Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

The Rolling Stones will perform in Moncton, New Brunswick this Saturday evening September 3, 2005. A small community will see its population increased by half as 85,000 tickets have been sold.

As I was thinking about this upcoming event, that I will not attend, I asked myself " What was the Stones' greatest contribution to rock music? How did they change it? For what will they be remembered?

For me, the Rolling Stones introduced the blues to rock and roll. This was of course already done, but the Stones increased the awareness of the blues by turning it up a notch and adding a freshness through their own compositions. Another case of the British putting their own spin on American music and selling it back to America.
Unlike the British Invasion that faded rather quickly, the Stones clung to the blues tradition which made their music palatable and in demand for the next four decades. Whether by accident or design, it was a smart marketing move.

I am, naturally, interested in your thoughts?

As I recall, the Rolling Stones when they arrived on the scene in the UK were very much out of synch with the music that was being proffered at the time. In place of the nice boys next store playing innocent rock music image they presented a counterpoint. In it's place they offered raw blues with a rebel edge and the makings of a counterculture, the like of which had not been seen since the advent and decline of the teddy boy era.

Once it was confirmed that they could attract a strong following outside of London they marketed their image and followed suit with appropriate music. They have been masters in this regard, probably more so than any other band of that era.

That in my opinion is why they survived. They are a business first and music is their product.

There is so much to say on this topic that one could write a book. However in the interest of time, I will leave you with that thought and let others have their say.

Great comments Brian. I agree completely. Andrew Oldham was able to create a controversy where perhaps one might not have naturally evolved by fostering a group climate that was the antithesis of The Beatles.

In the end, this climate would come back to bite Oldham as he said in a recent interview that you couldn't manage people who didn't know who you were. The bad-boy image was a smashing success and borrowed by The Who, at least to some extent, as well.

One thing about the Beatles vs. Stones concept that always cracked me up is how much their images were manufactured by their handlers...the Beatles, poor boys from a rough town who never could have dreamed of higher education, were advised to adopt the 'good-boy' image: matching suits-and-ties, neatly combed coiffures, and as nice a demeanor in front of cameras as they could manage. The Stones, on the other hand...art and business school types with more sophisticated backgrounds, were pushed down the 'satanic' road to financial success.

Of course, Hinduism teaches us that there's no such thing as a 'good' or 'bad' human being. Conversely, Capitalism teaches us that nothing works better in the marketplace than 'packaging'...

"Smashing" success. Ha!

Remember, Jagger was from the London School of Economics, not some music or art college...

Interesting that at the time the Who were contemporaries of the "Stones" and they often shared the same stage at venues.

Oldham of course was very involved in both bands. The Who magnified yet another subculture and defined what it meant to be a "Mod"

The "Stones" musical direction was based on a very strong blues foundation and with a bit of research a new fan of the blues could "discover" their roots, thus adding to the intrigue and mystique.

I did say 'art and business'...although the distinctions between those two classifications seem to be steadily evaporating...

Speaking of which, I'm always bemused at the lumping together of 'Arts' and 'Entertainment', while 'Sports' continue to enjoy their own category...even though it all boils down to ticket sales these days. I'm just waiting for the launching of a new cable TV channel: 'Bread and Circuses'...

Dane is so right in his Beatles vs. Stones comments. I find both band's youth and pre-fame situations compared to their show biz images ironic and amusing.
I find it depressing to see bands still using the bad boy image to get attention.

Its too bad that the Stones haven't written any material of any impact for 30 years though. You have to wonder what happens to these artists as they get older....do they forget how to write good stuff, or do they just get too set in their ways and too out of touch to write anything people can identify with? McCartney seems to have this problem too.

The Stones lost their sparkle after "December's Children" for me. Loved everything up till then.

Gee, thats a long time ago.... "Sticky Fingers" didn't do anything for you?

Some of it. "Can't You Hear Me Knockin'" was fun to cover in my band at that time. Later, I liked "Heartbreaker." Along about 1971 I got heavily in to Yes & Genesis, Deep Purple, Floyd, etc.

The combination of talent and desire to succeed (or "drive") that many musicians have early on in their careers, is tempered by success. Rich musicians are simply not as needy. If their talent continues undiminished, they often lose their so-called "edge" with so-called "age".

Real talent does not seem to me to diminish with time, but often enough the vision grows cloudy and that "Clear Spot" is difficult or impossible to locate and dwell in for enough time to continue to produce original, relevant material.

Then there are those who never had any real talent, but possessed a certain timing or modicum of luck. They have always existed, but are so common today because there's more money to buy more "product" without respect to quality.

>because there's more money to buy more "product" without respect to quality (today)<

Amen, Paul.

Some wells run dry...others get replenished...

I like David Byrne's advice to artists of all types: stay hungry! Henry VIII wrote a lot of music during his reign, but not much of it is worth listening to, whereas folk music written by unknown paupers of the same time remains essential today...