Rolling Stones' Legacy

[admin]

If we compare the music of The Stones with that of The Beatles during the first decade of each group, the differences go beyond genre.

The Fab Four were four individuals that, by and large, towed the line when it came to following management and producers. This lead to much success in spite of their own personal conflicts about being controlled by others. The Beatles were encouraged to have a group identity and took pride in it. There was an emphasis on changing sounds over the course of their career which can be seen in their compositions, as well as their instrumentation and arrangements. The emphasis was on craft.

The Rolling Stones, on the otherhand, were encouraged and billed to be more independent and rebellious, and as such did not tow the line. Oldham dumped them as a result or perhaps they dumped him. Beyond the very early days, all of their music continued to sound alike and they did not make changes to the extent that The Beatles did. They were interested in money.


Neither group continued to be hungry but The Beatles continued to hunger for change and a focus on their craft. The Stones, on the otherhand, jumped on their horses and rode off in different directions in search of money.

To my way of thinking, The Beatles' focus was on their craft which lead to money. The Rolling Stones' emphasis was on their money which lead to craft.

Checks and balances are not always a bad thing and the Stones surely proved to some extent that humans can be "nasty poor brutish and short" and successful at the same time. While money certainly kept the Stones together it seems to have ruined their music in the long term. Thomas Hobbes would have been interested in their story.

The Beatles grew tired of perfecting their craft and moved on. The Stones have never grown tired of counting their money and have pesisted. Two very different motivating styles producing very different outcomes.

I now ask myself, which style best characterizes McCartney today?

[Scastles]

Triple digit tour ticket prices characterize McCartney, just as it does the Stones.

[shamustwin]

I consider up to "Sticky Fingers" or "Exile" (whichever was the latter) to be the last truly great Stones album. Next came "Goats Head Soup". But also with GHS, music had shifted. Glam and glitter rock came in, as well as progressive. The Stones had to fall into line at this point. They began dressing the glam part, and Jagger began hanging out with a "Ziggy" era Bowie. Alice Cooper was the latest shock rocker, not the Stones. Wings even had a glam look to them.

I think the Stones ran their course being in the musical forefront, then as fashions and tastes shifted, remained a great band, but were no longer cutting edge. Perhaps simultaneously, their writing waned or lost some edge for whatever reason. But how can they be faulted for having a product people still want and exploiting it?

Same for Mac. He'll always have a built in audience. I'm sure he has a need to produce music. I'm sure he'd love another hit. However, people still want to see him, he still wants to earn (part of) his living playing.

Mac's and the Stones' core audience is older and presumably richer now. I (my dad actually) paid 5.50 to see the Beatles in '66, top price was 6.50. But then, how much was a new Chevy in '66?

I can't see how any act can be bashed for playing after the hits have dried up, nor can I see faulting the artist for what the consumer is willing to pay to see them. And I think it's better Jagger and Macca be savvy businessmen than to hire another ABK.

I saw Mac in '02, and didn't mind the ticket price. I'd pay a ton to see Petty, McGuinn, Yes, or any other of my faves who mightn't have had a hit recently.

[admin]

Jerry: Agreed. there is nothing wrong with keeping a good thinkg going. To be fair, I would still be buying Beatles' CDs if they were making new ones. Heck I still buy them now.

It is sad to see the quality go, however. All stars have to decide when they can no longer perform to the standard that they did when they achieved their fame. To me, the Rolling Stones are past it. I am sure their biggest fans would disagree.

[jingle_jangle]

I'm with Jerry. Whatever "craft" the Stones exhibited as a result of their economic focus, and after Brian's death, was pretty mundane "sharpening their stick" sorta stuff.

Low point was the ridiculously obvious followup album of "Satanic Majesties". (I wonder what reaction that title would get from Falwell these days!), although this one did have a couple of nice cuts, like "10,000 Light Years From Home", which when you inspect it was a blues song dressed up in tie dye.

In general, when I think of Stones, "craft" is not a word that comes to mind, unless it might have been hired talent with craft of their own.

[shamustwin]

Maybe Mick can't "sing" like he used to, but it's not hard to see from brief video clips the rest of the Stones' play better than ever. Charlie will never lose his chops! Nice thing about being a musician, age and experience sometime work in your favor!

I think it's an historical thing as well. You're going to see these people perform the songs they wrote that are now a part of the history of those certain decades, and century. And beyond celebrity, they are characters, as identifiable by their mannerisms as they are by the sounds they make. That's entertainment.

I respectfully disagree that the Stones are past it. Jagger has never really sung, but entertained (live, that is). And the rest, IMHO, can still cook.

[revolver323]

As they say, if no one was willing to pay triple digit prices, McCartney and the Stones wouldn't be getting them. I would rather pay $300 to see McCartney than $150 to see the Eagles. When I did see Paul in 1992, it cost $45 per ticket. Sting cost me $65 per ticket last year. This year, it will cost me $65 per ticket to see jazzer Karrin Allyson who has a lot smaller audience. All worth it in my opinion. I would NOT pay $125 to see Coldplay. But I'm not 25 years old anymore.

[jingle_jangle]

I don't think that the Stones are "past it", because I'm not sure what "it" really is. I respect Charlie as drummer immensely, and he's spread out a bit with his Jazz Orchestra thing, too. Wyman was sort of an odd duck to me. Keith is a original Bad Boy, just a real mess, not a poseur like so many who aren't fit to carry his pick pouch.

And somehow the sum is less than the parts! Maybe that's what "it" is--when it seems like they're creatively cruising and doing some borrowing instead of breaking down barriers of one sort or another. After SF in '71, I stopped looking forward to their albums. "Exile", "Some Girls"; they all had one or two gems but to me didn't hang together and push the envelope.

[soundmasterg]

I think the Stones and McCartney can still play just fine, and still perform just fine, I was talking about their songwriting, which isn't really up to the caliber it was 30 years ago. Like Peter, I think its sad, and would consider buying some of their modern output if they paid more attention to writing something good and something revolutionary like they used to.

Watching Charlie Watts play drums has always made me laugh because he'll be playing the high hat, and always stops playing it when he hits the snare. I'm sure he does it on purpose rather than being unable to play both at the same time like most drummers, but it is still funny to watch.

[admin]

By past it, I was not referring to them being unable to keep a beat, sing or play. They have played many songs thousands of times and so they should have them down cold. I am referring more to their creativity. For me, they are past an "It's All Over Now", a "Lady Jane" and a "Heart of Stone" for example. Songs like these were really quite unique in the early days and they, among others, really got my attention.

[stubby]

I was born in 1968 and (unfortunately?) came of age in the 1980s when the Stones were still putting out quality stuff but had long ago lost the facade of anti-establishmentarianism in any credible way. By that time, they were as corporate America as Coca-Cola though I would argue many people hadn't realized it yet. It's hard for me to appreciate that the Stones were ever really bad boys. This was an image that they still had then though how you could be a bad boy in the 70s and 80s is beyond me. I recognize the brilliance and the originality of the band but they they were co-opted early (no conspiracy theory here, just a natural consequence of being in the American limelight for so long). They were set with this certain image of rebels, etc., etc. but this image had become so sanitized in the mainstream American perspective of what constitutes the "rebel" that their "rebelliousness" ceased to be of any relevance pretty early on.I'll probably get blasted for this but I think the Stones bad boy image ceased to be anything but a schmaltzy stereotype that was entirely irrelevant (and almost a parody) for people that weren't adolescents when the Stones initially came out.

[jingle_jangle]

Amen on that, Stubby. But unfortunately us oldsters were in our 30s when the 80s rolled around, and we supported their corporate concerts and to heck with rebellion. We were spending our excess Bongo Bucks on Stones tickets, BMWs and condos and other such Yuppie accoutrement ensemble stuff.

In other words, we got our edge at the same time they got theirs, and lost it simultaneously as well.

[shamustwin]

No question the songwriting does not remain the same (It's All Over Now was written by Bobby and Shirley Womack) But if today they wrote the Best Rolling Stones' Song Ever, would it be heard? The style they excel at is not what is being pushed by corporate radio, and when youngsters try it, they momentarily become media darlings, but are also condemned for ripping off the past.

The rock rebel thing was fine when they were in their 20's, but it looks foolish on mature men. That's a teenage thing that's been adopted by nearly every rock and roller and these days is so transparent it's laughable.

Speaking of which, the Stones were once told by their manager, Andrew whatever, to take off their ties before entering a restaurant. When they were refused service and asked to leave this Ties and Jackets Required establishment, Andrew got what he wanted: headlines that shouted "Rolling Stones Kicked out of Restaurant". You had to read the fine print to find out it was not debauchery-related.

[admin]

Exactly right on It's All Over Now Jerry. I might have also included as better examples Tell Me, The Last Time, The Singer Not The Song and quite a few others.

[shamustwin]

I do wonder why they, and others, don't come up with material like that anymore. It can't be impossible. One doesn't completely run out of steam, do they? Perhaps trying to make something marketable in the 80's, 90's and 00's over rides the obvious. The Last Time, for example, is a very simplistic song, that's why it's great. But blues/country-based rock and roll seems to have disappeared. Plus there are so many factions of rock, one song cannot possibly unite rock fans.