Who else could pull this off but the Rolling Stones? And to me it is still compelling to this day--the alternate baking track, weird lead guitar line, incredibly zombied-out Keith, the bubbles, Mick's black glass necklace--which I remember seeing him wear 6/22/75 at MSG--I yelled to my twin sister, "That's what he wore in the bubbles!" I think I was 12 when this first aired--they ran Don Kirshner commercials all week for it and it was sort of haunting...a decadent, jet-set, exhausted-looking bunch of mascared boys morphing through the blown-out glamour of the mid 70s...what a document; silly and sinister all at once

I was fascinated by Mick Taylor. The way he changed. The difference how he looks between his Hyde Park performance in 1969 and in this video.

They didn't take into account the height of the drum stand when the bubbles started rising.

At this point, the Stones decided to parody themselves. One can't deny that they realized how absurd it all had become, so they offered up this video.

DD--I know what you mean--it's like he's become a Rock God in the interim

I found the video a bit stupid back then, wander who made it up ....how can you get Keith in a marine out fit ??????

Now It's funny

__________________________

The saddest part is that the fans failed to realize that the Stones did NOT desire to become political or world-changing, even then. 35 years later, many fans still fail to recognize this point. With this video, the mission statement was plainly laid down. The old satanistic image was discarded. It has remained consistent from then until now.

<< how can you get Keith in a marine out fit ?????? >>

Give him heroin.

Seriously, Taylor had become more confident within the band at this point. You can see the change. The other clip was for "Till The Next Goodbye". Keith looks downright cadaverous, and MT is sporting a lovely hat. Check it out on YouTube if you get a chance.

MT, more confident? Perhaps, but within a year he resigned. We've discussed it to death, but Taylor wanted something else, and the Stones weren't part of his plans on becoming a serious musician.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-23 03:42 by bassplayer617.

And throughout, Charlie has his "My lead singer is a dumbass" face on.

I personally LOVE this video - the Stones are absolutely mocking themselves. The whole backup singers action going on with Mick T. and Keith - one on either side of Mick - Charlie and Bill clearly laughing at themselves and the rest the band.

It's classic Stones - giving a big ol' @#$%& you shout out to the establishment.

ETA: This is one of my top five fave Stones songs, by the way.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-23 03:45 by DaisyGrace.

<< MT, more confident? Perhaps, but within a year he resigned >>

Yes, he became confident enough to resign!

Bill, Charlie and Mick T are the stars on this - and they don't even play on it!

Shows what a sham (not glam) the band had become. Sham-rock!

Still think it's crap - but live is a whole different matter - when Keith, Bill and Charlie do make it their own transforming it from lame turkey to bionic, Berrified Raptor.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-23 04:14 by Four Stone Walls.

my son loves this video (he's 5 1/2).
when he first saw it he panicked when the bubbles first came out and Charlie started to disappear, but now he thinks it's pretty funny.

Quote
bassplayer617
The saddest part is that the fans failed to realize that the Stones did NOT desire to become political or world-changing, even then. 35 years later, many fans still fail to recognize this point. With this video, the mission statement was plainly laid down. The old satanistic image was discarded. It has remained consistent from then until now.

I think the mission statement happened in 6th of December, 1969. It has been a carneval, not playing with darker forces and political agendas, ever since. However, the agenda of defining the sense of 'sex and drugs and rock'n'roll' with the idea of getting quite nice profits out of it, kept the following decade still quite colourful and dangerous...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-23 04:05 by Doxa.

Sort of agree, Doxa. Even '68-69 Jagger was astutely tuned into the times with a view to business.

At least then they were riding the wave of something real.

Since 70-71 people wouldn't 'get fooled again'

By 1974 they were clutching at straws - anything. 'Rock'n'Roll' no longer mattered - just a subject of parody......

..... until the glorious 'grass roots' revolution of (1976)-1977!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-23 04:26 by Four Stone Walls.

Quote
bassplayer617
At this point, the Stones decided to parody themselves. One can't deny that they realized how absurd it all had become, so they offered up this video.

That's very well put. I think there is one more dimension to be noted: they felt getting old. They were not anymore the young fashionable rebels the kids were screaming for, and I think they felt that the music they were playing was basically nothing but a teenager angst and idealism visualized, as their image, which was not to match anymore with the life experience, mind and even wisdom of thirtysomethings. In fact, I can see Jagger really struggling with his public persona during those mid-70's years. One needs to notice that they were not competentent super musicians, like some of their contempoeriers who could 'develop' the three chord chuckberry stuff into new artistic hights (you can also think of Taylor's departure here). For them it was "only rock'n'roll"; The Stones had cemented that point in EXILE, and I think they felt that that was as good as as they can get by their given gifts. Jagger choose to ridicule himself, and he took that attitude very clearly into their 1975 tour. I think part of that the decandent feeling of that tour is the realization that they cannot get any better, and that the days are numbered, boys getting too old to their roles, but what a hec, let's have fun one more time!!! Let's play sloppy because WE CAN!!! In another words, the band was not so serious with their music anymore. The drive to conquer the world with that music - jumpingjackflashes and honkytonkwomens and gimmeshelters and brownsugars etc. was alreadty satisfied. The mission accomplished. They didn't need to prove anything.

BUT it is interesting to note that during those years The Stones, Jagger that is, made music that is maybe most 'mature' they ever have done. Especially in GOATS HEAD SOAP, and then in BLACK&BLUE, they made their most sublimest recordings ever - think of "100 Years Ago", "Winter", "Angie", "Coming Down Again", "Memory Motel", "Fool To Cry"... Jagger's never be so lyrical, even sentimental AND sounding convincing as he then was (and you can count "WAiting On a friend", "Tops" and "Worried Bout You" also in.). The guy tried to grow up.

Anyway, it looks like that the punk movement actuallly saved the Stones and Jagger - then the whole climate turned "back to basics" and "raw attitude", that is, to the elements were the Stones were naturally at home, and Jagger found a new boyish spark again to adapt a new fresh persona, and left the sleazy sentamentality behind...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-23 04:51 by Doxa.

Doxa - bass

nice takes

it's funny, I'd loved the stones for a couple of years already but for friends of mine, this was the first experience with them (at like 12 years of age) so this era defined them for a certain age - they hadn't seen ed sullivan or gimme shelter or ladies and gentleman or anything to have a frame of reference--I distinctly remember a kid at school saying, "I saw them the other night on TV--it's just a bowie, marc bolan rip off"

great clip , the way charlie laughs at mick being a clown is priceless

Quote
Doxa

Quote
bassplayer617
At this point, the Stones decided to parody themselves. One can't deny that they realized how absurd it all had become, so they offered up this video.

That's very well put. I think there is one more dimension to be noted: they felt getting old. They were not anymore the young fashionable rebels the kids were screaming for, and I think they felt that the music they were playing was basically nothing but a teenager angst and idealism visualized, as their image, which was not to match anymore with the life experience, mind and even wisdom of thirtysomethings. In fact, I can see Jagger really struggling with his public persona during those mid-70's years. One needs to notice that they were not competentent super musicians, like some of their contempoeriers who could 'develop' the three chord chuckberry stuff into new artistic hights (you can also think of Taylor's departure here). For them it was "only rock'n'roll"; The Stones had cemented that point in EXILE, and I think they felt that that was as good as as they can get by their given gifts. Jagger choose to ridicule himself, and he took that attitude very clearly into their 1975 tour. I think part of that the decandent feeling of that tour is the realization that they cannot get any better, and that the days are numbered, boys getting too old to their roles, but what a hec, let's have fun one more time!!! Let's play sloppy because WE CAN!!! In another words, the band was not so serious with their music anymore. The drive to conquer the world with that music - jumpingjackflashes and honkytonkwomens and gimmeshelters and brownsugars etc. was alreadty satisfied. The mission accomplished. They didn't need to prove anything.

BUT it is interesting to note that during those years The Stones, Jagger that is, made music that is maybe most 'mature' they ever have done. Especially in GOATS HEAD SOAP, and then in BLACK&BLUE, they made their most sublimest recordings ever - think of "100 Years Ago", "Winter", "Angie", "Coming Down Again", "Memory Motel", "Fool To Cry"... Jagger's never be so lyrical, even sentimental AND sounding convincing as he then was (and you can count "WAiting On a friend", "Tops" and "Worried Bout You" also in.). The guy tried to grow up.

Anyway, it looks like that the punk movement actuallly saved the Stones and Jagger - then the whole climate turned "back to basics" and "raw attitude", that is, to the elements were the Stones were naturally at home, and Jagger found a new boyish spark again to adapt a new fresh persona, and left the sleazy sentamentality behind...

- Doxa

PERFECTLY put

<<< BUT it is interesting to note that during those years The Stones, Jagger that is, made music that is maybe most 'mature' they ever have done. Especially in GOATS HEAD SOAP, and then in BLACK&BLUE, they made their most sublimest recordings ever - think of "100 Years Ago", "Winter", "Angie", "Coming Down Again", "Memory Motel", "Fool To Cry"... Jagger's never be so lyrical, even sentimental AND sounding convincing as he then was (and you can count "WAiting On a friend", "Tops" and "Worried Bout You" also in.). The guy tried to grow up. >>>

I have a very small disagreement with this in that I think the songwriting really started to decline with Black & Blue. Where "100 Years Ago", "Coming Down Again", "Winter" et. al. were the work of a matured writer, "Memory Motel" and "Fool To Cry" were merely sentimental (and even campy). The GHS songs hold up much better. I think they just don't want to go that place emotionally anymore where one has to go to write good lyrics. I remember being done with Mick as a lyric writer with "I want to @#$%& your sweet ass". That was a watershed for me.

This was the video in which we discovered The Stones were indeed really, really gay.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

>> how can you get Keith in a sailor suit ? <<

Michael Lindsay-Hogg talked about this in some interview:
the bubble idea was fairly last-minute, and the Stones didn't want to mess up their own clothes.
the sailor suits were the only thing the studio's costume department had five of.

>> incredibly zombied-out Keith <<

where?! he looks mighty fine to me! :E


- june 1974 by Michael Putland, courtesy of Rockman

Album cover and moreover album promotion reflects well known lyrics combined with this video clip the simple but so true message.

If planned and calculated - never mind,if the suit thing with the bubbles was decided spontanous:even better.

Starting living some kind of decadent life in early seventies as other (rock) stars
one could´ve figured out even back then with another kind of mass media structure
they didn´t want to get instrumentalized for any political or social issues.

No contradiction to that they engaged in some projects and events here and there
´til today,as far as I know.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
bassplayer617
At this point, the Stones decided to parody themselves. One can't deny that they realized how absurd it all had become, so they offered up this video.

That's very well put. I think there is one more dimension to be noted: they felt getting old. They were not anymore the young fashionable rebels the kids were screaming for, and I think they felt that the music they were playing was basically nothing but a teenager angst and idealism visualized, as their image, which was not to match anymore with the life experience, mind and even wisdom of thirtysomethings. In fact, I can see Jagger really struggling with his public persona during those mid-70's years. One needs to notice that they were not competentent super musicians, like some of their contempoeriers who could 'develop' the three chord chuckberry stuff into new artistic hights (you can also think of Taylor's departure here). For them it was "only rock'n'roll"; The Stones had cemented that point in EXILE, and I think they felt that that was as good as as they can get by their given gifts. Jagger choose to ridicule himself, and he took that attitude very clearly into their 1975 tour. I think part of that the decandent feeling of that tour is the realization that they cannot get any better, and that the days are numbered, boys getting too old to their roles, but what a hec, let's have fun one more time!!! Let's play sloppy because WE CAN!!! In another words, the band was not so serious with their music anymore. The drive to conquer the world with that music - jumpingjackflashes and honkytonkwomens and gimmeshelters and brownsugars etc. was alreadty satisfied. The mission accomplished. They didn't need to prove anything.

BUT it is interesting to note that during those years The Stones, Jagger that is, made music that is maybe most 'mature' they ever have done. Especially in GOATS HEAD SOAP, and then in BLACK&BLUE, they made their most sublimest recordings ever - think of "100 Years Ago", "Winter", "Angie", "Coming Down Again", "Memory Motel", "Fool To Cry"... Jagger's never be so lyrical, even sentimental AND sounding convincing as he then was (and you can count "WAiting On a friend", "Tops" and "Worried Bout You" also in.). The guy tried to grow up.

Anyway, it looks like that the punk movement actuallly saved the Stones and Jagger - then the whole climate turned "back to basics" and "raw attitude", that is, to the elements were the Stones were naturally at home, and Jagger found a new boyish spark again to adapt a new fresh persona, and left the sleazy sentamentality behind...

- Doxa

Hot Stuff, Doxa!

I agree with Tele71 that the B&B songs aren't as 'mature'/ strong as the GHS ones.
But they were a VAST improvement on the largely facile ones on IORR, (TWNO being the most obvious exception).

btw (and I could not BEGIN to write or think so clearly in your language) - and therefore with respect - the English phrase is 'what the heck'

but Hey - It's Only Language



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-23 14:59 by Four Stone Walls.

Quote
Four Stone Walls

I agree with Tele71 that the B&B songs aren't as 'mature'/ strong as th GHS ones.
But they were a VAST improvement on the largely facile ones on IORR, (TWNO being an the most obvious exception).

btw (and I could not BEGIN to write or think so clearly in your language) - and therefore with respect - the English phrase is 'what the heck'

but Hey - It's Only Language

What the heck is "TWNO" ?

Quote
Four Stone Walls

I agree with Tele71 that the B&B songs aren't as 'mature'/ strong as th GHS ones.
But they were a VAST improvement on the largely facile ones on IORR, (TWNO being an the most obvious exception).

btw (and I could not BEGIN to write or think so clearly in your language) - and therefore with respect - the English phrase is 'what the heck'

but Hey - It's Only Language

thanks for the.. or a... or.... the language point ... (You see, in my own language there is no articles (definite or indefinite) at all, so using those in a given context is something that is not natural to me... another funny point in Finnish. We don't have the difference between the masculine and feminine either... "hän" covers the senses of 'she' and 'he'... that's one typical error we Finns are talented doing when talking English: using the wrong word he/she when talking about a particular person...) Anyway, I always welcome ANY corrections (considering both teh form or substance of my rantings))

But back to the Stones... I agree with Tele71 and you that there is a difference between the etheric, lyrical GOATS HEAD atmosphere, and the cynical and a bit forced one of BLACK & BLUE. Maybe the former has something to do with Mick Taylor being present, and Jagger's colloborations with him sounded like heading the Stones into new area direction. But Keith - "Coming Down Again" sounded as reflective and sensitive as well; perhaps all of them were feeling some kind of hangover after triumph of the whole sequence of four HUGE albums, and so many things happened during those few years, e.g. Brian's death, Altamont and all. but the over-all feeling in GHS is natural (the weak point is the cameo opening track that forever destroys the album.).

IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL - especially its title song and "If You Can't Rock Me", the always important opener that sets the mood into album - was an antithesis to those sentiments, and maybe a bit lame effort to remain 'cool', and 'exilish'. To this day I find IORR the most boring of their golden era (1962-1983). If between ANY album prior that the band always had found a new gear or different approach or idea, this was the first time the band was not offering anything new, but just relying on their old schemes (maybe there is some reggae of "Luxury", or power soul ballad "If You Really Be my Friend" was something experimental, but they sound as home and convincing as they did in THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES.). Jagger's voice sounds very tired and unispired - just going through the motions (or what is the idiom?)

Contrarily, in BLACK & BLUE there was an obvious break with the tradition, and the band tried to reach something new, starting from Jagger's voice. The only rockers the album had "Hand of Fate" and "Crazy Mama" had a strange, a matured man of experience in them. Maybe the ballad section, and feeling attached to the feelings, are not so convincing as in GHS, maybe even 'campy', but there is that kind of reflection, starting from "Fool to Cry" that Jagger actually sounds like realizing he is not young anyomore, no matter how he tries to trick with it (the effect is much more convincing than the way too obvious statement of "Time Waits For No One"). But what makes B&B 'weak' - or let's say: not a masterpiece - is that the whole band sounds like being a bit lost, and directless; there are interesting, strong rhythms and sounds in it, with which they are home with (contra to IORR), but as a whole it does not have a sense of direction. The band does not sound like they know what they are actually trying to do. The same can be said of GHS - that's the reason it is not not be counted into the Big Four.

What a drag is gettind old...

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-23 12:47 by Doxa.

it's only rock n' roll , nothing political , nothing that would change music for eternity. it's only rock and roll , five guys from england who became superstars just having fun while entertaining. it's only rock n' roll, turn up the speakers, enjoy the sounds. jagger is not john lennon preaching b.s. richards is not pete townsend beliving he's the only reason people listen to his band. taylor is not jimmy page thinking he has to change the way he plays a song everytime . wyman and watts are perfectly happy being in the background feeling no need to do anything but play their best . it's only rock n' roll but we love it.

Quote
shortfatfanny




What the heck is "TWNO" ?

I think the both songs - "It's Only Rock'n'Roll" and "Time Waits For No One" - are actually saying the same point but in different means.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-11-23 12:55 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

I think the both songs - "It's Only Rock'n'Roll" and "Time Waits For No One" - are actually saying the same point but in different means.

Yes Doxa,definetly.Although I think Mick often enough denied autobiographical
elements or references in his lyrics it´s interesting how these lyrics follow the same topic
expressed ,let´s say in a "kid" version and an "adult" one.

But also interesting he couldn´t resist the
"Time can tear down a building
Or destroy a womans face"
lines.

If he had known how soon his comrade´s face would age...

By the way,I think your coming close to essays posts are elaborated to some
stylistic perfection one would never think you´re based somewhere in the eternal
darkness of northern Europe.

It´s probably the "vegas style" forcing you to shine a constant light here.

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
Doxa

I think the both songs - "It's Only Rock'n'Roll" and "Time Waits For No One" - are actually saying the same point but in different means.

Yes Doxa,definetly.Although I think Mick often enough denied autobiographical
elements or references in his lyrics it´s interesting how these lyrics follow the same topic
expressed ,let´s say in a "kid" version and an "adult" one.

But also interesting he couldn´t resist the
"Time can tear down a building
Or destroy a womans face"
lines.

If he had known how soon his comrade´s face would age...

By the way,I think your coming close to essays posts are elaborated to some
stylistic perfection one would never think you´re based somewhere in the eternal
darkness of northern Europe.

It´s probably the "vegas style" forcing you to shine a constant light here.

Doxa,

I think SFF was being ironic concerning my use of English cos I'd left the 'F' word out of the Time Waits song title abvtn. (abreviation)

btw it's probably more colloquial (and 'rock'n'roll'!) to use a word that closely approximates to 'feck' instead of 'heck' in modern English idiom.

So, no gender in Finnish?! No difference between he and she? 'Anything goes', then?

I can't remember the Language gfamily name to which it belongs (Ugaric?) - but I think it's non-Indo \europaean, isn't it?

And I find it 'far fetched' to equate semantically the tracks TWFNO and IORAR.

The latter. anyway, started life as a Ronnie Wood knockabout - and I bet he made up the title line after a few pints of Fuller's ESB or Young's Special. Jagger may have added the daft 'verses' - if they can be dignified with that term!