Rolling Stones: Classic or Dud

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (877 of them)
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-one years ago) link

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-one years ago) link

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-one years ago) link

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-one years ago) link

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-one years ago) link

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-one years ago) link

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-one years ago) link

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-one years ago) link

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-one years ago) link

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-one years ago) link

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-one years ago) link

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-one years ago) link

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-one years ago) link

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-one years ago) link

"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-one years ago) link

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-one years ago) link

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

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

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-one years ago) link

''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-one years ago) link

''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-one years ago) link

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-one years ago) link

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-one years ago) link

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-one years ago) link

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-one years ago) link

Good follow-up, Tom. Cheers.

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

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-one years ago) link

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-one years ago) link

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-one years ago) link

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

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

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-one years ago) link

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-one years ago) link

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-one years ago) link

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-one years ago) link

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-one years ago) link

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-one years ago) link

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

SO THERE.

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

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-one years ago) link

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-one years ago) link

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-one years ago) link

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-one years ago) link

(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-one years ago) link

Am I alone in really detesting that article? The way he disdained his classic rock past, how his brain was poisoned by those bastards playing Pink Floyd for him. There's little that is more pathetic than someone who is ashamed not of the mistakes they made in their past, but of who they were and who they have become.

Dave M. (rotten03), Friday, 6 September 2002 16:12 (twenty-one years ago) link

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

Do you think Dylan stole anything from the Stones?

Jody Beth Rosen, Friday, 6 September 2002 16:26 (twenty-one years ago) link

four years pass...

Does anyone know anything about the Rolling Stones remasters? I have a few of them - the cool digipack setup with great looking artwork and everything - but I just saw them in the store today and now they're all in shitty looking jewel cases with "DSD remasters" written down the side. Are there any differences between them, and are the digipack versions still available?

Reatards Unite, Sunday, 27 May 2007 22:05 (sixteen years ago) link

The digipacks are dual layer SACD/CD hybrids. Normal CD players will play the CD layer. Players that can handle SACD will play the SACD layer. I recently got an Oppo, a player which can seemingly play almost anything you put into it, and the SACD Stones are kind of mind blowing. I suspect the normal jewel case versions don't have the SACD layer. I don't know if the digipacks are still in print, but I'm sure you can get them if you look around.

Thus Sang Freud, Monday, 28 May 2007 01:45 (sixteen years ago) link

ten months pass...

!!!!!

rolling stones - miss you (morgan geist edit)

omar little, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 00:55 (sixteen years ago) link

woah thats really good! and i usually hate shit like that.

chaki, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 00:58 (sixteen years ago) link

chaki otm, it begins in this inauspicious way, but then, boom

gff, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 01:03 (sixteen years ago) link

I was listening to Out of Our Heads tonight. I never realized how directly the Velvets ripped off "Hitch Hike" on "There She Goes Again". I know that's not a Stones original, so I'm not sure if Lou Reed was lifting the riff from the original or if the Stones played it differently and that's what he ripped off. Anyhoo.

Z S, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 01:16 (sixteen years ago) link

He ripped off the Stones' cover of the Marvin Gaye song, yeah.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 01:33 (sixteen years ago) link

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

five months pass...

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.

Thus Sang Freud, Thursday, 16 March 2023 09:07 (one year ago) link

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

dicbo=v2-ubswizzb&hrt (stevie), Thursday, 16 March 2023 09:54 (one year ago) link

seven months pass...

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

The Triumphant Return of Bernard & Stubbs (Raymond Cummings), Sunday, 5 November 2023 17:57 (five months ago) link

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

calstars, Sunday, 5 November 2023 18:39 (five months ago) link


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