~Have they done anything original or innovative that will cause them to be remembered?
~Has the last 20+ years killed any worthiness they had prior to that?
~Was Brian Jones—as Frank Kogan once suggested—the innovator of Confrontational Rock (the impetis for punk rock)?
~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?
~Is thestory of their band even that interesting? If so, then why?
There you have it folks, these questions will be at the heart of my next blog entry...
“Often left out of the discussion is a band that scored a dozen Top 40 hits out of the windy city known as Styx. (notice that funny spelling...)”
????????????????????????????????????????
As I first scanned the page, I swear I thought
was
the windy city known as Styx
the windy city known as Styx
the windy city known as Styx
the windy city known as Styx
the windy city known as Styx
the windy city known as Styx
the windy city known as Styx
the windy city known as Styx
the windy city known as Styx
the windy city known as Styx
the windy city known as Styx
Styx is the windy river, innit?
“And Wha-la: you have the classic mullet.”
why pew no spellchek?
Wha-la is the ironic pronunciation.
dinosuars (first line) hasn’t been checked against any spells, though.
spell check? I’m too punk rock for spell check Amigo...
Too punk rock + an article about Styx? *head explodes*
I just sussed that “wha-la” means “Voila”.
in 50, 100 years time, I doubt any band will have much of a “legacy” tbh.
i think keith richards falling out of a coconut tree would make a very good scene in a biopic.
i’ll always remember the band that kill ahmet ertegun
SAIL AWAY, PEW, SAIL AWAY
I’ve decided that PEW’s existence is one big performance-art piece about the Bush administration. “THIS is what happens when people who just aren’t quite smart enough try to do things.”
i think keith richards falling out of a coconut tree would make a very good scene in a biopic.
You’re right. So that makes three good scenes for a bio-pic. But three good scenes does not a biopic make...well, let me rephrase that...three good scenes does not a GOOD biopic make. To be a good biopic you need at least 5 good scenes.
[quote]Too punk rock + an article about Styx? *head explodes* [/quote]
welcome to the wonderful world of Rockism...
6 scenes.
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 :-)
yeah, the death of Brian Jones, that might make an interesting subplot, with perhaps even one good scene to come out of it. But that still only puts us at five scenes...A good biopic needs 5...
Weren’t there some shenanigans in Canada (Keith getting busted and saved from jail by a blind girl, Mick shagging the Prime Minister’s wife.) The drugged out disco Stones era would make for some good movie material—not exactly biopic “significant” perhaps.
Do we have the Marianne Faithful Mars Bar scene? (5th one here)
~Has the last 20+ years killed any worthiness they had prior to that?
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.
haha “completely” even
Oh come on, you know there must be plenty of Literature Geeks who are totally disappointed by Wordsworth later years. But let me explain what I meant when I asked this question. Part of the reason the music from the 60s or more specifically the Stones music is significant is because it meant something, it stood for something. Its not like seeing an aging baseball player loose his skills as his batting average drop, becasue Rock isnt just about the skills. Its about the message, the attitude, the values, etc. ANd part of the Stones attitude was that they didnt give a shit about ‘the man’ to paraphrase Dewey Finn of School of Rock. But as they got older and started doing Superbowls and corporate consumer culture crap, it basically sent the message that their earlier message was just posuer horse sushi. So at the time, in the 60s, people thought, Yeah, these crazy muchachos dont give a flying fudgecicle, they are rebels, etc. But now there is this entire 20 year history of putting on crappy shows and making crappy albums that totally undercuts any original message they might have had. It makes them appear superfical, for these ideas and attitudes that they so urgently expressed in their youth did not prove to be universal truths at all, simply popular posuery for their era...
to be polite about it: your thesis is deeply flawed. Your sense of what the Stones “meant” has little/nothing to do with how things were. Only the records matter, specifically the good ones. Period. Unless maybe they go on a killing spree or something.
Culture and perception have changed more than the Rolling Stones have.
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?)
Also: does it matter whether they’re “relevant” all the time? Not at all. If/when blues rock ever becomes popular again, they’ll be “relevant” again. If not, it’ll only take one Fedde Le Grand/Trentemöller/Mylo/Burial remix/mashup to temporarily make them hip again.
(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.
F*ck, I’m not even a Rolling Stones fan, why am I on your thread?
yhbt hand
oh well :-(
Stan, ypu pwned this thread.
Stan, 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, and the fact that they tried adding popular stuff to their music int he 80s (as you put it) all jsut go to make my point that they were posuers. Their stuff in the early part of their career wasnt authtentic, it was simply what was percieved as the most popular pose for them to take at that time.
Let me put it this way, if the entire band would have died in a freak ham sandwhich accident in the early 70s, they would have been untouchable. Their legacy unbesmirched. But instead they lived and were able to reveal themselves for what they really are: half-talented sell-outs. To me, it totally undercuts their earlier career.
the fact that the Stones had a manager before their first single
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.
Mr. Hardy, both of those were points I brought up because it wouldn’t be the first time someone used them against a band like the Rolling Stones—(so I’m a fucking moron too)
PEW, does it actually matter what any of us say here? Looks like you’ve already made up your mind a long time ago:
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).
Ehhh, sorry Stan, I can’t bring myself to actually read a PEW thread, they make me too mad.
no prob! (breathe slowly, go outside for a couple of minutes, it’s only the internet)
curious george, I was simply using Stan’s words:
[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.
I’ll gladly admit those were just opinions based on other bands I’ve had this kind of discussion about, not necessarily based on actual Rolling Stones facts.
PEW, does it actually matter what any of us say here? Looks like you’ve already made up your mind a long time ago
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
I’m truly interested to see if someone here can answer the questions in my original post or punch holes in my opinions about the Rollings Stones. Yes, I have certain opinions about the Stones, but they are not written in stone, I’m open-minded enough to listen to any reasonable and rational rebutals...
Still no one has convinced me that they have done anything original or innovative (being in the right place at the right time isnt original OR innovative—its lucky) and still no one has convinced me that the last 20 years of their career hasnt reveal what total wank-offs they really are. I mean, the bad music is one thing—but these huge mega-tours and superbowl halftimes shows and shit like that are puke...
Baby boomers were fucking stupid, prehaps?
i didnt read any of this but the rolling stones are a great fucking band
I’ll defend Dirty Work and A Bigger Bang in the depths of Mordor itself.
i think inspiring stanley booth’s “true adventures of the rs” alone excuses any other shit they’ve done.
best rock book ever
First 10 seconds of Satisfaction excuses any other shit they’ve done.
RIght, in brief!
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.
If/when blues rock ever becomes popular again, they’ll be “relevant” again. If not, it’ll only take one Fedde Le Grand/Trentemöller/Mylo/Burial remix/mashup to temporarily make them hip again.
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.
Like when they updated Bill Withers by having some girl behinf him on TOTP going “Hey! Hey!” as off the ArtOfNoise..
In answer to the original question:
Mostly to their kids, but Keef might leave a neck or two to Johnny Depp.
And Allen Klein will sue for all of it.
This hub-bubbery and creaky bones horse spittal that I’ve been geting here, IS pretty much what I expected. Though through all this huff and hollar no one has even approached anything close to a legitimate answer to the question: Were the stones original and/or innovative? For some reason, the Stones are thought to be one of the originators of Confrontational Rock, in their lyrics, attitudes, dress, guitar riffery, etc. But it seems to me that once again, they were just on the bandwagon here: exagerating the ‘rebellious’ confrontational approaches of earlier Rockers like gene vincent, jerry lee lewis, shit even Elvis.
I refer you to my earlier answer.
Confrontational!
No, they (as did most) did what they wanted to, and the popular mindset took against them for not being as “chummy to the audience” as most previous.
They grew into the roles, as did most other groups.
do not feed the troll
Confrontational = unable to write proper tunes with melodies.
This is why the Beatles will always are superior to the Stones—they took on board the great white European melodics composers like Schubert and Bethoven rather than relying on amelodic, rhythm-dominate jungle bunny howling of coloured blues allege musics. Fact.
Can we talk about Public Image and “Death Disco” instead then?
For some reason it never turns up on Pick Of The Pops (“Good record”—Winton, D).
Dammit, ILM, i need some kind of alert to my email when PEW posts a new thread.
Guys let’s vote for which PEW-ism is better:
Yeah, these crazy muchachos dont give a flying fudgecicle, they are rebels, etc
Let me put it this way, if the entire band would have died in a freak ham sandwhich accident in the early 70s
I vote for sandwhich. Thoughts?
Stan, 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, and the fact that they tried adding popular stuff to their music int he 80s (as you put it) all jsut go to make my point that they were posuers.
CLASSIC
Not that it matters now (did it ever?) but I think that the gas-station (“We piss anywhere, man!”) arrest would be another fun scene for the biopic.
Die, PEW, die.
As other authors have pointed out (notably Martha Bayles) the Stones were one of the first pop acts, if not the first, to make it a habit to treat their audience with disrespect, if not contempt. That set the attitude for future rock bands but also future comedians and other performers. The Stones can be said to be not only be the fathers of countless imitator bands but also the father to the stage personality of comics like Bill Hicks and, to a lesser extent, David Lettermen.
What are examples of the early Stones treating their audience with disrespect or contempt?
well there was that whole “fan murdered by security” incident
1969 is not exactly “early” Stones.
true true (I don’t actually agree with Cunga, fwiw)
well there was that whole “fan murdered by security” incident
Oh yeah, where Mick is up on stage acting like a big hippy puss, pleading to the fans: “Cant we all jsut get along man, everyone jsut be mellow, everyone just grove...”
PLEASE!!! With Confrontation like that who needs elevator music!?!
Besides, The stones had no idea that kid pulled out a gun or that he was killed by security until after the show. And the idea of having the Hells Angels as security was nothing more than a bone-headed publicity stunt...
why are you still here?
A general ungracious attitude is what I’m walking about. Not smiling at the camera and, at best, acting indifferent when being interviewed on television, not signing autographs and going out of their way not to greet their fans after the show (even when it was a tradition to do so at certain venues). A lot of these things seem commonplace today (especially the performer not feeling inclined to smile at the camera) but back then almost all performers and celebrities are “on” when in front of the camera, being friendly and jovial even if it’s just an act.
Their own press release from 1964:
“Many top pop groups achieve their fame and stardom and then go out, quite deliberately, to encourage adults and parents to like them. This doesn’t appeal to the forthright Stones. They will not make any conscious effort to be liked by anybody at all—not even their present fans if it also meant changing their own way of life. The Stones have been Rebels With A Cause...the cause of rhythm’n’blues music.”
C’mon now
everyone just grove
everyone just grove
everyone just grove
everyone just grove
the Hell Angels working security wasn’t a publicity stunt...
...Jagger and the management, when they wanted to do a free concert, had consulted the Grateful Dead and Garcia, because obv. they knew the scene in SF a lot better and had done some successful (and violence free) shows in the area...The Dead and the Angels had a relationship, and because there was some fears that the freakz wouldn’t like actual cops doing security, the Dead’s camp suggested they use the Angels, who they told the Stones were a cool bunch of people and “down” etc etc....in fairness, the Dead had used the Angels as security with no incident in the past at shows...but obv. things that day took a real turn for the worse...the Angels were drinking huge bottles of booze laced with acid and other drugs...getting really nasty...
this is all in The True Adventures of the Rolling Stones.
I think the real reason behind the whole thing was that the Stones were worried they weren’t perceived as being “down with the cause” of the hippies in the U.S. and wanted to do as much as possible to ingratiate themselves into the US underground of the time.
whatever the case, it was a premeditated effort to enhance their image...same goes for their James Deanish 1964 press release...
dumber than a bag of hammers
They wrote lots and lots of good songs that people have always liked and will always like, and more and more people will discover them every day, and not care about any of the issues you’re talking about. And that’s enough of a legacy, no?
whatever the case, it was a premeditated effort to enhance their image...same goes for their James Deanish 1964 press release...i can’t be bothered to actually know what i’m talking about
cf. every PEW thread ever
dan selzer, I really dont see that much of a legacy at all to be honest. Having a dozen or so songs that will be played on popular radio, is no more of a legacy than Hall and Oats or Styx or Shania Twain...
how is it that this thread not been image bombed already
what will be the Dave Matthews Band legacy?
what will be PEW’s leagcy?
. As we all know, the reason woman rockers grow ‘staches or beards, or let their armpit hair go, is to give a visual ’tease“ that serves as touchstone to male audiances, as if to say, ”Look, this is basically what the hair of my vagina is gonna look like—are you turned on?“ Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesnt.
Paul, for kicks, which bands have noteworthy legacies? I thought a dozen or so songs played on the radio for all eternity was about as big as it got.
, I really dont see that much of a legacy at all to be honest. Having a dozen or so songs that will be played on popular radio, is no more of a legacy than Hall and Oats or Styx or Shania Twain...
And there are moments I adore Hall & Oates more than the Stones.
legacy!
HipHop/Rap seems to be a dying genre (if its not already dead, at least artistically) but perhaps it can pilage the Beatles fully stocked creative warehouse yet one more time in a last desperate attempt to save itself. George Martin pretty much provides the blueprint for the dying HipHop nation on his remixation of Beatle riffs, melody, beats and harmonies.
I’m kinda sad to see otherwise intelligent ILXors continue to engage this fucktard
There are Hall-n-Oates tunes I like quite a bit too...
mark, bands that will be remembered for a few songs are pretty much a dime a dozen, but bands who truly had an affect on culture and changed the face of it are rare. I really havent been convinced that the Stones are one of these rare breeds.
the gas-station (“We piss anywhere, man!”) arrest would be another fun scene for the biopic.
that might make an interesting sidebit, but not an entire scene...another example that comes to mind is the time where angie bowie walks in on Mick and david bowie in bed together naked.
Band names, please.
Just realized I didnt answer your question Mark...off the top of my head, Bands with noteworthy legacies include: the Beatles, led Zep, Sex Pistols, Nirvana, the Velvet Underground, the Grateful Dead, Minor Threat...
I’m not even a big fan of ALL of these bands, but I can see how they changed the face of music, or the music industry or culture.
i also think some bands try really hard to be one of these bands who have a noteworthy legacy—U2 is pretty obvious, so is Radiohead and I’m starting to think the Stones are in that same catagory...
How does it feel to be the last apologist for “authenticity”?
[and i’m out.]
dude PEW every band you listed has sold out way more than the stones. the sex pistols threw away their legacy with del noones and nirvana’s work on subpop was a pale rehash of their earlier stuff. minor threat i guess might have a decent legacy or whatever — “take off your pants and jacket” was recent and pretty classic.
dan selzer, I really dont see that much of a legacy at all to be honest. Having a dozen or so songs that will be played on popular radio, is no more of a legacy than Hall and Oats or Styx or Shania Twain...
A dozen songs? Get the fuck out of here.
The Rolling Stones probably influenced more startup bands in the US than any other.
startmeup bands
“Look, this is basically what the hair of my vagina is gonna look like—are you turned on?”
“Look, this is basically what the hair of my vagina is gonna look like—are you turned on?”
“Look, this is basically what the hair of my vagina is gonna look like—are you turned on?”
WTF^^^^^^
what is the girl with the pants on doing?
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?
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.
So by now can we assume the hastily-contrived “under construction” cover is permanent?
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.)
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?