|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
M U S I C S T O R Y
Sucking in their sixties
09 April 2006
www.stuff.co.nz
On the eve of their tour, Grant Smithies ponders if the Rolling Stones are still rolling, or if they're just gathering moss.
On the face of it, going to see the Rolling Stones is not a promising proposition. Tickets are expensive - mostly between $102 and $352, much more on the black market - and after playing together for 44 years, the band is probably past it.
Certainly, the members have all crested the hump of late middle-age and are now accelerating downhill toward the grave. He of the huge lips and skinny limbs, Sir Mick Jagger, is now 62. Walking lab- rat and greying guitar hero Keith "Just Say Yes" Richards is 61. Drummer Charlie Watts, who looks alarmingly like a human muppet, is 64, and second guitarist Ronnie Wood is a relative spring chicken at 58.
They're old enough to appear on Antiques Roadshow, which begs the question: why pay big money to go and see a bunch of grandads "rock out"? Why spend two hours standing in the cold, miles from the stage, watching these craggy rock dinosaurs shuffle about, when you could spend your ticket money on the best early Stones albums instead (see right) and then enjoy them at home for the next 30 years? By which point, of course, the band will probably still be touring.
The Rolling Stones are the most obvious examples of a phenomenon former New York Press editor John Strausbaugh once called "colostomy rock". Strausbaugh noted that rock was all about "youthful energies, youthful rebellion, youthful anxieties and anger" and therefore "should not be played by 55-year-old men with triple chins, pretending to still be excited about playing songs they wrote 35 years ago for an audience of middle-aged, balding, jelly-bellied dads".
But, as with foreplay, suicide and major purchases, too much haste is unwise when assessing the relevance of the Rolling Stones 2006. To write them off simply because they're getting old is unfair. Advanced age need not be a hindrance to making great rock'n'roll, as Iggy and the Stooges demonstrated a few months ago at the Big Day Out in Auckland. John Cale and Lou Reed of the Velvet Underground, both in their 60s, are still making vital music, as was the late Johnny Cash until his recent death. Last year Paul McCartney, then 63, made the best solo album of his career.
Even so, it is easy to feel, as they say in California, "conflicted" about the Rolling Stones. This is certainly one of the most important rock'n'roll bands to ever blow up an amp, squeeze a syringe or rip off a blues riff. Between 1964 and 1978, these guys not only made great records; they also developed the template for swaggering, wasted cool that has been used by every decent rock'n'roll band since. But during the 80s and 90s, the Stones sank deep into self- parody. The swagger seemed choreographed, the sound sanitised, the songs derivative of earlier hits. All danger deserted them as they settled back into millionaire comfort in their various chateaux, emerging every few years to record a regrettable solo album or a forgettable Stones album, then touring to beef up their retirement fund.
A band that had once epitomised youthful rebellion became a figurehead for bloated corporate rock, touching down every few years in London, New York, Paris and Munich, and yawning their way through their umpteenth version of "Honky Tonk Woman" with one eye on the clock. A few years ago I interviewed original bass-player Bill Wyman about the 30 years he'd spent in the Rolling Stones. He said he'd eventually left the band in 1991 because he "couldn't face playing `Jumping Jack Flash' or `Satisfaction' one more time".
They must be knackered, and bored shitless, yet they keep on touring, for years at a time. Why? Probably because it makes a hell of a lot more money than selling albums. CD sales worldwide are in free-fall, and apart from compilations, Rolling Stones' albums haven't sold well since the late 70s. Despite being their best effort in 28 years, the Stones' most recent album A Bigger Bang, (their 44th overall) is liable to make only about $3.3 million for the band, whereas they gross this amount nearly every night on the road. 1989's Steel Wheels tour (dubbed "Steel Wheelchairs" by some) grossed more than $430m, the 1994-95 Voodoo Lounge tour grossed $610m worldwide, and the 1997-98 Bridges To Babylon tour grossed $645m.
The 2005 leg of the current A Bigger Bang tour grossed $268m, more than any other touring group last year. Industry insiders say the Stones try to break their own previous takings records with every tour, not because they need the money, but because it has become something of a challenge, a game. Sadly, for them to win, we have to lose, by paying those ridiculous ticket prices.
It has been often suggested by rock writers that the Stones were never especially rebellious in the first place; they simply realised that rebellion sold well. But so what? Being stinking rich and insincere needn't be a barrier to making scorching rock'n'roll, any more than being old is. Who cares how much money these guys have? Can they still deliver the goods on stage?
It depends who you ask. Reviews on the internet are divided; for every fan that writes "Keith's guitar was cooking with premium petroleum by- products!" (as one nerd wrote of the recent Hollywood Bowl show), there's another disappointed by a "lacklustre show and a set-list that has remained much the same for over a decade". But mediocre reviews don't stop people buying tickets, partially - ironically - because the band's advanced age has become a form of marketing. What better way to get long-term fans and intrigued youngsters coughing up for a ticket than the rumour this might be the last tour before they break up, or one of them dies?
Nostalgia is a powerful force when it comes to music, and it's easy to see why. If you slap on the Rolling Stones' best records and crank up the volume, your cynicism melts away like sugar in the rain. Songs like "Beast of Burden", "Gimme Shelter", "Moonlight Mile", "Street Fighting Man" or "Hey, Negrita" are so transcendentally marvellous, so evocative, so generously endowed with everything that makes rock music pungent and true, that you would happily pay $500 just to occupy the same stadium as the guys, breathing the same air, even if they just sat on stage in their dressing gowns and slippers, drinking brandy and playing mah-jong. Which is why I'm putting the word out. If anyone has a spare ticket for a conflicted old cynic who didn't buy one in time, well, you know who to call.
The Rolling Stones' A Bigger Bang Tour: Auckland, Western Springs, April 16 and Wellington, Westpac Stadium, April 18.
[Edited by Ten Thousand Motels] |
|
|
| corgi37 |
Thanks for that. Another pointless article. What the fuck was it about? The last 2 paragraphs were as full of crap as the nappies of my babies. Fucking "Hey Negrita" - what a clown? Did he ring up some mates and say "Name me some Stones songs, i'm doing an article". |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
Thanks for that. Another pointless article. What the fuck was it about?
 |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
>Which is why I'm putting the word out. If anyone has a spare ticket for a conflicted old cynic who didn't buy one in time, well, you know who to call.<
He's looking for a free ticket. If the boys or any of their underlings are reading this maybe they should send the guy a free backstage pass.
|
|
|
| gimmekeef |
Before one writes about a Stones show...shouldnt they be required to fucking actually attend one? |
|
|
| Soldatti |
Some valid pointsm, but pointless. |
|
|
| Bloozehound |
1989's Steel Wheels tour (dubbed "Steel Wheelchairs" by some)"
that's funny, don't think I'd heard that before, they really should have named ABB that |
|
|
| gimmekeef |
quote:
Bloozehound wrote:
1989's Steel Wheels tour (dubbed "Steel Wheelchairs" by some)"
that's funny, don't think I'd heard that before, they really should have named ABB that
That lines older than..."Good to be here..good to be anywhere" |
|
|
| Break The Spell |
Its interesting that when the media called the SW tour "Steel Wheelchairs" tour, the band were in their mid-late 40's which at the time was unheard of for a rock band to still be kicking around and touring. Now, 17 years later, bands go out all the time well into their 40's and 50's and no one thinks twice about it. |
|
|
| Honky Tonk Man |
I don't think there’s anything to bitch about here. It's a well-written article and as cynical as he may be, he's pretty much spot-on with every negative point he makes. |
|
|
| Break The Spell |
quote:
Honky Tonk Man wrote:
I don't think there’s anything to bitch about here. It's a well-written article and as cynical as he may be, he's pretty much spot-on with every negative point he makes.
It is extremely well written and I actually agree with about everything he says, except for the part about Macca's last album being his best ever. Is he for real there?? |
|
|
| StonesChick |
I hope I get to see them suck really bad in their nineties. |
|
|
| Break The Spell |
quote:
StonesChick wrote:
I hope I get to see them suck really bad in their nineties.
Hopefully Streets Of Love won't be a warhorse by then. :} |
|
|
| StonesChick |
quote:
Break The Spell wrote:
Hopefully Streets Of Love won't be a warhorse by then. :}
I love Streets of Love, and I would LOVE to see them do it live!!! I don't know why people don't like it. If it was released 30 years ago, maybe you would.
I think it's a beautiful song, but then again, I'm a chick! You should give it another try, make sure to turn it up loud. |
|
|
| Break The Spell |
quote:
StonesChick wrote:
I love Streets of Love, and I would LOVE to see them do it live!!! I don't know why people don't like it. If it was released 30 years ago, maybe you would.
I think it's a beautiful song, but then again, I'm a chick! You should give it another try, make sure to turn it up loud.
I wish I could like every song they do, but SOL just has never grown on me, its more of a Mick solo track than a Stones song to me. I like the album, but SOL along with Biggest Mistake and Sweet Neocon have never done anything for me. The best mellow song on the album is Laugh, I Nearly Died, my opinion of course. |
|
|
| StonesChick |
quote:
Break The Spell wrote:
I wish I could like every song they do, but SOL just has never grown on me, its more of a Mick solo track than a Stones song to me. I like the album, but SOL along with Biggest Mistake and Sweet Neocon have never done anything for me. The best mellow song on the album is Laugh, I Nearly Died, my opinion of course.
Yeah, we can't like every song. Neocon doesn't do much for me, but I really love Biggest Mistake also. Laugh, I nearly Died is one of my favorites on the cd. I wish they would do it live. I suppose SOL sounds a bit like Mick solo, but I love Mick's solo stuff, so there ya go! |
|
|
| Break The Spell |
quote:
StonesChick wrote:
Yeah, we can't like every song. Neocon doesn't do much for me, but I really love Biggest Mistake also. Laugh, I nearly Died is one of my favorites on the cd. I wish they would do it live. I suppose SOL sounds a bit like Mick solo, but I love Mick's solo stuff, so there ya go!
I like a lot of his solo stuff too, Wandering Spirit is great all the way through. SOL would have been better on GITD, it fits more stylistically anyway. |
|
|
| StonesChick |
quote:
Break The Spell wrote:
I like a lot of his solo stuff too, Wandering Spirit is great all the way through. SOL would have been better on GITD, it fits more stylistically anyway.
Yeah, I suppose so. I still think you should give SOL another chance. Mick sounds quite amazing on it, imo. What a voice! |
|
