|
|
| Gazza |
From the Winston-Salem "Relish"
(Check out the writer's last name. If you were a gay porn star, you'd kill for a name like that...)
These Stones are a downright fuzzy gray-green
Thursday, May 5, 2005
By Ed Bumgardner
relish staff writer
The deep thinker who coined the phrase "a rolling stone gathers no moss" obviously has not seen the Rolling Stones in the past few years.
The Stones are preparing to tour this year, or so say insiders. Suddenly the old "Steel Wheelchair Tour" jokes that followed the band on tour in 1989 - 16 years ago - seem less wry than apropos.
It's not the fact that priggish singer Mick Jagger will turn 62 in July - that's Sir Mick Jagger to all the snickering little people, and "Brenda" to guitarist Keith Richards, Jagger's sparring partner and fellow fading Glimmer Twin.
A consummate showman, Jagger stays in tip-top physical shape. He has not yet begun to ... creak.
Age isn't a factor. Nor is appearance. Drummer Charlie Watts is 64, and he plays better than when he was 24. Richards, who also responds to "Keef," "The Human Riff" and "Who's the dead guy?" began living his life in dog years in 1969. This puts his age at nearly 500, give or take a century. He is comfortable with that. He wears his weathered countenance with pride and all the drunken dignity he can muster, which is considerable.
The creases and crags in his face are the battle scars of a pirate's life. Yo ho ho. He has served, and served well. He is the guitar-grinding embodiment of rock 'n' roll.
Richards and Watts, though aging, remain vital, expressive musicians. They are not alone. B.B. King is nearly 80. Buddy Guy is 69. Bob Dylan is 64. David Bowie is 58. Bruce Springsteen is 56. John Mellencamp is 54. All still create new, potent work, music that matters. Any debate about age and musical validity is now little more than minor antler-butting between factions in which sense is far from common.
What this means, on a personal level, is that for the first time in my life, I have no interest in seeing the Stones perform again. It's not that I don't care for the Stones. I no longer have the capacity to still care about a static band that no longer cares about its legacy, that no longer takes chances, that has turned disciplined self-preservation into an art form.
Such is the rational indifference of a realist. The Rolling Stones, once proclaimed the Greatest Rock 'n' Roll Band on Earth, have devolved into a voodoo lounge band. It's hard to admit, but it's true.
And it's sad, because it doesn't have to be that way.
There is more than a whiff of despair in the air when pondering the manifest musical state of the Stones. At heart is the realization that the vast majority of the musical heroes of my youth have withered and turned toxic, or worse, musically impotent.
Any argument that surrounds the continued musical import of the Stones as a contemporary musical juggernaut is romanticism of a most ugly and unsupported myth. The Stones were at best a solid singles band from 1964 to 1967. Their fame was less a matter of sustained musical ingenuity than the shrewd manipulation of reputation and image, that of a gang of unkempt rogues who boldly spit in the face of contemporary mores.
Between 1968 and 1972, the band released five exceptional albums - Beggar's Banquet (1968), Let It Bleed (1969) Get Your Ya-Ya's Out (1970), Sticky Fingers (1971) and Exile on Main Street (1972).
These discs tower over the musical pantheon as one of the grand sustained periods of defining productivity in rock 'n' roll history. They captured the sound of a unified band at a creative pinnacle, a musical Panzer division that crushed everything in its path. To listen to these discs is to immediately understand why the Stones are icons. And in a bit of converse logic, those albums also reveal the hard truth of why the band is no longer important beyond its status as old gods almost dead.
The Stones camp has been in turmoil for 20 years. There hasn't been a cohesively strong album since Tattoo You in 1981. To be fair, no band should have to sustain the level of its highest creativity for perpetuity. It's an unreasonable, unrealistic demand. Dodgy albums by great bands should be expected and accepted. Progress is pain. Bungee jumps of faith are required. It's part and parcel of creative ambition.
The problem with the Stones is that, beyond the odd glint of creative potency, the band hasn't shown signs of real growth in more than 20 years. It seems content to essentially be an oldies act - albeit a good one.
For the most part, the band's recent studio albums pander to myth. Its tours sustain myth. But what really sparks personal indifference is the fact that the band seems not to care. It appears content to shake the money tree by caving to the lucre of nostalgia and cranking out "Honky-Tonk Women" on tour, ad nauseam, replete with inflatable floozies.
Richards has made it plain that he is frustrated. Jagger openly admits that he is in it for the money. He merely plays the role of Mick Jagger. He can't grow old gracefully, as Richards and Watts are doing, because he refuses to grow up, much less grow old.
King, Guy, Dylan, Springsteen, Mellencamp, Bowie - there is no resting on laurels with them. It's why they matter. And it's why the Stones no longer do.
Listen to Exile on Main Street. Then listen to Bridges to Babylon from 1997. The proof is in the grooves.
Styx and Stones...
[email protected] |
|
|
| Moonisup |
that's one of the best articles I've seen. He is just honest, and I think he's right! |
|
|
| Dutch Michael D. |
i think this is a good article, the Stones have to read this, maybe THEY COME UP WITH SOMETHING GOOD !!! and show the world and this guy from the article that the stones can still give you Goose bumps !!! if they don't come up with something good this time, they have to stop !!!
come on guys , make a Fucking good album !!! |
|
|
| Voodoo Scrounge |
Would have to agree with the lot. He hit the nail on the head. Well said that man! |
|
|
| egon |
fair.
my nuts hurt, but fair... |
|
|
| telecaster |
"King, Guy, Dylan, Springsteen, Mellencamp, Bowie - there is no resting on laurels with them. It's why they matter. And it's why the Stones no longer do."
This article is so bad in so many ways
BB King and Buddy Guy have been doing the same set/show/songs for 30 years. Dylan doesn't put on a show, he mumbles. Springsteen is either a good rock show which has been the same for 30 years or the Woody Guthrie "the steel mill is closing" depression show.
Only the Stones and U2 put on a different show every tour
The Stones played over 85 different songs last tour
and yet you all still complain
You all need to hangout at the Journey or Foghat message boards
|
|
|
| Bloozehound |
gosh, what a Bumgardner this writer guy is
|
|
|
| glencar |
I was thinking "loser" but I guess "bumgardner" is somewhat interchangable, eh? |
|
|
| Angiegirl |
Wow, harsh, but still my growing sentiments of the last 7 years. Damn. |
|
|
| Angiegirl |
quote:
telecaster wrote:
The Stones played over 85 different songs last tour
and yet you all still complain
It's quality that counts in my book, not quantity. |
|
|
| kath |
quote:
It's quality that counts in my book, not quantity.
exactly!!! which is why i am sooo excited about this album and this tour. i think there may have been a mini-epiphany happen in the band. i am very optimistic!!!
as for the article....yes, everybody has an opinion. i don't think that voodoo or b2b should be dissed the way they are, both had flaws, but as far as i'm concerned, "angie" was a MAJOR flaw!!! and i still love them even so...... |
|
|
| glencar |
When Jagger came busting out on stage in Boston last time out, the reviews were rapturous. Let's hope Mick & Keith & gang read the criticism & take it to heart & do better this time around. |
|
|
| MrPleasant |
"King, Guy, Dylan, Springsteen, Mellencamp, Bowie - there is no resting on laurels with them. It's why they matter. And it's why the Stones no longer do".
Says who?
I would be mildly disappointed if the Stones' last album sucked the air out of me, and yet some of their poorest offerings ('Still Life', for instance, which I only heard once) haven't tarnished the enormous respect I hold for them, because of their incredible catalogue.
I'd be content to see them sleeping on laurels (even if this isn't entirely true - 'Bridges To Babylon' and 'Voodoo Lounge' were good, meritable works, on their own); they deserve it.
[Edited by MrPleasant] |
|
|
| corgi37 |
Not a bad article. SOme amazing comments though. Keith living in dog years! Fabulous.
But, come on, Keith "admits" being frustrated? WTF? This from a guy who seemingly hasnt written a song in 8 years?
And, when did Jagger actually say he was only in it for the money?
Still, some good points.
Pity about the surname.
P.S. And i bet my dog that the bumgardner is front row & centre for a Stones show too. Fucking wanker. |
|
|
| Soldatti |
A good article, with some true facts there. |
|
|
| lonecrapshooter |
as Mick would say: "rubbish" |
|
|
| corgi37 |
And, unless i missed something, when the hell did Keith call Mick "Brenda"? |
|
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]