|
|
| BillyBoll |
Great review from this months UNCUT. I had to scan it and so there may be some strange spellings etc!!
"IN THE DISMAL HISTORY of Rolling
Stones'60s catalogue reissues ,this is
A first of sorts.This time, ABKCO. . .
Universal... whoever. .. haven't got it
completely wrong. Collected here, in their
original European/US sleeves are the
thrashing, screaming baby Stones' first dozen
4Ss, including the three classic British EPs.
Welcome as this is and despite the pretty sleeves,
the '60s singles are far more conveniently housed in the long
available Singles Collection. Still, this is music that transcends
format, whose impact couldn't be contained.
Throughout the rock decade1('63-73), the most diversely
creative era in pop history, "Greatest Rock 'n' Roll Band In The
World" was an unchallengeable title. The Rolling Stones were the
Master sculptors at the monstrous edifice that became 'rock'.
Remember, Frankenstein had good intentions: that the form is
now such a lumbering, weary beast can never diminish the
revolutionary blast of those explosive early records. 'Essential'
Stones is oft quoted as the Beggars Banquet to Exile On Main Street
era (1968-72), but despite the debauched glory of these later
records, they're missing one vital element. There were only ever
five real Stones. The original Brian Jones line-up not only recorded
the best rock'n'roll singles ever made, but they spoke, looked and
moved like nothing before or since. That today's rock musicians
still attempt to replicate the exact language, non-deportment
and chucked-on sartorial perfection of the Stones 40 years ago
speaks volumes about their initial impact. Modern 'cool' defined.
Of course, Miles and Bird and a host of others had been 'cool'
Since the bebop'40s, but in white rock'n'roll terms, this jazz slang
wasn't applicable until the Stones slouched their way to pop
domination circa 1964.Elvis'56 had looked the part but he said
"Sir" and "Momma" far too much. The Beatles might
have kick-started the rock revolution but they were
too cuddly and provincial. And too showbiz. A
composite classless beast, The Rolling Stones
never scored any showbiz points. If John
and Paul blurred their middle-class
grammar school backgrounds by acting
the fashionably proletarian scousers,
Brian Jones' unapologetic public school
Voice was more in tune with the let-it-all-hang-out,
Libertarian zeitgeist. Wyman and Watts supplied the honest
Worker quotient while teacher's son Jagger's lapses into mockney came across like a camp university graduate roughing it. (Art-school
drop-out Keith Richards was always more than a classless
bohemian; he was actually a Caribbean pirate, but it would take
decades of scientifically impossible internal toxic fusion for this to
be revealed.). What was abundantly clear from the off was the sex.
The best sex: the twin threat of androgyny and brutality. Keith,
in his fearsome Cuban-heeled Chelsea-boots, was always
ready to pile in to protect the fop contingent. Forget
Bolan or Bowie; it was Jones and Jagger who first,
unaffectedly, refused to toe pop's genderline. In
1964, they might have been the most beautiful
creatures alive. Pouting in frilly shirts, they may I have scared the hell out of some of the men,
but the little girls and boys understood this
was the future. 2000 light years ahead of Cliff's
'asexuality' or James Brown's 'heterosexuality'.
Ten years later, still ahead of Bowie's 'bisexuality'
and ten more of Boy George's 'homosexuality'. Just sex.
What bonded such disparate individuals so closely was an
obsession with black American R&B and, during 1963-65, the
Stones turned the form on its head. Their first record, Chuck Berry's
"Come On'; is most memorable for introducing the extremity of
Jagger's singing accent. The first great blue-eyed soul shout, there
were no Cliff transatlanticisms here. This was the voice of Shitsville,
Deep South,USA, but performed with the devious blow-dried
Flounce of Leonard of Knightsbridge. Next, it seemed as though
The Beatles were bent on sabotaging their rivals by donating
the pathetic "I Wanna Be Your Man'; No problem. The Stones
sabotaged the song to such brilliant effect that they invented
punk in the process. The same to-hell-with-the-faders mayhem
permeated "The Rolling Stones EP'; while third single"Not Fade
Away" saw them closer to the rhythmic African hoodoo at the
heart of rock'n'roll than any band before. Black or white.
The first No1 Bobby Womack's "It's All Ove rNow'; warrants
more Beatles vs Stones fatuity. On The Beatles' concurrent'45,
Macca sounded like he believed his own moral hoodwink, "Money
can't buy me love" .Meanwhile, the Stones conveyed Womack's
relief at being rid of a slut and her "half-assed game" with a
swagger that touched on a more recognizable reality. From the
same Chess studio sessions came both the "Five By Five EP"- the
best rock'n'roll performance ever (of Berry's "Around And Around
and their most daring single. The slow blues of Willie Dixon's "Little
Red Rooster'; with its undanceable beat and spooky
Jones slide guitar, was considered commercial
suicide. That it became their second No1 was
proof of the masses' total bewitchment at the
start of their unending affair with the Stones.
With such a vast wealth of material to
plunder, it's no wonder that the exacting
process of songwriting was something
Jagger and Richards had to be bullied into
by manager Andrew Oldham. When they
emerged, after a couple of middling to good
efforts, with the first perfect rock song of the
decade, the world fell at their feet. If the Stones hadn't
written anything, they would still have been the most important
pop-art statement of the '60s."The Last Time'; with its prototype
metal guitar riff and contemptuous lyric, propelled them so far
into the stratosphere that only a circus-ringmaster's bellowed
sobriquet could serve to describe them." SIMON HB WARNER
[Edited by BillyBoll]
[Edited by BillyBoll] |
|
|
| scratched |
Lovely stuff. |
|
|
| Gazza |
Good to see that the British music press' searing and contemptuous hatred for the Stones and blatant dismissal of everything theyve achieved continues unabated...
  |
|
|
| BillyBoll |
You might say that. I couldnt possibly comment....
|
|
|
| F505 |
What went wrong with the British music press and the Stones and more important: why? England should be proud of producing one of the top acts of modern popular music. |
|
|
| BillyBoll |
I think that post punk there was a great degree of Stones bashing but the last two tours have generally garnered excellent reviews with a realisation of the importance and contribution that they have made. |
|
|
| Gazza |
>What went wrong with the British music press and the Stones and more important: why? England should be proud of producing one of the top acts of modern popular music.
I was being ironic as a little dig against Josh's usual ill-informed comments regarding the UK press.
Billyboll is 100% correct. You have to realise that theres two 'tiers' of music press here. The tabloid stuff in the Sun, Mirror, Star etc is very lightweight and concentrates on the flavour of the month pop crap that appeals to kids.
No one really takes that sort of music seriously as anything other than fluff and anyone with any knowledge of music sees that type of music journalism as stuff written by idiots FOR idiots. Thats where you get most of the disdainful "wrinkly rockers" crap, but then I see that in other countries too.
Theres a lot of pretty decent music magazines in the UK and the Stones, IMO, get a pretty decent press considering theyre pretty much a nostalgia act in 2004 and aren't really musically relevant anymore. (This month's edition of "Q" describes the Stones quite highly as "they'll always be the greatest rock 'n' roll band the world has ever seen" )
Musically, Britain is less into nostalgia than other countries I think, so I think they're less likely in general to be obsessed about that era than others think we should be. The Beatles are the exception everyone points to, but thats a different ball game. The fact is, the UK produced the most successful band of all time which is why this country still seems culturally obsessed by them (but I'd counter that by saying other countries including the US are equally as obsessed by them. As the country that spawned them though, maybe Britain has more of an excuse).
Their career also neatly fitted into that 60's time capsule which everyone seems to remember so fondly for historical and cultural reasons. Music simply doesnt have that cultural impact anymore, so there's no one since who will define an era so much. The Stones however, due to their longevity, dont really BELONG exclusively in any 'era', so theyre not going to be looked on in exactly the same way.
However, the reviews the Stones have got for their shows on the last tour from all sections of the UK media were uniformally excellent. Certainly the most positive in the 25 years or so I can remember. I guess the idea of guys in their 50's and 60's having the audacity to still be alive and performing no longer is a novelty apart from in the eyes of a few fuckwits in the tabloids who dont seem to have been around in their profession long enough to realise that their predecessors in the job have been making the same jokes for 20 years and its no longer original, funny or of any relevance.
Andrew Oldham makes a good point in his brief interview in this month's "Uncut". When asked why he thinks the Stones are still rolling, and what he thinks of their current activity, he replies "The only time anyone bitches the Stones is before they go on the road. Once they're on it, its theirs"
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
|
| stewed & Keefed |
Good post Gazza. |
|
|
| F505 |
I appreciate your very clear post Gazza. I am glad the serious British press is aware of the significance the Stones had (as an album producing band) and still have (as a major live act). The tabloid stuff is everywhere the same old blues I guess: you better wipe your ass with those grubby pages.  |
|
|
| BillyBoll |
Fuckin' hell Gazza. Great post. Just what I would have attempted to write if I could have been arsed.
I will try and scan the Loog Oldham interview tomorrow, but I though that quote was brilliant. |
|
|
| glencar |
Good post Gazza but I still look forward to Joshy's riposte on Monday. Well, only a lil bit...
[Edited by glencar] |
|
|
| Gazza |
LOL.
So do I, in my somewhat twisted way |
|
|
| Monkey Woman |
Pour Josh! Imagine the pain if he had to let go one of his pet hates!  |
|
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]