Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stones: Sweet Hanger-On

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Stones: Sweet Hanger-On

    Sweet Hanger-On
    By Paul Beston
    Published 8/23/2005 12:08:13 AM

    While they were cultural rebels of a sort in the 1960s, the more enduring focus of the Rolling Stones' career has been riding the latest trends, whether in fashion, politics, or even music, and dressing it up as rebellion. They never rebelled against anything without knowing that there was plenty of wind at their back, whether it was the commercial potential of 1960s youth culture or the lockstep anti-Bushism of today's pop music community.

    Their new song, "Sweet Neo Con," is a phoned-in political commentary if there ever was one, and a reminder that the Stones have always been more risk averse than their fabled reputation suggests. Bush bashing offers its practitioners renegade status at virtually no cost. It's a wonder the Stones didn't invent it.

    Though powered by a vintage Stones backbeat, "Sweet Neo Con" is remarkably trite, like something Limp Bizkit might have written after hanging out with the Dixie Chicks:

    You call yourself a Christian,
    I call you a hypocrite
    You call yourself a patriot
    Well I think you're full of s---

    The Stones didn't start out playing so safe. They are rightly credited as the most successful amalgamator of blues and R&B into the DNA of most subsequent rock and roll. And they were clever enough to market themselves as rock's bad boys, an exaggerated pose meant to counteract the early Beatles' cherubic image, itself an exaggeration.

    Since those early days, though, the Stones have usually looked elsewhere for cues, and in the '60s, those often came from the Beatles. When Lennon and McCartney unplugged and went introspective, so did the Stones. When the Beatles went psychedelic and released their most dated album -- Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band -- the Stones donned similar garb and released Their Satanic Majesties Request, which was dated about five minutes after it hit the record bin. Probably the best example of what separated the two groups came in the watershed year of 1968. While the Stones marched to the beat of the noisy left with "Street Fighting Man," the Beatles had enough independence to sneer at the radicals in "Revolution." (Unfortunately, John Lennon's political skepticism was short lived.)

    In the early '70s, when glam rock and androgynous front men were the vogue, Mick Jagger dressed accordingly and perfected his strut. Later in the decade, when disco and punk briefly threatened to crowd out traditional rock, Jagger decided to turn the Stones into a harder version of the Bee Gees. How bitter a pill that must have been; the Bee Gees had been around almost as long as the Stones, and had never been able to call the tune before. But with the Beatles long gone, someone had to provide direction for Mick and his wheezing cohort of recidivist druggies.

    In the '80s, the Stones' Me Too ears were still sharp enough to integrate the decade's synthetic sound into a rant about Central American politics, then a hot topic on the rock scene. In the early '90s, they rushed into the studio to record "Highwire," about the pending Gulf War. The song was criticized for not being sufficiently oppositional, showing that you can never satisfy some people. Blowing with the wind for 40 years isn't as easy as it looks. "Highwire" did a good job of parroting the antiwar line:

    We sell 'em missiles, We sell 'em tanks
    We give 'em credit, You can call the bank
    It's just a business, You can pay us in crude
    You'll love these toys, just go play out your feuds

    Now comes "Sweet Neo Con," which has prompted some nervousness about a backlash against the group in the U.S. Even Keith Richards has expressed reservations, pointing out that he actually lives in the States, whereas Jagger does not. And "Sweet Neo Con" is not the group's only venture into politics; another new song comments on Abu Ghraib. There must be a reference to Guantanamo lurking somewhere on the album.

    It seems unlikely that the Stones' audience will be put off by Jagger's boilerplate politics. Fans attend the concerts to hear old songs, not new ones, and if "Sweet Neo Con" causes problems, the ever-adaptable Jagger will banish it from the setlist, if it is included in the first place.

    After all, the Stones, notwithstanding the title of one of their most famous tunes, have always been dedicated to giving people what they want, not what they need. Such has been the career of rock's greatest, uh, rebels.

  • #2
    From Rolling Stone:

    Any new Rolling Stones tour is met with the requisite commentary regarding the band member's collective ages, the record-breaking ticket prices, the three generations of fans attending the shows and what kind of new stage effects are in place to top the previous spectacle. It's safe to say that the boys haven't gotten any younger, the tickets aren't any cheaper and their fans span five-plus decades. As for stage effects, well, for Sunday night's opening of the Stones 2005-06 world tour at Boston's Fenway Park, a giant inflatable and some lascivious tongue animation made appearances, not to mention a gondola-like small stage that seemingly sailed atop the crowd. But as the band raged into perennial stadium opener "Start Me Up" with enviable vigor, the other constant elements of a Stones' tour were also present: a band that commands a stage better than any other, and which plays nearly two-and-a-half hours from a rock & roll canon no one else can touch.
    Few, if any, of the fans in attendance appeared to remember, or care, how much their tickets cost by the end of the twenty-two-song, hits-heavy set, having witnessed the Stones' ascension to the status of "champions," according to vocalist Mick Jagger's prediction while he paid homage to Boston's recent Super Bowl and World Series titles -- also claiming those victories as the reason the band chose to open its second straight world tour in the city.

    While the Stones' stadium shows focus on safe ground in terms of song selection, the band challenged itself by introducing four tracks from its new album, A Bigger Bang (due September 6th). The familiar comfort of "Shattered" and "Tumbling Dice" couched the premieres of the raunchy rocker "Rough Justice" and the droning Muddy Waters-esque "Back of My Hand," with the ever-reliable Charlie Watts and bassist Darryl Jones laying down a sparse beat underneath a three-guitar riff-off, including dueling slide work from Ronnie Wood and Jagger himself. Later, on the floating stage, the new "Oh No, Not You Again" slid in between "Miss You" and "Satisfaction." Keith Richards provided the final debut during his two-song interlude, offering a meandering "Infamy" alongside "The Worst" from 1994's Voodoo Lounge.

    The band chose not to perform the controversial "Sweet Neo Con," with lyrics apparently critical of George Bush. However, Jagger did reference another political figure -- the "Governor of California" -- being in attendance. "Apparently he's been fundraising outside, selling bootleg T-shirts and scalping tickets," Jagger said. Richards later added, "Hey Arnold, don't forget our cut on the T-shirts."

    Midway through the set, Jagger introduced a number by "someone who's music we used to cover when we were just starting out" and then launched into Ray Charles' "Night Time Is the Right Time." The Stones, with support from assembled support players on keyboards, horns and backing vocals, captured the spirit of Charles' signature blend of jazz, R&B, and gospel styles -- including Jagger's standout vocal duet with Lisa Fischer, whose bluesy wailings spurred the crowd to its largest reaction of the evening.

    Along the way the Stones peppered in solid performances of "Beast of Burden," "Doo Doo Doo Doo Doo (Heartbreaker)" and "You Got Me Rockin'," a second-tier single -- again from 1994 -- that has grown into a reliable crowd-pleaser replete with standout solos from both Wood and Richards. The same can be said for the warmed-over Motown of "Out of Control" (from 1997's Bridges to Babylon), which explodes like a modern "Midnight Rambler" with its harmonica and guitar solos grinding through the last half of the song. Both were delivered with an energy and tightness that encompassed the entire show, along with a sound mix that cleared most of the muddiness of past tours and focused on the sharp guitar interplay of Keith Richards' clawed twanging and Ron Wood's lead and slide jabs.

    Jagger commanded the walkways and catwalks in his typically successful attempt to create "stadium intimacy." However, per the pre-tour promotional campaign, the several hundred fans seated "on stage" -- or, rather, above the stage in what amounted to balconies built into the set -- received only a quick walk-by and a few waves throughout the night. The silver stage set was a more scaled-down concept from tours past and functioned well at framing the band and providing the necessary space-filling visual elements (including one centered video screen) while not challenging the focus on the performance.

    Jagger tried to make light of the band's nerves in an early comment from the stage, but no opening night is without its glitches. "Infamy"'s straying was joined by an abrupt ending to a rejuvenated take on the nearly forgotten "She's So Cold" (though not quite as forgotten as when Jagger claimed it as a "song we've never really done before," apparently overlooking the entire 1981-82 world tour, where it appeared every night). Neither, however, distracted heavily from the well-played and well-paced set that clearly topped their less-than-flawless 2002 Licks Tour opener in the then-titled Fleet Center.

    The Stones closed with the usual barrage of mega-hits -- "Sympathy for the Devil," "Jumpin' Jack Flash," "Brown Sugar" -- plus a double encore of "You Can't Always Get What You Want" and "Its Only Rock 'n Roll." All were played sharply, and most were reigned in to tighter arrangements than in the past where sing-alongs and crowd amping frequently took over the performance.

    Familiar territory? Sure. But, even at their advanced age and ticket price, the Stones did what professional teams have been doing in Boston stadiums lately -- they delivered.



    JON MARKO
    (Posted Aug 22, 2005)
    His mind is not for rent, to any god or government.
    Pointless debate is what we do here -- lvr

    Comment


    • #3
      according to vocalist Mick Jagger's prediction while he paid homage to Boston's recent Super Bowl and World Series titles --
      Hey, fuck that.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Reggie Cleveland@Aug 23 2005, 01:48 PM
        according to vocalist Mick Jagger's prediction while he paid homage to Boston's recent Super Bowl and World Series titles --
        Hey, fuck that.
        Exactamundo.
        His mind is not for rent, to any god or government.
        Pointless debate is what we do here -- lvr

        Comment


        • #5
          The Setting Stones: Reenacting going through the motions ... again.
          Damn these electric sex pants!

          26+31+34+42+44+46+64+67+82+06 = 10

          Bring back the death penalty for corporations!

          Comment


          • #6
            The Beatles continue to be glorified---------even though they bragged about people not being able to hear them in concert because of the loud screaming. I can't remember if their later---"more serious work"---was even performed very much in concert.

            They are now honored because they broke up before they got old and stale. I question how much staying power they would have had if they had tried to compete.

            It would almost be like comparing Glenn Miller to Duke Ellington----except Ellington was more honored than criticized for continuing to perform several decades.
            v


            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by kjoe@Aug 23 2005, 06:00 PM
              The Beatles continue to be glorified---------even though they bragged about people not being able to hear them in concert because of the loud screaming. I can't remember if their later---"more serious work"---was even performed very much in concert.
              Their last official concert (not counting that "concert" on the Apple Studios rooftop in '69) was at Candlestick Park in San Francisco in 1966.
              RIP Chris Jones 1971-2009
              You'll never be forgotten.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Reggie Cleveland@Aug 23 2005, 02:42 PM
                Sweet Hanger-On
                By Paul Beston
                Published 8/23/2005 12:08:13 AM

                While they were cultural rebels of a sort in the 1960s, the more enduring focus of the Rolling Stones' career has been riding the latest trends, whether in fashion, politics, or even music, and dressing it up as rebellion. They never rebelled against anything without knowing that there was plenty of wind at their back, whether it was the commercial potential of 1960s youth culture or the lockstep anti-Bushism of today's pop music community.

                Their new song, "Sweet Neo Con," is a phoned-in political commentary if there ever was one, and a reminder that the Stones have always been more risk averse than their fabled reputation suggests. Bush bashing offers its practitioners renegade status at virtually no cost. It's a wonder the Stones didn't invent it.

                Though powered by a vintage Stones backbeat, "Sweet Neo Con" is remarkably trite, like something Limp Bizkit might have written after hanging out with the Dixie Chicks:

                You call yourself a Christian,
                I call you a hypocrite
                You call yourself a patriot
                Well I think you're full of s---

                The Stones didn't start out playing so safe. They are rightly credited as the most successful amalgamator of blues and R&B into the DNA of most subsequent rock and roll. And they were clever enough to market themselves as rock's bad boys, an exaggerated pose meant to counteract the early Beatles' cherubic image, itself an exaggeration.

                Since those early days, though, the Stones have usually looked elsewhere for cues, and in the '60s, those often came from the Beatles. When Lennon and McCartney unplugged and went introspective, so did the Stones. When the Beatles went psychedelic and released their most dated album -- Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band -- the Stones donned similar garb and released Their Satanic Majesties Request, which was dated about five minutes after it hit the record bin. Probably the best example of what separated the two groups came in the watershed year of 1968. While the Stones marched to the beat of the noisy left with "Street Fighting Man," the Beatles had enough independence to sneer at the radicals in "Revolution." (Unfortunately, John Lennon's political skepticism was short lived.)

                In the early '70s, when glam rock and androgynous front men were the vogue, Mick Jagger dressed accordingly and perfected his strut. Later in the decade, when disco and punk briefly threatened to crowd out traditional rock, Jagger decided to turn the Stones into a harder version of the Bee Gees. How bitter a pill that must have been; the Bee Gees had been around almost as long as the Stones, and had never been able to call the tune before. But with the Beatles long gone, someone had to provide direction for Mick and his wheezing cohort of recidivist druggies.

                In the '80s, the Stones' Me Too ears were still sharp enough to integrate the decade's synthetic sound into a rant about Central American politics, then a hot topic on the rock scene. In the early '90s, they rushed into the studio to record "Highwire," about the pending Gulf War. The song was criticized for not being sufficiently oppositional, showing that you can never satisfy some people. Blowing with the wind for 40 years isn't as easy as it looks. "Highwire" did a good job of parroting the antiwar line:

                We sell 'em missiles, We sell 'em tanks
                We give 'em credit, You can call the bank
                It's just a business, You can pay us in crude
                You'll love these toys, just go play out your feuds

                Now comes "Sweet Neo Con," which has prompted some nervousness about a backlash against the group in the U.S. Even Keith Richards has expressed reservations, pointing out that he actually lives in the States, whereas Jagger does not. And "Sweet Neo Con" is not the group's only venture into politics; another new song comments on Abu Ghraib. There must be a reference to Guantanamo lurking somewhere on the album.

                It seems unlikely that the Stones' audience will be put off by Jagger's boilerplate politics. Fans attend the concerts to hear old songs, not new ones, and if "Sweet Neo Con" causes problems, the ever-adaptable Jagger will banish it from the setlist, if it is included in the first place.

                After all, the Stones, notwithstanding the title of one of their most famous tunes, have always been dedicated to giving people what they want, not what they need. Such has been the career of rock's greatest, uh, rebels.
                if "Sweet Neo Con" causes problems, the ever-adaptable Jagger will banish it from the setlist, if it is included in the first place.

                I would think Jagger's reason might be more along the lines of why preach to the choir in Boston. I predict it will be played in St. Louis.


                In defense of the Beatles------this guy is a right wing hack. They don't deserve the disparagement inherent in his compliments. His adoration of the Beatles and trashing of the Stones is a bigger compliment to the Stones than the Beatles.

                I looked up some of his earlier writing---thought this was interesting:


                Though Harrison's embrace of Indian mysticism and its subsequent appearance in Beatles music had a huge impact on countercultural trends -- the Woodstock generation's pursuit of all things Eastern, the rise of New Age philosophies and lifestyles -- he never fit the role of hippie guru. Coexisting with his desire for spiritual insight were a passion for privacy and a crotchety willingness to complain, even within a pop culture that generally expects its celebrities to be grateful for their fame. The best example on record is Harrison's immortal "Taxman," a song that has since become something of a libertarian anthem:

                If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
                If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
                If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat
                If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet...

                'Cause I'm the taxman
                And you're working for no one but me...
                v


                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by kjoe@Aug 23 2005, 06:00 PM
                  The Beatles continue to be glorified---------even though they bragged about people not being able to hear them in concert because of the loud screaming. I can't remember if their later---"more serious work"---was even performed very much in concert.

                  They are now honored because they broke up before they got old and stale. I question how much staying power they would have had if they had tried to compete.

                  It would almost be like comparing Glenn Miller to Duke Ellington----except Ellington was more honored than criticized for continuing to perform several decades.
                  Admit it, the Beatles had more sense than the Stones.

                  And really why would they want to "compete?"
                  LONG LIVE THE NOTE!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by DC Santana+Aug 23 2005, 07:35 PM-->
                    QUOTE(DC Santana @ Aug 23 2005, 07:35 PM)

                  • #11
                    I read a George Harrison interview where he said the Beatles realized that the music scene was moving beyond what they were capable of at the beginning of the 70s.

                    He named the Allman Brothers as an example of a group that had more talent and more promise.

                    The Beatles were also completely dysfunctional at that point and not even capable of working together.
                    LONG LIVE THE NOTE!

                    Comment


                    • #12
                      I see kjoe is still indulging his odd hatred of the Beatles. Weird.

                      Since McCartney, Lennon and Harrison all made fine solo work after breaking up their band ("Band on the Run", "Imagine", "All Things Must Pass"), the notion that the music scene was "moving past" them can be dismissed. Not to mention that their last album, "Abbey Road", was arguably their best.

                      Nor did the Beatles "brag" about no one being able to hear them. The fact that no one was able to hear them was one of the reasons they stopped touring. They remained quite capable as a live band. Anyone who doesn't believe that needs to go view the live version of "Revolution" that they performed for British TV in 1968, or the live tracks that were included on "Let it Be" (which was originally supposed to be a live album). The reason they broke up was that they couldn't get along.

                      I question how much staying power they would have had if they had tried to compete.
                      At least as much as the Rolling Stones, one imagines. I stand by my statement that it's better to break up when you're good than to keep touring and making albums 15-25 years after your last good album.

                      That being said, the article that Reggie posted really is a sad piece of shit. It's sad that conservatives today are so outraged at the very notion of dissent and people disagreeing with them that they get all pissy about a Rolling Stones song. One would think that holding dominion over the government would allow one to relax, but it looks like they won't rest until the only voice of dissent is Al Franken broadcasting on a shortwave radio set from a wooden hut in Greenland.
                      Official sponsor of the St. Louis Cardinals

                      "This is a heavyweight bout indeed."--John Rooney, Oct. 27, 2011

                      Comment


                      • #13
                        Personally, I think their last decent album was "Tattoo You".
                        RIP Chris Jones 1971-2009
                        You'll never be forgotten.

                        Comment


                        • #14
                          Originally posted by kah@Aug 23 2005, 09:25 PM
                          I see kjoe is still indulging his odd hatred of the Beatles.  Weird. 

                          Since McCartney, Lennon and Harrison all made fine solo work after breaking up their band ("Band on the Run", "Imagine", "All Things Must Pass"), the notion that the music scene was "moving past" them can be dismissed.  Not to mention that their last album, "Abbey Road", was arguably their best.

                          Nor did the Beatles "brag" about no one being able to hear them.  The fact that no one was able to hear them was one of the reasons they stopped touring.  They remained quite capable as a live band.  Anyone who doesn't believe that needs to go view the live version of "Revolution" that they performed for British TV in 1968, or the live tracks that were included on "Let it Be" (which was originally supposed to be a live album).  The reason they broke up was that they couldn't get along.

                          I question how much staying power they would have had if they had tried to compete.
                          At least as much as the Rolling Stones, one imagines. I stand by my statement that it's better to break up when you're good than to keep touring and making albums 15-25 years after your last good album.

                          That being said, the article that Reggie posted really is a sad piece of shit. It's sad that conservatives today are so outraged at the very notion of dissent and people disagreeing with them that they get all pissy about a Rolling Stones song. One would think that holding dominion over the government would allow one to relax, but it looks like they won't rest until the only voice of dissent is Al Franken broadcasting on a shortwave radio set from a wooden hut in Greenland.
                          I don't think I have a hatred for the Beatles. I'm just not sure how many have a rational perspective about what they were.

                          As always, you make some very good points. If you believe ("Band on the Run", "Imagine", "All Things Must Pass") measures up to the Stones post 1969 work, so be it. I certainly don't.

                          Their music was good. I have never trusted their political and social instincts, and I really believe there is a parallel with Elvis that does not exist with the Stones----the early stuff is 90 percent of what they were. Revolution---In the Ghetto---I will still take Gimmee Shelter. Good career move to break up---just like some cynics have said Elvis's death was a good career move.

                          I have an ambivalent feeling about the writer---on one hand he makes me want to shout "Aha!" On the other---I know they deserve better.



                          The Stones played in St. Louis at Kiel in 1972----the opening act was Stevie Wonder. They used Sonny Rollins on some recordings in the late 70's. I hope they keep playing as long as they want. Hopefully they can still piss off some republicans. I doubt if McCartney could---but if you need someone to soothe your sensibilities after the shock of seeing Janet Jackson's nipple.........
                          v


                          Comment


                          • #15
                            See what happens when "The American Spectator" is your source for rock and roll news?
                            But wait. There is something that can be done afterall. My good friend Angelo is a cop in the Tampa/Clearwater area. Since I kept all of the files from the access logs when I had the power to see them, guess what, I have everyone's IP addresses. Hmm..what can I do w/ those??
                            ...

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X