The Rolling Stones

[Len Cnut]

Mick Taylor to me marks where the music became less exciting than their lives, excellent though it still was it was just well done, it wasn't exciting in the way it was earlier in where you felt like they were on the brink of doing something REALLY different. Your Ruby Tuesdays, Paint it Blacks and even your Under my Thumbs with that glockenspiel bit in it, it sounded like a band just feeling out different sounds getting ready to blow your minds...but then with the advent of Mick Taylor that was all over, they never made a really out there kinda song after...and those were some of their best moments, like Sympathy for example, what the fuck is that song, what genre is that, what do you call that song? It aint rock n roll but its fuckin' something fantastic, it sounds like...i dunno, evil

When was the next song of that kinda different-ness that they made after Taylor got in? Weren't none. It aint all Taylors fault necessarily either, you get the feeling they made a desicion to stick to what they know with Satanic Majesties but for as long as their was Brian Jones there was hope.

Plus i like Brian, he was cool, he was a character, this effette little drug addict poof, he was just cool

Edited October 1, 2015 by Len B'stard

[DieselDaisy]

But how much was Brian involved by that stage, and how much of what you describe was actually antithetical to Brian Jones's vision. You have to remember that The Stones were Brian's band which had been effectively hijacked by a coalition of the Glimmer Twins and Oldham. Brian's original vision for the Stones was to (re)create the authentic Chicago Blues of his idols, e.g. Howlin' Wolf and Muddy Waters, and present it to British audiences. He saw The Stones as being more akin to John Mayall & the Bluesbreakers and Korner's Blues Incorporated rather than The Beatles or Kinks (or even Chuck Berry or Little Richard). Stuff like ''Paint it Black'' or even rock n' roll stuff like ''Satisfaction'' was not really what Brian Jones had in mind.

[Len Cnut]

Yeah but conversely it was Brians contribution to songs like Paint it Black etc that made them unique. He was initially reticent to deviate from the blues template but that was more earlier on than anything, I mean this is the guy bringing in sitars and such, not exactly indicative of someone who was going 'its the blues or nothing!' But yeah, you're quite correct in saying that he was initially reticent to the pop music route.

[Georgy Zhukov]

I think when Jones realized the band was starting to move away from their bluesy roots he started to act more like a session player. Mick and Keith were taking over as the songwriting team, Oldham was working on pushing Brian out as his drug problem was getting worse. Since the departure of Jones, the band has had numerous session players perform on their albums, implying they never filled that hole Brian left.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Ronnie Wood might be their best lead guitarist to date, he has served the band well and has great chemistry with Keef. Their post-Some Girls were is underrated.

[dalsh327]

Some covers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jadvt7CbH1o

[Len Cnut]

What do yous all reckon of where The Stoneses covers stand in relation to the originals like Marvin Gayes Hitch-Hike, Bobby Womacks Its All Over Now, Aint Too Proud to Beg and of course all the old blues ones?

[DR DOOM]

Ronnie Wood might be their best lead guitarist to date, he has served the band well and has great chemistry with Keef. Their post-Some Girls were is underrated.

Nah man.

[DieselDaisy]

What about The Stones as a live act? The Stones circa '69-73 were absolutely peaking as a live band.

Edited October 2, 2015 by DieselDaisy

[Len Cnut]

That i would agree with although the 60s was the height of the screaming and that so i dont suppose they got a fair shake. Nut yeah, I'd say that time frame is accurate in terms of being their best.

[Georgy Zhukov]

What about The Stones as a live act? The Stones circa '69-73 were absolutely peaking as a live band.

Get Your Ya Ya's out comes to mind.

[username]

What about The Stones as a live act? The Stones circa '69-73 were absolutely peaking as a live band.

Get Your Ya Ya's out comes to mind.

The Brussels Affair.

[DieselDaisy]

I watched Shine A Light last night in a futile attempt to cheer me up (after England being dumped out of the world cup!). Pretty good: Bill Clinton meets his opposite shagger in Mick; starts off a bit ropey with a ramshackle version of ''Jack Flash'' which even Jagger cannot resuscitate; crowd are a bit lame; Some Girls certainly gets a lot of air time - magnificent version of the title track; Buddy Guy does not respond to Richards attempts to duel with him which leaves Keef a bit perplexed; Christina Aguilera, in all due respect, has a terrific pair of lungs; not sure about that anemic looking goth guy doing ''Loving Cup'' - cannot sing for toffee.

Worth a watch.

[dalsh327]

To me Shine a Light was a career recap, He didn't do it "Last Waltz" style (although some of the elements are there) but I think the presence of film cameras affected the show and the vibe of an invited audience. Maybe because Last Waltz was a far longer show for The Band and special guests. Crossfire Hurricane was getting into the "what the big deal was" about the Stones.

Ladies and Gentlemen is a good concert film from the 69-72 era but I still think Gimme Shelter was showing them with something to prove with this new sound system where they could play in bigger places.

It's just funny that the Stones are the reason arena & stadium rock even exists, but they filmed Shine a Light in a theater.

Ron Wood brought the grooves in and has a great style that fits in with the Stones, but Mick Taylor is far better as a player. It's like getting into why Brian Jones mattered in the Stones and it wasn't the "Mick and Keith show".

Ian Stewart was always a presence in the Stones (and respected opinion on what he thought of the songs) even if it was on the fringes up to the mid 80s. At least on the Tattoo You tour they featured him. His death impacted the Stones more than Brian's did and they made sure "Stu" was inducted into the Rock Hall.

[DieselDaisy]

I watched Cocksucker Blue. It is really the final nail in the coffin of the '60s, the hippy idealism replaced with scarecrow junked up slags with hollowed out eyes. It is funny because it is 'sex drugs and rock n' roll'' but it looks quite hideous really, i.e. not really a world anyone would volunteer for. The Stones look bored, cynical and depressed, the people that surround them, leeches. The rock n' roll lifestyle looks incredibly un-sexy and un-glamorous. There is a telling moment when they are in a car down south, escaping the mayhem, and look relieved; they end up playing pool with some black guys.

Edited October 5, 2015 by DieselDaisy

[Georgy Zhukov]

Isn't it illegal to watch Cocksucker Blues?

[ZoSoRose]

What about The Stones as a live act? The Stones circa '69-73 were absolutely peaking as a live band.

They are still amazing live, too

[DieselDaisy]

Isn't it illegal to watch Cocksucker Blues?

You have to be in the company of the director to watch it apparently. Court ruling.

What about The Stones as a live act? The Stones circa '69-73 were absolutely peaking as a live band.

They are still amazing live, too

Not like when they had Taylor though. Wood makes them sound like Status Quo.

[Len Cnut]

Isn't it illegal to watch Cocksucker Blues?

Youtube must be in trouble then!

[DieselDaisy]

Bianca was a fine looking woman - much better than Jerry Hall.

Have you seen that scene where that junkie skank starts playing with her privates - it is like the Amazon rain forest down there - and Mick Taylor walks in looking for some grass and she starts taking the piss out of his English accent: ''grawss''? The most disturbing scene is on the plane where that girl is being molested, consensual but she is no doubt intoxicated, and Mick and everybody else start doing this tribal chant. It is like something from The Wicker Man. The scene where Keef is ordering the fruit is quite funny. Why are Mick and Keef always in the buff?

I hadn't seen this film in years. i used to have this really bad bootleg version that I'd picked up at a record fair. The version online is much better.

[bacardimayne]

What little I've watched of the Stones live in the 70s with Taylor has been amazingly good.

[Len Cnut]

Bianca was a fine looking woman - much better than Jerry Hall.

Have you seen that scene where that junkie skank starts playing with her privates - it is like the Amazon rain forest down there - and Mick Taylor walks in looking for some grass and she starts taking the piss out of his English accent: ''grawss''? The most disturbing scene is on the plane where that girl is being molested, consensual but she is no doubt intoxicated, and Mick and everybody else start doing this tribal chant. It is like something from The Wicker Man. The scene where Keef is ordering the fruit is quite funny. Why are Mick and Keef always in the buff?

I hadn't seen this film in years. i used to have this really bad bootleg version that I'd picked up at a record fair. The version online is much better.

The problem with viewing things like this is that we carry this whole thing of immorality and debauchery, this preconcieved idea of what The Stones on tour was like and we end up viewing it through that lens when really to me all it reveals is the monotony of touring, the grind of it, all leading up to the pay off of performing, Keith just behaves like any number of junkies one might encounter, Mick, though doing a good amount of coke, seems quite lucid, Charlie is his usual detached deadpan self, none of it is really that shocking, the bit with the groupie is often cited but, if you really think about it, what else is the whole groupie phenomena, its just basically men taking advantage of thick slags etc, i mean no right minded bird goes on tour with the purpose of being a cum dumpster for a band do they?

There is something dull and monotonous about it...but musicians have always claimed that about touring. I dunno, its an odd thing, i think we wilfully delude ourselves into buying this concept, or perhaps its so engrained in us through media and print and the established archetype, that touring is this great glamourous barrel of laughs with all these creative people having like big fun or whatever when really the truth is its just a couple of hours of performance and the rest of the time just a bunch of lads looking to stave off the boredom with drugs or birds or whatever. I think we all know this really, its just we come to view the piece with preconcieved notions and what we get is a reality that we wilfully refused to entertain as kids cuz it made the idea of being a rockstar seem a lot less entertaining and/or appealling.

What matters end of the day is that it was The Stones and the music was good, everything else is quite pithy really, all that hokey column inch stuff about 'the death of the 60s', i never bought that about this or Altamont.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Len B'stard

[DieselDaisy]

Bianca was a fine looking woman - much better than Jerry Hall.

Have you seen that scene where that junkie skank starts playing with her privates - it is like the Amazon rain forest down there - and Mick Taylor walks in looking for some grass and she starts taking the piss out of his English accent: ''grawss''? The most disturbing scene is on the plane where that girl is being molested, consensual but she is no doubt intoxicated, and Mick and everybody else start doing this tribal chant. It is like something from The Wicker Man. The scene where Keef is ordering the fruit is quite funny. Why are Mick and Keef always in the buff?

I hadn't seen this film in years. i used to have this really bad bootleg version that I'd picked up at a record fair. The version online is much better.

The problem with viewing things like this is that we carry this whole thing of immorality and debauchery, this preconcieved idea of what The Stones on tour was like and we end up viewing it through that lens when really to me all it reveals is the monotony of touring, the grind of it, all leading up to the pay off of performing, Keith just behaves like any number of junkies one might encounter, Mick, though doing a good amount of coke, seems quite lucid, Charlie is his usual detached deadpan self, none of it is really that shocking, the bit with the groupie is often cited but, if you really think about it, what else is the whole groupie phenomena, its just basically men taking advantage of thick slags etc, i mean no right minded bird goes on tour with the purpose of being a cum dumpster for a band do they?

There is something dull and monotonous about it...but musicians have always claimed that about touring. I dunno, its an odd thing, i think we wilfully delude ourselves into buying this concept, or perhaps its so engrained in us through media and print and the established archetype, that touring is this great glamourous barrel of laughs with all these creative people having like big fun or whatever when really the truth is its just a couple of hours of performance and the rest of the time just a bunch of lads looking to stave off the boredom with drugs or birds or whatever. I think we all know this really, its just we come to view the piece with preconcieved notions and what we get is a reality that we wilfully refused to entertain as kids cuz it made the idea of being a rockstar seem a lot less entertaining and/or appealling.

What matters end of the day is that it was The Stones and the music was good, everything else is quite pithy really, all that hokey column inch stuff about 'the death of the 60s', i never bought that about this or Altamont.

It tends to be the roadies and hangers-on which are the worse and Cocksucker Blues is proof of this. Roadies use the opportunity to roger girls who want to get close to the band, and roadies in general are guys who would not have much success. Obviously if you are looking at the 1972 US tour specifically, Mick needs to be at least seen to be monogamous as he was married to Bianca at the time (obviously we are talking about Mick here!), and Keith is probably too wasted. It is fairly sordid stuff though. In a way the film has nothing to do with the Stones but has a hell of a lot to do with all of these junkies and wastrels who have latched onto the Stones' touring machine like leeches.

Why do you not see the 'death of the '60s'. All you have to do is compare Woodstock or Monterey to Cocksucker Blues. One is LSD and grass, idealism (however misconceived) and vigour. By Cocksucker Blues it has been replaced by heroin, cocaine and cynicism.

[Len Cnut]

Cuz i think its all rubbish, all these easy little ideas of 60s = idealism and 70s = cynicism, its just a generation eulogising itself and making out like its poo didnt stink, these things are just a construct of someones imagination and penmanship, these neat defining lines that seperate one period of time from another by decade, its rubbish. Its almost like a decade being defined based on its guitar players and their drug habits

[DieselDaisy]

It is certainly easy to see why people wish to delineate the 1960s and 1970s. Firstly, people switched from acid to heroin and coke and you have all of the repercussions from that switch. Also so many of the 1960's generation died in a quite concentrated time period: Jones, Hendrix, Joplin, and Morrison all died around the turn of the decade. The deaths continued, Danny Whitten, Mama Cass, etc. would all follow. Thirdly you have the Manson murders.