Jump to content


Photo

MY TIME WITH JIM IN THE NEXT WORLD


78 replies to this topic

#61 mizscarlett43

mizscarlett43

    Bitch Emeritus

  • Members
  • 5,774 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tamalewood, USA
  • Interests:Politics; History (Medieval English, Victorian English and American, esp. William Bonney/Lincoln County War); Permaculture; Mexican and Moroccan Folk Art and Vernacular Architecture

Posted 05 September 2013 - 06:30 PM

I grew up with the Rolling Stones and I started buying their albums in 1964. I ate up their bluesy music. I just thought they were supurb bringing Southern and Chicago blues to the forefront and turning on my generation. My older brother had long been playing blues but here was this English band that could be heard over the air waves all over AM radio. Until the RS came along, there wasn't anything on commercial AM radio like them. The Beatles were also all over the air waves but they were not doing traditional blues songs. If you ever hear them in their early days doing Little Red Rooster. I'm A King Bee, That's How Strong My Love Is, Baby Please Don't Go, You Got To Move, Can't Be Satisfied, just to name a few, they really command attention. You can listen to them right here doing blues:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSVW43FQgS0

But over time, and by the mid 70's to 80's they were doing poorly by putting out an album called Black and Blue. I just tried to find it with the cover of the girl tied up and black and blue marks all over her body but it isn't coming up. There were other cuts like Bitch, When The Whip Comes Down, Tie you Up, Too Much Blood, Pretty Beat Up. This was highly offensible and harmful to anyone thinking this was "cool". Especially to young kids who didn't know any better. And their music in my opinion was really bad. My feeling was RIP. They were really falling apart musically imo.

They have since come back and done much better music and in fact, I saw the Steel Wheels tour and bought the album. I also have it on video and I very much enjoy watching it.

I feel that when Brian Jones left the band they just were not as prolific as least blues wise. And I like Brian's contribution so much that I have the album The Pipes of Pan At Jajouka in Morocco that he recorded in 1968.

.....Maybe Mick has been treated for ADDH...or maybe since he is turing 70 he is slowing down some. Mick and Jim were both born in 1943, the year of the water goat.


Wasn't his 70th last July? I've forgotten the date, but it's easy to remember the month (in 1943) since Salli's May, I'm June, Jagger is July--and then Jim came poking along in December... :lol:

I saw the Stones live 3 times, in NYC in 1969, and in Los Angeles in '75 and '78 (I think it was) and quite enjoyed Jagger's dancing--wasn't Tina Turner his mentor/teacher?--although after awhile each time it got to be tiring and I wished he'd just sit down and shut up. He usually did, though--IIRC there was always a relatively quiet, acoustic interlude in the show.

However, the idea that he's still prancing around like that at 70 is a bit off-putting* especially since his face now looks like a road map--why in the world doesn't he get some work done? It's not like he can't afford it.
____________

*On the other hand, part of me is proud that he's able to! Not all of us septuagenarians are creaking around on walkers, after all.
I still believe in the Cosmic Giggle, even if Rolling Stone doesn't any more.

#62 flashing bliss

flashing bliss

    FB

  • Members
  • 785 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK Manchester

Posted 05 September 2013 - 06:41 PM

I believe Glastonbury was a big deal this year because the Rolling Stones played.

Hmmm well ok..... I'd be more excited if you challenged me to table tennis but never mind they're a curiosity and someone might think they're important.

So I watched it and I confirm that he no longer jumps around like he's on an electrified bouncy castle.

They used to do some good tunes.
Flash

#63 the_manassa_mauler_1919-'26

the_manassa_mauler_1919-'26

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 468 posts

Posted 05 September 2013 - 07:43 PM

Good points. However, while The Stones may have felt indebted to Sullivan for their success the U.S., the performance in which they changed the line from "Let's spend the night together" to "Let's spend some time together" took place on January 15, 1967. Perhaps, they felt that they owed Sullivan a debt for the numerous times they were booked on the show or perhaps they didn't want to burn that bridge seeing it as essential for their continued success. Either way, they weren't up and comers by '67. They were full-fledged rock stars. If they chose to do so, they could have challenged The Ed Sullivan Show on their request to change the line, broken with Sullivan if it came to that and continued to be full-fledged rock stars with one less vehicle, albeit it a prominent vehicle, to promote their singles. It seems to me that The Stones weren't willing to settle for anything less than the absolute pinnacle of commercial success even if it meant compromising their art.


'67 was also a year of transition for the stones as they were trying to navigate & get footing in the changin influence of psychedelia on the music scene. even though they were huge, they probaly didnt feel secure enough to push the envelope on a established show like sullivan... let alone the loyalty & perhaps even commradory they had built up w/ sullivan.

by '69 the stones were no longer the cheeky naughty brit boys but instead had evolved into a politically dangerous dread brand... that version of the band may very well have put aside their chumminess w/ sullivan & said screw you.

mick may have discounted jim after hwood bowl, but its clear in action that by '69 he was intimidated & was trying to play catchup to the persona & the power of a lead, that jim had already forged by '68.

Edited by the_manassa_mauler_1919-'26, 05 September 2013 - 07:45 PM.


#64 manhime

manhime

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 890 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Palau
  • Interests:Peppermint Girl's

Posted 05 September 2013 - 08:07 PM

Has any other band played PARIS BLUES? Was it an original Doors song or a cover?

#65 Encuentro

Encuentro

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island, New York

Posted 05 September 2013 - 08:28 PM

However, the idea that he's still prancing around like that at 70 is a bit off-putting* especially since his face now looks like a road map--why in the world doesn't he get some work done? It's not like he can't afford it.
____________

*On the other hand, part of me is proud that he's able to! Not all of us septuagenarians are creaking around on walkers, after all.

I actually admire it. I feel the same way about Paul McCartney. My opinion is if you can do it, more power to ya!

#66 Shelby68

Shelby68

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 927 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Somewhere there's always music in the air
  • Interests:Music, nature, the getting of wisdom

Posted 05 September 2013 - 09:24 PM

Absolutely, Encuentro. And it's not like they're just limping along: everytime I saw the Stones they blew the younger acts clear off the stage.

Scarlettsayz: "Wasn't his 70th last July? I've forgotten the date, but it's easy to remember the month (in 1943) since Salli's May, I'm June, Jagger is July--and then Jim came poking along in December... Posted Image" Don't forget Keith Richards too! December 18, 1943 - just 10 days younger than Jim.

Tex, please feel free to bring this discussion back on topic at any time! You know we tend to wander far astray.



#67 mizscarlett43

mizscarlett43

    Bitch Emeritus

  • Members
  • 5,774 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tamalewood, USA
  • Interests:Politics; History (Medieval English, Victorian English and American, esp. William Bonney/Lincoln County War); Permaculture; Mexican and Moroccan Folk Art and Vernacular Architecture

Posted 05 September 2013 - 09:49 PM

I actually admire it. I feel the same way about Paul McCartney. My opinion is if you can do it, more power to ya!


Oh don't misunderstand me, I see no reason why the rockers can't perform until they drop, just like the jazz, blues and pop artists. I've always been offended by the notion that rock is primarily for teenagers and 20-somethings.

On edit: Incidentally, I've always seen McCartney as more pop than rock. He's waaaay too bland for me, and so were the Beatles, for that matter. Back in the early/mid sixties (pre-Doors) there were Beatles people and Stones people, and I was definitely a Stones person.

Edited by mizscarlett43, 05 September 2013 - 09:58 PM.

I still believe in the Cosmic Giggle, even if Rolling Stone doesn't any more.

#68 Encuentro

Encuentro

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island, New York

Posted 05 September 2013 - 10:54 PM

Oh don't misunderstand me, I see no reason why the rockers can't perform until they drop, just like the jazz, blues and pop artists. I've always been offended by the notion that rock is primarily for teenagers and 20-somethings.

On edit: Incidentally, I've always seen McCartney as more pop than rock. He's waaaay too bland for me, and so were the Beatles, for that matter. Back in the early/mid sixties (pre-Doors) there were Beatles people and Stones people, and I was definitely a Stones person.

I consider myself a Beatles person. Speaking of the 70 year old Paul McCartney, he has a new album coming out in October. You can't keep a good man down. The first single is New, the same title as the album. It's definitely pop, but what the hell, I love pop!


#69 the_manassa_mauler_1919-'26

the_manassa_mauler_1919-'26

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 468 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 12:25 AM

Isn't it ironic though that Jim had said a similar thing many years before that "artists are just pursuing their own fantasies" and he downplayed any sort of altruistic or social responsibility.


hard call imo. i think morrison & the band were somewhat conflicted in this regards. granted the sentiments you mentioned he did say, yet the band, esp early on, nevertheless took themselves seriously in re to trying to effect social change.

sure it wasnt in re to involving themselves in a movement or utopic ideals... yet, i do think morrison & the band felt that had a social responsibility in re to shaking up the status quo & getting people to think, question & open up new perceptions of how one sees the construct around them. early on they seemed to take that very seriously, enough so, that some caustically labled the band as pretentious.

by '69 on morrison seemed to not only give up on fans getting it, but even became angry & contentious w/ them & his own self-belief in thinking that they would.

la woman was much more a naked, take it or leave it view on conditions as oppossed to trying to open people to possibilities. it was actually ahead of the curve in re to the youth culture soon giving up on its own ideals some 2-3 years later.

Edited by the_manassa_mauler_1919-'26, 06 September 2013 - 12:30 AM.


#70 the_manassa_mauler_1919-'26

the_manassa_mauler_1919-'26

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 468 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 01:03 AM

But over time, and by the mid 70's to 80's they were doing poorly by putting out an album called Black and Blue. I just tried to find it with the cover of the girl tied up and black and blue marks all over her body but it isn't coming up. There were other cuts like Bitch, When The Whip Comes Down, Tie you Up, Too Much Blood, Pretty Beat Up. This was highly offensible and harmful to anyone thinking this was "cool". Especially to young kids who didn't know any better. And their music in my opinion was really bad. My feeling was RIP. They were really falling apart musically imo.


gotta disagree. i think the stones, to paraphrase one of their best songs, were sticking their knife right down the throat. this time the blade was aimed at the hollow platitudes of what had become of the womans movement by that point.

sure it was ginned up & on one level a provocative archetype of the street hustler... yet it was also an honest picking up & viewing of what was under the rock in the culture at that time & moment.

the womans movement was part of the altrustic large causes of the cultural movements of the '60's. yet, fairly or not, like the other ones (civil rts, sexual revolution, political hope, legal dope, social redistibution justice), to varying degrees by the mid '70's. had imploded & corroded under their own lofty promises.

king was dead & civil rts was becoming a political wedge game. pursuit of sexual liberation w/ the one you love had devolved into cannibalistic usary. political idealism of jfk had disintigrated from lbj lyin about nam into nixon w/ his ear on the peep hole. pot & acid vision quest had turned into craven coke habits & heroin melt down. & leveling the playin field via higher redistribution taxes turned into its own stagnating statist drain on enterprise.

thru that prism of the mid '70's i feel the stones were doing their own blues version of punk. again, sure it was jimmied up, but it was also honest. think of all the women mick & keith saw crawl on their knees by the time of that era just for another snort of coke & fame. sure that sounds sadist & misognyst & yes of course it took 2 to tango w/ many a male player w/ chains rattlin on their own ankles... but the bottomline is, for all the ideals held so much higher only 5 years back, the culture by that point (at least at the point of the arrow) sure had hungry nostrils staring down into well lined mirrors. I dont think the stones saw any value in trying to pass over false ideals that far down the road.

my quess is if you asked keith or mick how fame, women or $ operated in that era... they'd probaly tell you, just as they echoed in the songs you mentioned.... the dirtier you gave, the more they wanted.

didnt jim intuitively mutter much the same a couple of years earlier, when he spoke of the belt & death smiling? sordid times call for harsh truths. that is if you want to call it straight & attract some ears to your records.

& oh yeah, the groove they laid down from '73-'78 also sounded pretty damn good.

Edited by the_manassa_mauler_1919-'26, 06 September 2013 - 01:18 AM.


#71 StupidGirl

StupidGirl

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • 2,835 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Galveston Island
  • Interests:the truth...for it can be adjusted.....

Posted 06 September 2013 - 06:04 AM

see what happens when I take a break from all of you? You go off topic all by yourself! So,you're allowed , but I'm not? Anyway, right back tonite to let you know, Morrison & Hutchence are not competing on who's sexiest,or devil in the details of the drugs they mixed with alcolhol...they were both sexy and both died doing drugs & alcolhol.Maybe, NSA can enlighten us to the details... Sir Geldof,thank you for taking in Tiger Lily to be with her siblings.

#72 Texasky

Texasky

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,100 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Big Sky Country, Texas
  • Interests:European History, Riding horses, Poetry, listening to the Wind

Posted 06 September 2013 - 04:29 PM

gotta disagree. i think the stones, to paraphrase one of their best songs, were sticking their knife right down the throat. this time the blade was aimed at the hollow platitudes of what had become of the womans movement by that point.

sure it was ginned up & on one level a provocative archetype of the street hustler... yet it was also an honest picking up & viewing of what was under the rock in the culture at that time & moment.

the womans movement was part of the altrustic large causes of the cultural movements of the '60's. yet, fairly or not, like the other ones (civil rts, sexual revolution, political hope, legal dope, social redistibution justice), to varying degrees by the mid '70's. had imploded & corroded under their own lofty promises.

king was dead & civil rts was becoming a political wedge game. pursuit of sexual liberation w/ the one you love had devolved into cannibalistic usary. political idealism of jfk had disintigrated from lbj lyin about nam into nixon w/ his ear on the peep hole. pot & acid vision quest had turned into craven coke habits & heroin melt down. & leveling the playin field via higher redistribution taxes turned into its own stagnating statist drain on enterprise.

thru that prism of the mid '70's i feel the stones were doing their own blues version of punk. again, sure it was jimmied up, but it was also honest. think of all the women mick & keith saw crawl on their knees by the time of that era just for another snort of coke & fame. sure that sounds sadist & misognyst & yes of course it took 2 to tango w/ many a male player w/ chains rattlin on their own ankles... but the bottomline is, for all the ideals held so much higher only 5 years back, the culture by that point (at least at the point of the arrow) sure had hungry nostrils staring down into well lined mirrors. I dont think the stones saw any value in trying to pass over false ideals that far down the road.

my quess is if you asked keith or mick how fame, women or $ operated in that era... they'd probaly tell you, just as they echoed in the songs you mentioned.... the dirtier you gave, the more they wanted.

didnt jim intuitively mutter much the same a couple of years earlier, when he spoke of the belt & death smiling? sordid times call for harsh truths. that is if you want to call it straight & attract some ears to your records.

& oh yeah, the groove they laid down from '73-'78 also sounded pretty damn good.



Hey, thanks for your insightful post. I always enjoy reading your big picture point of view. You seem to be like an encyclopedia of knowledge and history.

I do feel that the Stones starting back sliding after Brian Jones left the band (and then died). And then re-emerged years later sounding better then ever.

As a female I found the album cover really offensive and no doubt that they saw the worse of females in that groupie/drug world. I know Mick had a difficult divorce from Bianca too. But to write and sing about and put it in records for young kids to listen to really bothered me. Young minds will latch on to anything they think is cool. I just don't understand why the RS had to put it so blatantly into their songs. There is that element of misogyny where females are marginalized.

As for the woman's movement, Mick was already writing and singing these songs in the mid-sixties. I feel Mick was just expressing his personal point of view about females from his own experiences. Maybe Keith was lending him a hand in the joint credit of writing songs was also some of his contribution.

I loved the RS, I bought their albums in the 60's.......and when I go back to listen to those early albums today, they are just as good if not even better. Maybe many of you don't know this but the sides were very concise and drawn back in the 60's about who was a RS fan and who was a Beatle fan. But I loved the Beatles just as much as the RS. I had a romantic heart and the Beatles wrote and sang so many love songs. I don't feel the Beatles ever did a mediocre song.

Edited by Texasky, 06 September 2013 - 04:30 PM.

HE COURTED DEATH LIKE IT WAS A DARK ELUSIVE SWEETHEART

#73 Texasky

Texasky

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,100 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Big Sky Country, Texas
  • Interests:European History, Riding horses, Poetry, listening to the Wind

Posted 06 September 2013 - 04:45 PM

Absolutely, Encuentro. And it's not like they're just limping along: everytime I saw the Stones they blew the younger acts clear off the stage.

Scarlettsayz: "Wasn't his 70th last July? I've forgotten the date, but it's easy to remember the month (in 1943) since Salli's May, I'm June, Jagger is July--and then Jim came poking along in December... Posted Image" Don't forget Keith Richards too! December 18, 1943 - just 10 days younger than Jim.

Tex, please feel free to bring this discussion back on topic at any time! You know we tend to wander far astray.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVdIf8BJME8


Shelby, I laughed over the Come Wander With Me...well, sure we all wander at times since one thing leads to another.

Ahhhhh.....I forgot when writing about Mick turning 70, that Mick and I have the same birthday.......July 26. Even to this day, a girlfriend that I grew up with and listened to the RS together, sends me a birthday card and wishing me and Mick a very happy birthday. I am sure Mick is pleased with her birthday greeting. That way she can always remember my birthday.

So Mr. Mick is 70.....whoaaaaa......and he is also Sir Mick....... knighted by the queen. Lord look how far the he has come. It's certainly not our father's generation. Aren't they on tour now? More power to them! Let's see, we can have what.....3 to 4 generations gathering at their concerts now. Amazing!

I read Mick works out daily in his personalized gym. Back in the 60's and 70's ALL of the RS were smoking one after another...all of those pictures with their cigarettes waving in the air........oh and of course, let's not forget all of the alcohol and drugs. Good genes....and look at Keith.....he looks like they pulled him out of a wax museum. I would really love to go see them again. What is it, it maybe the last time to see them? Hmmmmm, I have said that too many times.
HE COURTED DEATH LIKE IT WAS A DARK ELUSIVE SWEETHEART

#74 Texasky

Texasky

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,100 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Big Sky Country, Texas
  • Interests:European History, Riding horses, Poetry, listening to the Wind

Posted 06 September 2013 - 05:05 PM

Or we can go along with what Mavis Staples says, "The devil doesn't have any music!" He's all negativity and destruction, whereas God is creativity and light - so all music is God music. Except for Miley Cyrus, of course.

Rolling Stones songs can pull me out of depression when nothing else will. I think there is so much of the life force embedded in their music somehow that it can breathe life back into you when you're really low.

OT: Tex, did you ever hear that Jerry Hall's dad used to beat her mother? None of our business of course, but it would go some way to explaining why she put up with Mick's ill treatment of her.


Hey Shelby, isn't it the truth about their music! Just listen to them here in concert in Japan in 1990, their Steel Wheels tour, and the blues are on the run! Love the way the horns come in and out! Just listening to this song gives me goose bumps!

Yes, unfortunately, her father was abusive with all 5 daughters and the mother. I read her autobiography and in it she said her father was a great guy but when he came back from WW2 he suffered from shell shock and was not the same and of course started drinking. All of the girls left home early to get away from his abuse and Jerry left home barely 16, went off to Paris and became one of the most sought after models in the world. She really has an amazing story. And leaving home so early, she ended up in the right place at the right time. She found work as a model as as soon as she landed in Paris. Her family was poor and all of the girls were always taking on odd jobs to earn money even while in school. But even though they were poor they managed to have a couple of horses. But back then it wasn't as expensive to own a horse as it would be today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rRqH_OvlXM

Edited by Texasky, 06 September 2013 - 05:06 PM.

HE COURTED DEATH LIKE IT WAS A DARK ELUSIVE SWEETHEART

#75 Encuentro

Encuentro

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island, New York

Posted 06 September 2013 - 06:04 PM

Hey, thanks for your insightful post. I always enjoy reading your big picture point of view. You seem to be like an encyclopedia of knowledge and history.

I do feel that the Stones starting back sliding after Brian Jones left the band (and then died). And then re-emerged years later sounding better then ever.

As a female I found the album cover really offensive and no doubt that they saw the worse of females in that groupie/drug world. I know Mick had a difficult divorce from Bianca too. But to write and sing about and put it in records for young kids to listen to really bothered me. Young minds will latch on to anything they think is cool. I just don't understand why the RS had to put it so blatantly into their songs. There is that element of misogyny where females are marginalized.

As for the woman's movement, Mick was already writing and singing these songs in the mid-sixties. I feel Mick was just expressing his personal point of view about females from his own experiences. Maybe Keith was lending him a hand in the joint credit of writing songs was also some of his contribution.

I loved the RS, I bought their albums in the 60's.......and when I go back to listen to those early albums today, they are just as good if not even better. Maybe many of you don't know this but the sides were very concise and drawn back in the 60's about who was a RS fan and who was a Beatle fan. But I loved the Beatles just as much as the RS. I had a romantic heart and the Beatles wrote and sang so many love songs. I don't feel the Beatles ever did a mediocre song.

The Beatles vs. Stones rivalry still exists today. It's not as prevalent as it was in the 60s for obvious reasons. I'm definitely a Beatles guy. I have at least 2 copies of every album on CD plus a few on vinyl including vintage U.S. versions of albums, Meet The Beatles!, The Beatles Second Album, The Beatles '65 and the U.S. version of Rubber Soul which has a different track list than the U.K. version. I bought the Beatles in Mono box set twice but had to sell it twice due to financial struggles. Yeah, I love my Beatles!

I tried so hard to get into the Stones. I checked a bunch of their CDs from the library. I just couldn't get into them. The only song that does anything for me is Satisfaction. Even that song isn't on the
same level as The Beatles' songs in my opinion. The Stones have a few other so-so songs. They just don't do it for me.

#76 Shelby68

Shelby68

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 927 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Somewhere there's always music in the air
  • Interests:Music, nature, the getting of wisdom

Posted 06 September 2013 - 09:57 PM

People always want to make up factions and camps. Isn't it silly? When I was a teen it was new wave vs. heavy metal/hard rock AND YOU COULD NOT LIKE BOTH (but I secretly did). Hey, sometimes you need AC/DC and other times you need The Police. That's just how it is.

#77 Encuentro

Encuentro

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island, New York

Posted 06 September 2013 - 10:39 PM

People always want to make up factions and camps. Isn't it silly? When I was a teen it was new wave vs. heavy metal/hard rock AND YOU COULD NOT LIKE BOTH (but I secretly did). Hey, sometimes you need AC/DC and other times you need The Police. That's just how it is.

I'm with ya. I'm a Lady Gaga fan. I may be in the minority among Doors fans, but that's fine with me.

There's no rivalry between The Beatles and The Rolling Stones for me personally. The Stones' music just hasn't grabbed me, but I really tried. I wanted to like their music.

Edited by Encuentro, 06 September 2013 - 10:39 PM.


#78 Pedro Kazit

Pedro Kazit

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 4,515 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 07:08 AM

Yes Shelby and Encuentro, The Doors members no only with your music(remember Jim with Pink Floyd music, Robby with flamenco, etc.), others musicians no only with your music. Me non only with rock, others musics is good for me(German electronic 70s years: Tangerine Dream, Kraftwerk, etc. And others).

#79 the_manassa_mauler_1919-'26

the_manassa_mauler_1919-'26

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 468 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 11:55 PM

Hey, thanks for your insightful post. I always enjoy reading your big picture point of view. You seem to be like an encyclopedia of knowledge and history.

I do feel that the Stones starting back sliding after Brian Jones left the band (and then died). And then re-emerged years later sounding better then ever.

As a female I found the album cover really offensive and no doubt that they saw the worse of females in that groupie/drug world. I know Mick had a difficult divorce from Bianca too. But to write and sing about and put it in records for young kids to listen to really bothered me. Young minds will latch on to anything they think is cool. I just don't understand why the RS had to put it so blatantly into their songs. There is that element of misogyny where females are marginalized.

As for the woman's movement, Mick was already writing and singing these songs in the mid-sixties. I feel Mick was just expressing his personal point of view about females from his own experiences. Maybe Keith was lending him a hand in the joint credit of writing songs was also some of his contribution.

I loved the RS, I bought their albums in the 60's.......and when I go back to listen to those early albums today, they are just as good if not even better. Maybe many of you don't know this but the sides were very concise and drawn back in the 60's about who was a RS fan and who was a Beatle fan. But I loved the Beatles just as much as the RS. I had a romantic heart and the Beatles wrote and sang so many love songs. I don't feel the Beatles ever did a mediocre song.


the stones in the mid '70's were ruthless. their '72 tour was a bigger success then they even expected. so thru '81 they stay entrenched to a formula that worked very well for them commercially & artistically.

I would agree w/ you that they werent socially responsible during that era, esp torwards women, but that wasnt their agenda. mick knew art had shifted from cause & message to who could hold up a sharper mirror to an era who had lost all belief in idealism, whether it be broadly cultural or internally personal.

the stones, like the who & zep, also commercially capitalized on the emergence of the lucrative mega stadium tours. their formula had even more legs then the latter. big was cool as long the shows could roll thru cities like take no prisoner tank brigades.

they geniously struck a brand image balance between their brit invasion fame of the '60's & their rawier, meanier sound & image of the early '70's-mid '70's. jagger impressively upped the stage presence & energy to make the show bigger & even showier, yet they also made sure their image was edgier & more sexually nihilistic.

so if they could project & flaunt keith's open heroin use & exploit mick's coked, in your face, exploiter of women, fame & rock market share strut.... then they were going to do it w/ the pedal to the floor. it was good for business & of all the era's they played in (w/ arguable exception of the '69 tour, though in my mind that was catchup to bands like the doors), it was most reflective of the cutting edge of the Time they played in.

it also helped a lot, that the band was also very tight & produced a lot of consistently good material in the early to mid '70's. their addition of ron wood in this era for ex. fit like a glove.

the music may have been slightly better when jones was onboard, but ive always felt like the stones didnt hit full stride until '72. esp when you consider for them it wasnt just all about music, but also about image, show & power. it just so happens their nakedly arrogant & nihilistic stance in that era also in many ways more mirrored the mid '70's. Certainly imo, moreso then their more idealistic & soulful '60's motif. Mick's, be cool, peace pleas, to the crowd at altamont for ex were almost laughable in his lack of connection, if it wasnt for the chilling fact that people actually died there.

it seems they figured out very quick that by '72 the sixties were long dead & 'FU' exploitation for the sake of, ive got the power & dont care about reprecussions... was truely more reflective of their own stance & as it was, also more reflective of what boomer ethos had become for many at that point. hence, imo, the closest their work reflected art (albeit steely) as oppossed to just good music.

unlike zep & the who, i always felt mick had a more shrewd eye to that changin shift in the culture in the early '70's. as i said earlier, probaly the punkest of the blues based name bands in that regards.

thus in that context, imo, they left the proper treating of woman to guys like cat stevens or james taylor (at least in verse) to sing about. & thats not a slight in my view of guys like taylor or cat, who if you were looking for some level of insight into good will treatin of your fellow human at that particular time, it wasnt a bad place to start. cause, as you pointed out, the stones obviously werent selling that.

Edited by the_manassa_mauler_1919-'26, 10 September 2013 - 01:04 AM.




Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users