Wednesday, April 30, 2008
“Stonesy Takes 40 Licks, er Years, and Lives”
Whether rock will ever die can be answered in that the World's Greatest Rock 'n' Roll band is still at it. When Keith Richards became an ex-art school student, and Mick Jagger as well became one of ex-economics, it's hard to tell if they really knew what they were doing, but it worked for 1964. Ray Coleman echoed the buzz in London's Melody Maker, but even he couldn't know what the future would bring, including Martin Scorcese’s Shine a Light, a documentary on the act 40 licks, er years, later.
They started as an answer to the Beatles, at least, in the media's own portrayal mirroring the classic storytelling of The Saints vs. The Roughnecks. Regarding the hair, Richards set the record straight: “Look,” he said. “The hair styles had been quite common down in London long before the Beatles and the rest of the country caught on. At art school and years ago, ours had always been the same” (Coleman 1964: 186). Richards and Jagger were only 19 years old, and the others were no older than 22, but each seemed keenly aware of his own identity as well as what the press had to comment.
“They call us the ugliest pop group in the country,” bassist Bill Wyman said (Coleman 1964: 187).
“They used to have this attitude of 'that scruffy lot from London who don't turn up on time and are nasty to look at,'” Richards said (Coleman 1964: 187).
“Yeah, we know of the image,” Jagger admitted (Coleman 1964: 185). “I think most groups need one. You see, you can get so far without an image in people's minds, but as soon as you make a not-so-hot record, you feel it” (Coleman 1964: 185).
Ellen Willis affirms the image-conscious effort in The New Yorker: “Mick Jagger had his gimmick: he was a hood” (1969: 189). She laments the Stones’ loss concerning a controversial album cover, brushing back the Beggar's Banquet release several months (1969). Willis further pushes the Beatles vs. Stones argument, contrasting Their Satanic Majesties Request to Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, and pegs Beggar's Banquet a knee-jerk reaction to the White Album, confessing slightly more admiration for “Street-fighting Man” than the slowed down version of “Revolution,” any day of the week, and admitting in her eyes the Stones could still do no wrong (1969).
What's interesting is that no evidence supports the rivalry. It seems much more to do with the industry's appetite for profits, and many fans took to the Stones as yet another way to rebel against their parents, when the Beatles were the obvious choice (Coleman 1964). Jagger wouldn't have much to do with it. “They're good mates of ours,” he said (Coleman 1964: 187). “We like 'em and they've done so much good for the whole scene see?” (Coleman 1964: 187). Indeed, it seems to be more of a myth or a popular discussion among fans, but has no recorded root in the Stones' history. What we do know is that in 1963 John Lennon and Paul McCartney offered up the band's second single, “I Wanna Be Your Man” (“The Rolling Stones” 1989); that in 1967 Jagger and then-girlfriend Marianne Faithfull went to India with the Beatles to meet the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (“The Rolling Stones” 1989); and that, in the same year, Lennon and McCartney sang back up on “We Love You,” the “Dandelion" single's B-side (“The Rolling Stones” 1989).
As to the myth, or reputation for the Stones being misogynist, drugged out, or whatever is generally thought of as living the quintessential rock 'n' roll lifestyle, did the Stones live it? Yes. They invented it. Richards even recently told Blender Magazine he intends to write a book about it (Higginbotham 2008) -- and good, 'cause somebody needs to.
“I'm not spilling all the beans, and I'm not going to name ladies' names. But I'll tell you what: It's quite a story,” he said (Higginbotham 2008: 42).
A lot led up to the 2006 performances at New York City's Beacon Theatre, where Scorsese filmed two performances that serve as the backdrop for Shine a Light (Fricke 2008). The Stones take the stage each night with presence and glamour only they could create: Jagger – in a far cry from his early 60s jeans, t-shirts and I-Don't-Care attitude (Coleman 1964) -- dressed in skinny slacks, a black jacket, a crimson button-up shirt littered with sequins; Richards in his standard signature black eyeliner and sparkling black sequined scarf messily tied around his hair.
They share the stage with old timer Buddy Guy, still ticking, and collaborating on an excellent version of “Champagne and Reefer,” at one point changing a line to joke that he's got no cocaine for Richards. Also in “Loving Cup,” a starstruck, beaming Jack White joins Jagger in front-center stage, and a surprisingly soulful and powerful Christina Aguilera belts her blues in “Live with Me.”
The film flashes back to black-and-white interviews dating to the 60s and 70s, from the band's early start, to the present. The ambiguous paradox of the band's nature juxtaposed with its image somehow seems to make sense, not contradicting itself at all. At one point in 1967, Richards appears on World in Action, just one month after spending just 24 hours in Wormwood Scrubs Prison and winning his appeal. He is asked to respond to persecution from religious leaders and others who accused the Stones of working as proponents for drug use and godlessness. “I don't want to be offensive or particularly controversial,” he said (Scorsese 2008). “I never wanted to be” (Scorsese 2008).
Maybe it just comes with the territory: in the Stonesy realm, ex-member Brian Jones suffers “death by misadventure” in 1969 (George-Warren and Pareles 2001); heroin charges mean rock after arrest (“Rolling Stones” 1989); Richards stays awake for nine days on cocaine (Higginbotham 2008); and Wyman boasts sexual escapades claiming more than 1,000 women (Higginbotham 2008).
So maybe they are all right: the press in their portrayal of the Stones, and the Stones in their living it, yet denying it. After all, Jagger did recently mock reporters, observing the ridiculous question he is so often asked: “What would you do if you were not Mick Jagger?” (Scorsese 2008).
“I’m like, ‘Somebody else,” he said (Scorsese 2008).
***
Works Cited
Brackett, David. 2005. The Pop, Rock and Soul Reader: Histories and Debates. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Coleman, Ray. 1964. "Rebels with a Beat." From Brackett, David. The Pop, Rock and Soul Reader: Histories and Debates. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 185-187.
Fricke, David. 2008. "Blues Brothers: The Rolling Stones and Jack White shine a light on the roots of their music." Rolling Stone Magazine. Retrieved April 29, 2008 from http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/19969845/blues_brothers.
Higginbotham, Adam. May 2008. “Dear Superstar: Keith Richards.” Blender Magazine. 42-45.
Scorsese, Martin. 2008. Shine a Light. Paramount Classics.
George-Warren, Holly and John Pareles. 2001. "Rolling Stones: Biography" Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock and Roll: Revised and Updated for the 21st Century. Retrieved April 29, 2008 from http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/therollingstones/biography.
“The Rolling Stones.” 1989. Rock and Roll Hall of Fame + Museum. Web site accessed April 29, 2008. http://www.rockhall.com/inductee/the-rolling-stones.
Willis, Ellen. 1969. “Records: Rock, Etc. – The Big Ones.” From Bracket, David. The Pop, Rock and Soul Reader: Histories and Debates. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 189-192.
Whether rock will ever die can be answered in that the World's Greatest Rock 'n' Roll band is still at it. When Keith Richards became an ex-art school student, and Mick Jagger as well became one of ex-economics, it's hard to tell if they really knew what they were doing, but it worked for 1964. Ray Coleman echoed the buzz in London's Melody Maker, but even he couldn't know what the future would bring, including Martin Scorcese’s Shine a Light, a documentary on the act 40 licks, er years, later.
They started as an answer to the Beatles, at least, in the media's own portrayal mirroring the classic storytelling of The Saints vs. The Roughnecks. Regarding the hair, Richards set the record straight: “Look,” he said. “The hair styles had been quite common down in London long before the Beatles and the rest of the country caught on. At art school and years ago, ours had always been the same” (Coleman 1964: 186). Richards and Jagger were only 19 years old, and the others were no older than 22, but each seemed keenly aware of his own identity as well as what the press had to comment.
“They call us the ugliest pop group in the country,” bassist Bill Wyman said (Coleman 1964: 187).
“They used to have this attitude of 'that scruffy lot from London who don't turn up on time and are nasty to look at,'” Richards said (Coleman 1964: 187).
“Yeah, we know of the image,” Jagger admitted (Coleman 1964: 185). “I think most groups need one. You see, you can get so far without an image in people's minds, but as soon as you make a not-so-hot record, you feel it” (Coleman 1964: 185).
Ellen Willis affirms the image-conscious effort in The New Yorker: “Mick Jagger had his gimmick: he was a hood” (1969: 189). She laments the Stones’ loss concerning a controversial album cover, brushing back the Beggar's Banquet release several months (1969). Willis further pushes the Beatles vs. Stones argument, contrasting Their Satanic Majesties Request to Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, and pegs Beggar's Banquet a knee-jerk reaction to the White Album, confessing slightly more admiration for “Street-fighting Man” than the slowed down version of “Revolution,” any day of the week, and admitting in her eyes the Stones could still do no wrong (1969).
What's interesting is that no evidence supports the rivalry. It seems much more to do with the industry's appetite for profits, and many fans took to the Stones as yet another way to rebel against their parents, when the Beatles were the obvious choice (Coleman 1964). Jagger wouldn't have much to do with it. “They're good mates of ours,” he said (Coleman 1964: 187). “We like 'em and they've done so much good for the whole scene see?” (Coleman 1964: 187). Indeed, it seems to be more of a myth or a popular discussion among fans, but has no recorded root in the Stones' history. What we do know is that in 1963 John Lennon and Paul McCartney offered up the band's second single, “I Wanna Be Your Man” (“The Rolling Stones” 1989); that in 1967 Jagger and then-girlfriend Marianne Faithfull went to India with the Beatles to meet the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (“The Rolling Stones” 1989); and that, in the same year, Lennon and McCartney sang back up on “We Love You,” the “Dandelion" single's B-side (“The Rolling Stones” 1989).
As to the myth, or reputation for the Stones being misogynist, drugged out, or whatever is generally thought of as living the quintessential rock 'n' roll lifestyle, did the Stones live it? Yes. They invented it. Richards even recently told Blender Magazine he intends to write a book about it (Higginbotham 2008) -- and good, 'cause somebody needs to.
“I'm not spilling all the beans, and I'm not going to name ladies' names. But I'll tell you what: It's quite a story,” he said (Higginbotham 2008: 42).
A lot led up to the 2006 performances at New York City's Beacon Theatre, where Scorsese filmed two performances that serve as the backdrop for Shine a Light (Fricke 2008). The Stones take the stage each night with presence and glamour only they could create: Jagger – in a far cry from his early 60s jeans, t-shirts and I-Don't-Care attitude (Coleman 1964) -- dressed in skinny slacks, a black jacket, a crimson button-up shirt littered with sequins; Richards in his standard signature black eyeliner and sparkling black sequined scarf messily tied around his hair.
They share the stage with old timer Buddy Guy, still ticking, and collaborating on an excellent version of “Champagne and Reefer,” at one point changing a line to joke that he's got no cocaine for Richards. Also in “Loving Cup,” a starstruck, beaming Jack White joins Jagger in front-center stage, and a surprisingly soulful and powerful Christina Aguilera belts her blues in “Live with Me.”
The film flashes back to black-and-white interviews dating to the 60s and 70s, from the band's early start, to the present. The ambiguous paradox of the band's nature juxtaposed with its image somehow seems to make sense, not contradicting itself at all. At one point in 1967, Richards appears on World in Action, just one month after spending just 24 hours in Wormwood Scrubs Prison and winning his appeal. He is asked to respond to persecution from religious leaders and others who accused the Stones of working as proponents for drug use and godlessness. “I don't want to be offensive or particularly controversial,” he said (Scorsese 2008). “I never wanted to be” (Scorsese 2008).
Maybe it just comes with the territory: in the Stonesy realm, ex-member Brian Jones suffers “death by misadventure” in 1969 (George-Warren and Pareles 2001); heroin charges mean rock after arrest (“Rolling Stones” 1989); Richards stays awake for nine days on cocaine (Higginbotham 2008); and Wyman boasts sexual escapades claiming more than 1,000 women (Higginbotham 2008).
So maybe they are all right: the press in their portrayal of the Stones, and the Stones in their living it, yet denying it. After all, Jagger did recently mock reporters, observing the ridiculous question he is so often asked: “What would you do if you were not Mick Jagger?” (Scorsese 2008).
“I’m like, ‘Somebody else,” he said (Scorsese 2008).
***
Works Cited
Brackett, David. 2005. The Pop, Rock and Soul Reader: Histories and Debates. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Coleman, Ray. 1964. "Rebels with a Beat." From Brackett, David. The Pop, Rock and Soul Reader: Histories and Debates. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 185-187.
Fricke, David. 2008. "Blues Brothers: The Rolling Stones and Jack White shine a light on the roots of their music." Rolling Stone Magazine. Retrieved April 29, 2008 from http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/19969845/blues_brothers.
Higginbotham, Adam. May 2008. “Dear Superstar: Keith Richards.” Blender Magazine. 42-45.
Scorsese, Martin. 2008. Shine a Light. Paramount Classics.
George-Warren, Holly and John Pareles. 2001. "Rolling Stones: Biography" Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock and Roll: Revised and Updated for the 21st Century. Retrieved April 29, 2008 from http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/therollingstones/biography.
“The Rolling Stones.” 1989. Rock and Roll Hall of Fame + Museum. Web site accessed April 29, 2008. http://www.rockhall.com/inductee/the-rolling-stones.
Willis, Ellen. 1969. “Records: Rock, Etc. – The Big Ones.” From Bracket, David. The Pop, Rock and Soul Reader: Histories and Debates. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 189-192.
Labels: College, Music, Rolling Stones
0 Comments:
