Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Monkeyleg on December 25, 2012, 06:02:54 PM
-
As some here already know, I'm a big Rolling Stones fan, at least a fan of their work through the early 1970's. I spend a fair amount of time listening to their music, and also search Youtube for videos I haven't seen before. Anyway, I've just been thinking of different things about them.
The first is Ron Wood's marriage a few days ago. He's 65, just three years older than me, but he looks like he's in his 80's. My dad looked younger when he was in his 80's. She's 34. Do you think money may have something to do with it, or did she marry him for his intellect? (He never struck me as being all that brainy).
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetimes.co.uk%2Ftto%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F00368%2F118812550_wood_368168c.jpg&hash=daf7be71f0cba7a906f27c707847fa69d975aeba)
I can't figure out why all of the band members look so leathery. Maybe it's from 50 years under hot stage lights. ;)
The group's song-writing talent and guitar work was best in the very late 1960's and early 1970's, especially when Mick Taylor was playing with the group. Taylor had a style that was very different from Keith Richards, using more blues techniques and more complex fingering. Richards used repetitious chord patterns to create riffs that are classic, but for the most part simple. The two of them together made for some fantastic songs. Ron Wood's style is more like Keith Richards, and there wasn't much stand-out guitar work after Taylor left. ("Start Me Up" opens with what has become an iconic Keith Richards riff, but most of the remaining guitar work on the song is ho-hum).
While the group's early work wasn't as sophisticated technically or in terms of song-writing ability, their performances were more exciting. They didn't rely on gaudy costumes, elaborate sets or pyrotechnics to get the audience in high gear. This Youtube video is an example of what I mean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulxQv9WKzHU Their 2005 tour was a return to simplicity, with no props or tricks. Just the group playing. It was refreshing.
I ran across an interview from 1970 with John Lennon discussing Mick Jagger and the Stones, and was struck by how bitter Lennon seemed. His liberal used of the "f" word was unusual for that time, and unnecessary. It reminded me that I've never heard any of the members of the Stones use any swear words at all. Lennon accused the Stones of copying the Beatles with the album title "Let It Bleed", but I've read that the Stones came up with that title to be a bit of a dark stab at the Beatle's insipid "Let It Be". By 1970 the Stones were really hitting their stride, while the Beatles were becoming almost irrelevant. Maybe that's why Lennon seemed so bitter. The interview is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-b3fRisu50 (I never cared for that two-faced multi-millionaire socialist "man of the people", anyway).
Over the last 50 years, the Stones have generated well in excess of $30 billion in record sales, concert ticket sales, and sales of licensed merchandise. Whatever their cut of all that has been, they've certainly earned it. I saw a list of all of their concert dates going back to the 1960's, and they've maintained a brutal schedule right up until the last very few years. They'd do a concert almost every night for a year or two at a time, with jumps from continent to continent, and their rest periods were never long.
The Stones pretty much kept politics out of their music and their interviews. There were hints of political messages in some songs, but I don't know that I was ever able to pin them down politically (Mick Jagger comes from an active politically conservative family, and Keith Richards from a politically liberal family). By point of contrast, I was a huge Springsteen fan until he started ranting onstage at a Milwaukee concert about George W. Bush, just months before the 2004 election. That's the last time I saw him in concert, and I haven't listened to his music hardly at all since then.
There are better vocalists than Mick Jagger (although his voice is/was distinctive), there's better guitarists than Keith Richards, and better drummers than Charlie Watts. There's been better song-writing teams than Jagger and Richards. I think the reason they've been so successful for so long is just plain hard work.
So much for my thoughts.
-
Dick I think you missed your calling. You need to start a blog or something chronicling culture from the 1960's and 70's, your memories of it, and its continuing impact today.
-
Some bands play rock and roll....the Rolling Stones ARE rock and roll.
Besides, when you have a 40+ year career as "rock star"....that's saying something.
We will forgive mick for freejack.
-
I'm not a HUGE stones fan, but their impact is certainly huge. I don't know a lot about them actually, but I confess I've never turned the radio to a different tune when their music comes on.
IMHO they're a ton better than their contemporaries. Lots of simple, yet ultra effective, rock and roll.
Also while googling them I found this. LOL
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/530342_3577531137451_1954565330_n.jpg)
-
Any group's success is dependent upon the tastes of the times. If Frank Sinatra were just starting today, I doubt he'd be able to get further than singing in hotel lounges. Pick any popular contemporary group, transport them back to the 1950's, and they would have been regarded as a freak novelty act.
Music isn't utilitarian, like guns. Take a few M4's and transport them back to WWI and the outcome of major battles might have been changed.
The Stones' music will still be listened to in fifty years, just like Sinatra, but by music history buffs, not the general public. How many people today know who Bunny Berrigan or even Willie Dixon are? Their names are almost as obscure as Joe Biden.
-
Lennon (or ANY Brit Invasion member) complaining about someone else being derivative is hi-larious.
And, yes, the Stones were better and more significant than the Beatles.
-
I like some of the Stones songs, but I was never much of a fan. My main experience was laughing at the looks people gave you when you said you weren't much of a fan of them. I had one person do that to me over Kiss.
Take a look at the music played in commercials and other ads. Look at how much of those no-name cultural tunes come from Stones and Beattles songs. It is pretty amazing to me. Even someone who would say they have never listened to the Stones or the Beatles has heard their music and melodies in other forms for many years.
I say I am not a fan of the Stones or Beatles per my definition. I used to think I was a Rush fan as I had seen them a couple times in concert and like most of their stuff. Then I met a coworker some years ago who will travel to other cities to see Rush multiple times on the same tour almost every tour. He has planned vacations where he saw Rush in one town and flew to the next town to see them before heading home. If he is a fan, I am something less than that.
-
there is a local gal I know, so,like, she tells me she is a Stones fan and I'm all like, ya gotta hear my version of Dead Flowers and then she was like whats that?
Then later I said I've been learning Walk Before They Make Me Run, you know, the Kieth Richards song and she is all like "Who is Kieth Richards"??
But, like, she swears she is a stones fan. She's very attractive in a drunk older used to be stripper kind of way and she dances when I play Country Honk and Paint It Black so I like,like playing guitar for her.
. There were hints of political messages in some songs, but I don't know that I was ever able to pin them down politically (Mick Jagger comes from an active politically conservative family, and Keith Richards from a politically liberal family).
I think Mick has been smart enough to realize he's a rock star not a political commentator/intellectual .... he was penning some protest songs like street fighting man when it was fashionable and other protesty songs when it was fashionable ....
I cant listen to Springsteen any more his ego is so damn huge he thinks his halitosis is Holy
-
The Stones really have been a little bit like the proverbial soundtrack of my life. There are some songs that take me back in an instant...sometimes good, sometimes not.
I heard "Shattered" last night. It was the theme song for the end of my first marriage.
-
Then I met a coworker some years ago who will travel to other cities to see Rush multiple times on the same tour almost every tour.
My best friend and I did that with the Stones quite a few times. We'd see them in Milwaukee, then see them outside Chicago, and then Indianapolis.
When I hear people much younger than me say that they're not fans of the Stones (or Beatles, or whatever group from my era), I want to say that I'd be surprised if they were. I certainly was no fan of Sinatra or Dean Martin or Elvis.
With age, though, I've come to appreciate those singers, and their contributions to music, even if I'll never buy one of their CD's or records.
I was very close to buying tickets for my best friend and me for the 50th anniversary concert in New Jersey. The least expensive seats that still offered any kind of view were $850 each, and the ones closest to the stage were over $5000. I'll wait for them to tour next year. From what I've seen the 50th concert would have been worthwhile to see, for a number of reasons.
-
When I hear people much younger than me say that they're not fans of the Stones (or Beatles, or whatever group from my era), I want to say that I'd be surprised if they were. I certainly was no fan of Sinatra or Dean Martin or Elvis.
I have met tons and tons of people to young to be punk rockers who go around with Sid Viscous shirts.
...When I first got back to the states I was working in a health food store, and I would listen to the classic rock station ( the only rock music on the radio at the time ) and I was talking to this co worker, a 17yr old girl & I asked her what kind of music she was into "something you've never heard of probably, its called Ska" I pointed out to her that Ska had been around since the early sixties and told her about seeing the English Beat in 1983 :facepalm: .... I've been irritated to the point of getting loud fast and obnoxious to some kids.
But, it seems as if there are young fans of older music, a lot more then there was when I was a kid. Most kids from my generation didn't like fifties and older like sinatra elvis ETC but in the 80's 90's and now its not unusual to see 19yr olds at ZZ Top concerts , Dylan concerts , Greatful Dead and offshoots .... its kind of funny to see the looks on their faces when they see people older then their moms into the Bad Brains, Sex Pistols, The Clash and The Ramones ... actually the younger set really likes the ramones.
-
I have met tons and tons of people to young to be punk rockers who go around with Sid Viscous shirts.
His music runs a little slow for my taste. But the beats are good and thick.
-
I have met tons and tons of people to young to be punk rockers who go around with Sid Viscous shirts.
...When I first got back to the states I was working in a health food store, and I would listen to the classic rock station ( the only rock music on the radio at the time ) and I was talking to this co worker, a 17yr old girl & I asked her what kind of music she was into "something you've never heard of probably, its called Ska" I pointed out to her that Ska had been around since the early sixties and told her about seeing the English Beat in 1983 :facepalm: .... I've been irritated to the point of getting loud fast and obnoxious to some kids.
But, it seems as if there are young fans of older music, a lot more then there was when I was a kid. Most kids from my generation didn't like fifties and older like sinatra elvis ETC but in the 80's 90's and now its not unusual to see 19yr olds at ZZ Top concerts , Dylan concerts , Greatful Dead and offshoots .... its kind of funny to see the looks on their faces when they see people older then their moms into the Bad Brains, Sex Pistols, The Clash and The Ramones ... actually the younger set really likes the ramones.
The question you have to ask yourself is how many bands in the last 10 years really stand out? When you have 50 years of rock and roll to pick from, many newer bands aren't so good.
I think I spent my last two years of high school listening to Led Zepplin, Rush, and Yes. There were a lot of crappy bands back then I am sure, I get to skip them.
Of course, I have loved many newer (to me ) bands also. I'm picky on music though. It always amuses me how some people will look at you cross eyed when you don't really care for their favorite band, as if everyone is supposed to like them. I know a couple Springsteen songs, but I never understood why some people think he is so great. And just because I can appreciate Stevie Ray Vaughn doesn't mean I have to like every copy cat out there.
-
I can't figure out why all of the band members look so leathery. Maybe it's from 50 years under hot stage lights. ;)
I think the fact they probably went through more drugs in a year than many small countries might have had something to do with it...
-
His music runs a little slow for my taste. But the beats are good and thick.
:rofl: :rofl:
ooops