite songs by them. Is "Houses Of the Holy" Stones-y? I don't know. I like "Night Flight" if that counts. On the whole, I'd probably take Zeppelin-influenced or Purple-influenced or Cream/Hendrix-influenced or even Velvets-influenced.

sundar subramanian, Friday, 6 September 2002 15:43 (twenty-two years ago)

BTW I think my main issue with the Stones, and maybe the Clash too, is that they seem too . . . straight-ahead and overtly meat-and-potatoes and earthy? Does that make sense? Like who needs that?

sundar subramanian, Friday, 6 September 2002 15:45 (twenty-two years ago)

(which he sort of stole from Dylan, but he stole a LOT from Dylan)

a late comment: I think there's more cross-pollenization than borrowing going on there: Dylan had certainly listened to "Aftermath" more than once by the time he made "Blood on the Tracks," say

J0hn Darn1elle, Friday, 6 September 2002 15:50 (twenty-two years ago)

OT, I had no idea Keith Richards had been living in a suburb in CT for the last 40+ years, and apparently an active member of the community (hence the honors bestowed on him this past week).

― birdistheword

he also gave up smoking and mostly drinking and has never sounded so coherent

the talented mr pimply (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 10 March 2025 15:46 (three months ago)

Connecticut First Lady Ann Lamont presented Richards — who moved with his family to the nearby town of Weston in the early ‘90s — with the award. “I’d like to say thank you to you all, and thank you to the state of Connecticut,” Richards said, per The Westport Library. “You kind of get lost for words with something like this around your neck. I’ve been here for 40 years, and it’s been a great place for me. I brought the kids up here. When the kids were young, I said, I have to get the kids out of New York City before they don’t get any fresh air at all. So, we moved up here, and ever since, we’ve had a great life. … I’m incredibly happy about everything, especially things like this, because you don’t get them every day.”

“This is a great building, a wonderful library, which even I didn’t know the full extent of,” said Richards, who wrote two books: his memoir Life and the children’s book Gus & Me: The Story Of My Granddad And My First Guitar. “As Bill was saying earlier, without our books, without knowing things, without knowing their special meaning — this isn’t movies, this is not someone drawing you images. This is a book, and you have the movie in your head. It’s very important that we keep our books unburnt.”

the talented mr pimply (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 10 March 2025 15:47 (three months ago)

There's a story I was told (or that I saw or read, I can't remember, but I think I was told this) by a producer for some DVD supplement who went up to Connecticut to interview Keith for something. He gets to the estate and is able to just drive up to the front, where Keith answers the door. He's very welcoming and brings the guy in to his living room, where Keith is busy trying to set up a satellite TV system, or something like that. The producer helps him for a while, iirc a couple of hours, just shooting the shit with Keith while they try to get the thing working. And after they succeed Keith turns to him and says, "ok, now who are you and why are you here?"

Josh in Chicago, Monday, 10 March 2025 16:09 (three months ago)

I remember that story! IIRC, it was somebody working with The Director's Label DVD people, and they were there to get Keith to sign a release for the Stones videos Gondrey(?) directed.

Okay, heteros are cutting edge this year, too. (C. Grisso/McCain), Monday, 10 March 2025 16:18 (three months ago)

Exactly!!!!! Good memory. I know I interviewed a bunch of those people, so I couldn't remember if it was on a commentary track or from one of my interviews. I'm guessing commentary track.

Josh in Chicago, Monday, 10 March 2025 17:31 (three months ago)

I love how the interviewer speaks in the most soft and non-threatening tones possible

The interviewer is Whispering Bob Harris - he spoke like that to everyone, even when doing a piece directly to camera.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DJSbA5RgEs

you gotta roll with the pączki to get to what's real (snoball), Monday, 10 March 2025 18:44 (three months ago)

(or even facing off against Lindsey Buckingham and Mick Fleetwood)

you gotta roll with the pączki to get to what's real (snoball), Monday, 10 March 2025 18:45 (three months ago)

Bob Harris is 28 in the Keith clip.

Kim Kimberly, Monday, 10 March 2025 18:52 (three months ago)

28 going on 54

calstars, Monday, 10 March 2025 18:59 (three months ago)

Keith's house is very visible from one of the most popular trails in the Devil's Den nature preserve in Weston… it is a weird looking house, I don't have the necessary command of architecture to describe it… he's lived in this house far far longer than he's lived anywhere else…he had this house at the same time he had taht penthouse on the Tower Records block on 4th and broadway, but he sold the latter I think in the early 00s…

Does he participate in the town community? I live in the town next to weston, and his daughters went to the one public school everyone in that town goes to…I don't know of anyone saying he's been seen at the fair they hold in Weston each year, there is no downtown to speak of in weston, but his brother in law — i spose this must be Patti Hanson's brother? or the husband of her sister?— has a restaurant in nearby ridgefield which Keith hangs out at sometimes… a guy I know once was leaving a restaurant in ridgefield, and saw what at first he thought was a homeless person, and as that shambling person shambled closer…it wasn't a homeless person, not at all…

the library at which the event took place is very very keen to be associated with music culture… Chris Frantz has hosted many events there, they have a somewhat boringly inclined music festival annually that this year will feature "talks" with Patti Smith, Rollins and a performance from the Wallflowers… I have never seen any version of Gang of Four: three years ago, when King and Burnham had Pajo and Lee? I would have loved to see that, but I wanted to avoid covid. So the library is hosting the first show of this final tour, which will have Ted Leo in the Gill chair and the lady who would do high kicks in Belly in the 90s in the Lee/Allen spot…not as good as the 2022 edition, but chiggers can't be boozers.

veronica moser, Monday, 10 March 2025 19:13 (three months ago)

Mick doing an amazing job of smearing thinning hair over his pate in that clip above, just top denying-what's-going-on action there

conspiracitorial theories (stevie), Monday, 10 March 2025 21:07 (three months ago)

Very into Country Stones lately, Mick's fake American accent is always a treat

papal hotwife (milo z), Monday, 10 March 2025 21:10 (three months ago)

it is an odd setlist nerd footnote that i was at the only ever stones show where they opened with midnight rambler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlV9AimzUOA

Cognosc in Tyrol (emsworth), Monday, 10 March 2025 21:49 (three months ago)

I sing "Dead Flowers" at karaoke often.

the talented mr pimply (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 10 March 2025 22:01 (three months ago)

Despite having a copy of the Gondry Director's Label DVD somewhere, I've never actually seen the "Like A Rolling Stone" video (probably because Stones' cover is lame). It's very Gondry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRYokc3VBC4

Okay, heteros are cutting edge this year, too. (C. Grisso/McCain), Tuesday, 11 March 2025 15:48 (three months ago)

Gondry also did a clip for the No Security version of "Gimme Shelter" that hasn't been officially anthologized (this version is a TV RIP)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrQrEgDbSH4

Okay, heteros are cutting edge this year, too. (C. Grisso/McCain), Tuesday, 11 March 2025 15:58 (three months ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.