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-two 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..."

:D

The Cockroaches, iirc.

They only do two songs from the 60s! Was that typical of their setlists at the time?

Two originals, that is.

Sorry, three originals. Never mind.

Yes, that's something I've noticed before, they basically dropped "Satisfaction" and any pre-1968 originals from their setlists from 1972-1977 (with odd exceptions). Setlist.fm has that data. It's as if they pretended that the band started with "Jumping' Jack Flash" for a little while.

Was that typical of their setlists at the time?

Pretty much. Part of it was because one of the guys who played on those songs was dead, and they didn't want to teach his parts to the new guys. Although iirc, Ron Wood eventually got them to add more early tracks to shows.

And another thing is that they still very much into 'promoting the new album', hence all the real estate given to Black & Blue.

Even on the Some Girls tour of 1978 it looks like they only played "Satisfaction" occasionally and no other pre-'68 originals

Also one song that wouldn't show up on record until Tattoo You.

Which was that?

"Worried About You", apparently a Black and Blue outtake!

Live at the El Mocambo sounds great!

I'll have to give it a full try. I sampled a couple of tracks that were officially uploaded on YouTube ("Hand of Fate" and "Luxury") and I was disappointed with Mick's singing. It reminded me how much I did't like Love You Live and I thought this release might be more of the same. Amazing a year later they'd film Live in Texas - I have that Blu-ray and Mick is incredible through that entire show. It may be possible his singing isn't much different and it's simply helped by the sight of him running around stage (I'm sure enunciation bothers me less when I can clearly see that the guy is doing high-level cardio throughout the entire set), but that was a great show regardless.

I've listened to some of it. The set list is mildly interesting, but the execution is...well, let's just say the world really didn't need a fake reggae version of Bo Diddley's "Crackin' Up."

- Bob Marley

The 1972 shows (the Ladies and Gentlemen film in particular) and certain 1978 shows (the Live in Texas film) are GREAT, flat out essential IMHO, but I'm surprised how much of what came in-between has been uneven or disappointing, at least to me. The 1973 shows are still good and both versions of Brussels Affair (the bootlegged KBFH broadcast and the recent official release) are great, but after that, the shows sound more and more uneven to me. Some numbers are better than others but certain parts will become disappointing like Mick's singing or Keith himself, who can still be good but not at the same level as before. (In fact, he's kind of the "weak" link in Live in Texas - compared to Ladies and Gentlemen, you can see he's physically not at the same level, but it's not a factor because he's still fine and their show's dynamics has changed, with Mick being more center stage and Ronnie having a bigger role and becoming a better fit with the Some Girls material.)

Lol, seem to recall that El Mocambo “Crackin’ Up” getting a lot of airplay at the time.

I haven't listened to the covers, but I sampled a handful of originals - paying less attention to Mick, the band does sound great. Charlie especially - he's always amazing.

I think inconsistency has kind of been the thing with the Stones throughout their career. I recall that bit Jim Dickinson talking about them recording at Muscle Shoals saying they flat out sucked for a few hours worst bar band ever getting nothing done and then out of nowhere they cut the track for "Wild Horses" as it is on the record.

I need to check out that El Mocambo show. I wish Zep, Sabbath and Floyd had as many good live recordings in the can, but it looks like they don't.

Wish they’d release that Brussels Affair show as a stand-alone thing, don’t want to buy the $100+ super deluxe Goat Heads Soup just to get it.

I got a bootleg of it. This is the one I got, it was not expensive.

https://www.amazon.com/Brussels-Affair-Rolling-Stones/dp/B0055LMEPI/ref=sr_1_2?crid=H4JNNDEXBZZD&keywords=brussels+affair+stones&qid=1652662150&sprefix=brussels+affair+stones%2Caps%2C116&sr=8-2

xp It really should get a standalone release. It's weird it hasn't since so many lesser shows were.

FWIW, it was released years ago as a lossless download, and it was reasonably priced - I think $10? - so I got it and burned it on to a CD-R, which I still have. The CD in the box set uses the exact same mastering.

xp - been keeping my eye out for that bootleg version, but it's unavailable everywhere atm.

Meanwhile, this El Mocambo release really does live up to the hype.

This new 4 part BBC series "My Life As A Rolling Stone" sometimes feels like a glorified EPK. I don't care what Lars Ulrich, Sheryl Crow or Chrissie Hynde think of The Stones (sorry?). But the old codgers are enjoyable to watch and listen to. The Ronnie Wood episode is especially good though the overall feeling is that these guys, who I love with all my heart, are the coolest of relics from a time when sex, drugs n' rock n' roll held a lot more meaning than today.

i will seek this iut

out

This is the best version of "Jumpin' Jack Flash" I've ever seen/heard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_ylZvdk3VU

That was pretty awesome! Great-looking restoration - IIRC they restored all of their short films for their 50th anniversary (partly for that Crossfire Hurricane doc as well). I kind of wish they'd put them on a Blu-ray like the Beatles did with 1+, but at least they're streaming.

The 'Micky Stardust & The Spiders From Dartford' clip!

Charlie weirdly the only one dripping with sweat and looking like he's about to pass out in that clip.

So who else sitting in adding percussion and organ?

Hmm, I guess the recording is some combination of the recorded track and ... live vocals?

Bonham was so much better at sweating and almost passing out, it's not even close.

Charlie: ("OK, just breathe ... 1,2,3,4, kick, snare, kick, snare ... breathe ... 1,2,3,4 ... gosh, are all the lights pointed right at me? ... 1,2,3,4 ... what did I have for dinner, didn't everyone eat the same thing? ... not even Mick is sweating, what is wrong with me? ... ")

I don’t think those are live vocals - for one thing, there are backing vocals but nobody else there is singing

I kind of wish they'd put them on a Blu-ray like the Beatles did with 1+, but at least they're streaming.

This probably won't happen...or if it does, it'll be an Abkco release that doesn't need the Stones' approval. Given Abkco's track record of such things (like the wan Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out! box), they'll probably fuck it up somehow.

There are extra hoots and whoops and stuff, too, that are not on the recording, so I dunno what's going on. Kind of like a Peel Session?

The "Miss You" clip has some visual similarities, and also uses an alternate vocal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hic-dnps6MU

Wait, I've been talking about this JJF clip, not the one unperson posted (the non-makeup/glam one)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGd7SkdETro

Bonham was so much better at sweating and almost passing out, it's not even close.

✓

god, just thinking about how bonham died makes me want to throw up

i love the little improvisations mick throws in throughout the clip unperson posted. he's always doing that (often to the song's detriment, as their career goes on, imo) but the way he did it in the 60s was so perfect.

yeah (ma ma yeah?) there's also that extra high keith harmony on "all right now." or it's more pronounced or something.

Charlie’s tempo acceleration on Honky Toni Women is without parallel

“Oh, he meant to do it like that”

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)