what will be the Rolling Stones legacy?

????????????????????????????????????????

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o170/ROCKISM_101/styx.jpg

was

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7f/SmashingPumpkins-Gish.jpg/200px-SmashingPumpkins-Gish.jpg

why pew no spellchek?

dinosuars (first line) hasn't been checked against any spells, though.

welcome to the wonderful world of Rockism...

Make one scene about how the whole band + their management held Brian Jones under water until he drowned, so your movie can be sued, get in the news, be interviewed by Larry King, cut the scene, sell it on eBay = loads of fame for your movie AND extra $$$ for you.

xpost :-)

http://www.recordmill.co.uk/scans/mickj.jpg

Paul, just to be straight with you for a sec: this question is crazy stupid. The notion that a band/artist/writer/whatever can undo good work they've done by doing bad work later is a really adolescent notion. Dozens of artists have eventually lost the thread, failing to reach the heights of their highwater marks; history hasn't cared, generally speaking. Christ, look at Wordsworth: lost it completelly. Does anyone even know that, outside of English departments? No. Canonical works trump later underaccomplishment. So ok then dude. K thx bye.

I don't think they started their band because they wanted to convey a message or a "we're the not-giving-a-shit-about-the-man-rebels" - they started because they liked playing the kind of rhythm and blues that was just getting popular at the time. They had a manager before their first single was released - doesn't that mean they did give a shit about making it and (they or their label) saw the potential?

The press set them up as the evil rebels vs. the Beatles' clean ideal sons in law (exactly like the whole Oasis/Blur thing), even though the Beatles used just as many drugs and got arrested just like the Stones did.

What would you want them to do? Play in bars? Too big for that. Get arrested? Too smart for that. Burn the American flag when they do a show in the US? Would soon be boring.

Ever check out the lyrics to Sweet Neo Con? (2005)
http://www.keno.org/stones_lyrics/sweet_neo_con.htm

I'm saying: they haven't changed too much, the world around them, popular culture, the music industry, the amount of articles about them, the amount of people buying their records, those are the things that have changed. (ok, inspiration may be somewhat lacking and they will probably never write a historically important album anymore, but as long as they can do reasonably good albums, why should they stop?)

(anticipating your possible "their recent albums sound too slick, not threatening, not dangerous anymore") Should they be recording in cheap studios to recreate the raw sound of their early albums? People would call them purists or greedy - if they'd had the means to use a studio like the ones we have today, I bet they would have done so in the 60's. The "raw and visceral" sound is nothing more than that. Sure, people like Arctic Monkeys and Lenny Kravitz and Steve Albinis swear by that raw analog sound, but that doesn't mean everyone has to. If the Stones want their music to sound as good as possible, why shouldn't they?

Should they be making dubstep/reggaeton/crunk/whatever's the possible next big thing just to be innovative/hip? They tried adding popular stuff to their music in the 80s, and people didn't want it, so they returned to their original style (albeit recorded in modern studios). (compare: U2's Pop/Popmart period)

Let me see if I can answer your original questions:

~Have they done anything original or innovative that will cause them to be remembered?

Yes, but not on purpose. They were the right band in the right place at the right time for the press and the public, just like any band that becomes popular/hip/important. Loads of other bands were original and innovative at the same time, but the Stones became big.

~Has the last 20+ years killed any worthiness they had prior to that?

Not at all. Their important albums are still important. They (and their influence) are just a little less in the public eye at the moment. Maybe that'll come back, maybe it won't, it doesn't matter.

~Was Brian Jones--as Frank Kogan once suggested--the innovator of Confrontational Rock (the impetis for punk rock)?

He probably got his ideas somewhere too (some of the early blues singers were pretty confrontational), maybe he was the first white guy to do it? (see: a lot of people say Rock Around The Clock was the first rock and roll song, but black musicians had been doing that kind of thing first...)

~Other than Altamont (and the time Kieth, Mick and Faithful all got busted for dope pocession while having an orgy) are there any events in their career that would make interesting scenes in a biopic?

Coconut tree, mars bar, swimming pool, Performance, bass player leaving, drummer's illness, mick&keith and their supermodel women, there's tons of material.

~Is thestory of their band even that interesting? If so, then why?

They've been in the press a lot and there are a number of anecdotes about them people remember (see previous answer), so, even without their possible musical innovation/talent/relevance, it's already interesting.

Look, all of this is so subjective, this is just what I thought while typing this reply, just write down your opinion in your article, people can only be right or wrong about objective facts.

Uh, doesn't just about everybody who gets a record deal?

or that they would probablly use all the best high tech sutdio stuff if they had the chance back in their day

You really want to base any of your argument on "they probably would have..."? In that case I'll claim that Muddy Waters, Fred McDowell, Howlin' Wolf and Jimmy Reed "probably would have" too. My probably is just as good as your probably, which is to say, not at all.

You're a fucking moron. Also, you didn't address any of Stan's points. You're not here for a dialogue and you're not here to learn anything, you're just here to spout shit and watch people be amazed at a shit-spout. It's the only kind of attention you can get.

From your November 21 article "Signature rock poses: the lonely frontman" :

Take for instance Mick Jaggar. Pretty much a total wanker, yet Rock fans pay hundreds of dollars to crowd together in sweaty, smelly 20,000 seat arenas just to watch this 60 year old walking marvel of plastic surgery (who hasnt written a half decent tune since the Carter Administration) strut around like a rooster set loose in a henhouse while Keith Richards stumbles over a guitar solo as if he were trying to climb a coconut tree. Why would any Rock fan do this? Mostly because they are idiots, but also because of the eye candy Rooster strut (and a few other reasons that I'll save for another time).

[quote]the fact that the Stones had a manager before their first single

or that they would probablly use all the best high tech sutdio stuff if they had the chance back in their day[/quote]

these ideas where ones that Stan was using to argue his point--they were not my ideas NOR did they originate with me.

otm - thread should be called "I Have This Idea About What The Rolling Stones Legacy Will Be," should link to PEW's myspace entry and be locked to all responses

and then deleted

They did no wrong between 1963 and 1971 or so.

1971 to 1977 they had the field to themselves, but decided to work "when and if" they could be bothered.

From 1971 to 1983? up to "Undercover of the night" the single, they were perceived (by the punks) as being "old men" which they obviously were not (yet). But they did nothing to dispel their fading relevance.

1983 on, they became a market brand, possibly the best pub rock band on the planet. Hey, they've done enough to not do anything! Expecting something way off the branding like "Satanic Maj" is dubb and not happening.

If you don't like it, don't go! They aint stopping anyone anymore, they aren't in competition with the 'young punks' like in 1977, they make records, they don't get on the radio, the old faithful buy them, I don't care, I'm out.

I liked both Dre's remix of 'Miss You' and the Neptunes remix of 'Sympathy For The Devil' from a few years back, notions of relevance aside. And these were from hip AND massively popular producers. It's possible these things 'bump', thread-style, Stones 'relevance' or range of popularity but neither of these are particularly remembered it seems.

[and i'm out.]

A dozen songs? Get the fuck out of here.

WTF^^^^^^

this new some girls bonus disc is pretty ok! don't know how much of it is jagger adding things after the fact. but whatevs, pretty nice collection of tunes.

I may have to get that; I've never actually heard Some Girls beyond the radio hits.

cliche, but it's their last great record. totally fun, even the throwaways. maybe especially the throwaways.

Definitely their last great record. But every review I have read of this new expanded thing says the throwaways are just that and worse. Your "pretty ok" is the most enthusiastic comments I have seen. I haven't listened yet.

spoiler rough guide to the new stuff on the some girls reissue:

claudine - 'far away eyes' meets 'torn and frayed'
so young - could have been sequenced next to 'white limousine'
do you think I really care - could be an unexceptional gram parsons outtake
when you're gone - a murky unremarkable blues circa 2007
no spare parts - starts out well with the SG drum sound and memory motel keyboards but falters on repetition
don't be a stranger - nothing 'some girls' about this. 'all night long' drums are superfluous. spot the steel drum solo.
we had it all - modern-era keith ballad. dare you to make it to the end
tallahassee lassie - aerosmithy title. another blues. cringe-worthy hand claps
I love you too much - Side A SG production and mix but composition is lacking some finish
keep up blues - blues, resembles 90s live album production. harmonica solo zzz
you win again - unnecessary remake, big-production style
petrol blues - authentic sounding demo. stu on piano? can tell the difference in mick's voice.

"Don't Be a Stranger" is, no hesitation, the best Stones outtake I heard. Jagger's singing is a marvel.

*whoops -- I meant "Do You Think I Really Care," although Jagger's new vocal quite a bit on "...Stranger."

Some Girls is my favorite Stones album.

i kind of dig the keef ballad. i made it to the end!

the keith richards toronto demo of you win again kills the jagger version though.

Is there a standalone "Rarities Edition" of this like the Exile... one?

http://www.nastyhobbit.org/data/media/4/fatty-pew-pew-pew.gif

fellatio

what is the girl with the pants on doing?
― M Grout (Mark Grout), Tuesday, 19 December 2006 14:55 (4 years ago) Bookmark Permalink

We shall never know...

Found this on rockcritics.com: a link to Lester Bangs' original review of Some Girls.

Oh--the link: http://powerpop.blogspot.com/2011/11/some-girls-week-if-you-cant-say.html.

So by now can we assume the hastily-contrived "under construction" cover is permanent?

Good interviews:

http://blog.vevo.com/rolling-stones-interview-mick-jagger-keith-richards-talk-some-girls-reissue/

http://www.spinner.com/2011/11/22/mick-jagger-some-girls-interview/

Got a full week of them lined up for student-entry music: "Street Fighting Man," "She's a Rainbow," "Prodigal Son," and "Tumbling Dice." (Students get to pick Friday, so it'll be back to Adele or something like that.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vjIwmJMqrco

oops, that link takes you to the vid for will.i.am - T.H.E. (The Hardest Ever) ft. Mick Jagger & Jennifer Lopez
AKA the answer to this threads initial question?

"hard like geometry! trigonometry!"
jagger plays some kind of interstellar supervillain here. shades of Freejack?