I've been a Stones fan since 1964 (I was 7 then) I just wonder if anyone on this board is interested in some serious discussions about their enormus impact on western culture? What about 1967? How did they survive? (One question)

My point is that this band's history is the mirror of how western popular culture did evolve during the sixties and how thing went to a corporate thing in the seventies.

And yet:
The Stones did one of their best records in 1978 (Some Girls) and by this they took the "grip" and changed the way about how we was supposed to see them then. I know because I was alive then (beeing a youngster-turning 21!) Everybody shouted "Ohhh oh ohh ohh(!) and I could nod my head and say to my friends: " I told you!"

Now we know that this band is a driving force, and well on the way to what Keith Richards described as "a pioneer thing". No one has ever done this before, and I doubt that no one ever will.

I Just want a discussion on academic terms. Not one of these "will Bill Wyman ever join....or Mick Taylor is better than Ron Wood" things.

Are there any engaged people out there!?

I think the Beatles contribution gets plenty of credit, but not our boys. They were the role model for us rebels. A way of life, as Andrew said.

"No Anchovies, Please"

Yeah. Maybe there is something about the "beatles vs the stones" thing? Maybe we are the rebels? I don't know. Look at Keith.

I agree. I've have to think about it to go into specifics, but here’s some general thoughts

first impression, it's easy to overlook just how much history the stones have lived through because we're always looking forward to the next tour, the next album etc.
Watching the DVD intro to 4 flicks with excerpts and historical montage always give me that "wow" moment and reminds me and gets me thinking in a more historical context.

i've always thought of the stones as a perfect mirror to American culture and society. Not dreamy escapism but in you face realism. Looking at the album covers or the song titles really his me how different they are from other bands. Even in the early 60’s they were very dark. when you're 16 its easy to light up, put on the headphones and float away to Pink flyod- its quite another thing to get you rocks off listening to Brown Sugar. each stones album really seems to nail perfectly the mood in US. I'd almost go as far as to say that if the stones albums cease to be relevant it's because US culture itself has nothing to say.
In Post Modern world it's not "in" to talk about solidarity, togetherness or cohesiveness- it's all about respecting individual differences and fragmentation-just look at the categories in the Grammies today- each year new categories spring up- the one I remember because it seemed so incongruous was "best latino alternative hip hop artist".
The trend to PM individualism really hit the musician in the 1980’s with so many bands splitting up so that the members could pursue solo careers and with a few exceptions most of those efforts really weren’t that interesting.

One last thought-The stones seemed to have their finger on the pulse of US culture and kept their sense of humor.

Good post, cat. Well thought out.

BTW, I went out to my cooking/party shack to grill some good stuff for the lovely Mrs. Elmo. While there I listen to the 64-67 Stones. If ya ain't done this lately, I highly recommend it. Good stuff.

"No Anchovies, Please"

a couple of years ago i was asked to do an academic workshop on the Stones' cultural impact -
stepping back from my personal impressions/experiences of the Stones hitting the States in 1964
and looking at it as a cultural phenomenon was heavy-duty fascinating. what the way-early Stones did
to help make white middle-class American kids aware of black American culture had such amazing repercussions -
hear it for a thousand miles! it's so fascinating that they didn't have any political agenda -
they did it just by being themselves and playing the music they love the way it should be played -
and they contributed hugely to turning the largest generation that ever lived on to concepts like
nonmainstream culture, social injustice, the whys and hows of protest, and the attitude and courage for it too.
so much of the outrage over the Stones in those days was basically racist - the same brand of ugly atavistic fear -
and by fielding those attacks the Stones were making it abuundantly clear how the Establishment treats you
if the way you look/sound/move isn't "white enough", putting it in the spotlight where the kids couldn't overlook it
or be indifferent to it - man, that was powerful! and that was just for starters.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-04-14 15:26 by with sssoul.

John lennon made the comment that they (the Beatles) never led the way. It was already happening with the Beat writers/poets, etc like Jack Keourac. He said the Beatles were just in the crows nest of the ship telling everybody else what was happening.

This is really interesting topic, but goddamn demanding, too. It would really need quite a lot of space and time to really say something to contribute. I totally agree with the basic assumption about The Stones reflecting the changes of culture of the whole poular music business, and perhaps even more. What they are doing now with their multi-million-dollar/euro tours that is based on safe family entertainment, nostalgy, and wealthy and aged fan base still reflects the nature and state of rock music (you know, the genre that evolved with some rebellious pulses from 50's to 70's) today. The Stones is the best represenative of the whole genre from almost day one. And they are still here as the biggest concert draw. Some people say that 'it's only rock and roll' - its the music that only matters and to take any penny out of it has always been the main motivation behind the Stones story. That is partly true, but it doesn't do justice for the changes in the whole business and what sort of place it has had among the culture. And not to band, really. They never been such a clever, cold-hearted businessmen - or at least once were solely not.

But just to say something, I think it is good to view the story of The Stones consisting of two parts: let's cut it in 1981/82, and reflect what happened from 1962 to 1982 and then from 1982 on... funny point: I happen to started following the band in 1981/2 and perhaps that's why I see it as a turning-point ... If we look my impressions as a hardcore fan ever since: basically, I haven't wittnessed nothing but some mediocre albums, no musical classics to born, but some incredible huge tours based on set lists based on material that was born before I started to dig the band. What I have seen has ever reminded anything close to 'rebellious' - in terms music or anything that would have some kind of influence on culture of the imagination of rising generations. First, from the early 80's The Stones were sort of 'elder statemen of the rock' and in fact, very respected as such. Keith Richards was the living miracle and defination of coolness and street credibility, and Jagger was Jagger. Led Zeppelin had gone, The Beatles was not much remembered then, and there was not time that sort of nostalgy yet. Now, 25 years later, The Stones are still the biggest draw, as they were in 1981/82 in terms of gross of tours, and nothing has really changed, only that he of their fanbase is probably 15 to 20 older than then. In economical terms, The Stones are doing better than ever: all their tours from 1964 to 1982 would be laughed out of court compared to the latest one. But what is the cost?

It looks like during the 80's The Stones decided that 'taht's it: as far relevance goes, that's not our cup of tea anymore. Let's see how long and far we can reach with our existing image and the status and material achieved in the previous 15-20 years. Let's stick to the formula, do the minimum in originalitywise and see what happens. Cohl and Chuck, come up here!". I think they couldn't guess in 1989 that HOW long and far they could go with that same fixed formula.

Don't get me wrong. I am not trying to critizise anything. I just try to describe the phenomemon I have been wittnessing since I became a fan of the band. At the time I hooked into band I was thrilled of "Start Me Up" and was eager to wait the next 'classic' to born. It never did. What I have seen the band I most love to ruining the legacy it used to have - the legacy that in 1981 was INCREDIBLE. They felt even immortal then in their statuswise. Of course, I have been fortunate to see the band live many times during all these years, and mostly - as we know - it is a thrill. But at the same time I feel somehow saddened from their heartless milking out of the past (their idea of nostalgy which they don't openly even admit), their lasvegas-attitude, and how the media and the rest of culture - younger generations, etc - see them. It is almost an embarresment to admit nowadays to go their concerts (outside forums like this). I don't even dare to think what 'rest of the culture' really thinks about my hero Keith Richards nowadays - a brainless and ridiculous fossile from the past who with his antics thinks he is till cool, perhaps.

What has happened to their main rivals from the past? Since 1982 the reputation and fame of The Beatles has increased up to unbelievable level (and I hate it), their are icon of the 60's, and Led Zeppelin outsells The Stones even more esily that it did back in the 70's. And most of all, their image remains attractive and appeals to younger generations, while the Stones - who also stick to the same material they did along the Zep and The FabFour - just get elder and elder, uglier and uglier (and I don't talk only about their outlooks). The old Beatles material is warmed up with endless new packings, the Zep material is carefully taking out from the vaults and the treasures are released. The Stones just re-cicles the material in their endless tours, and see how long people are thrilled to hear 'Jumping Jack' or 'Satisfaction' fror 1205th time. They still are, and I don't see reason why they don't will be in future too, if the both parties stay alive.

Okay, I admit I sound negative, but let's go back to topic, and to times of which I don't have first-hand knowledge: the years from 1963/64-1982. I think those were the years when The Stones were not yet equilavant to 60/70's Frank Sinatra but represent something different and alternative in their cultural impact. That they were 'rebellious' or even 'out-laws' - of which most is based on good PR work, but there was substance, too - their music was hottest thing on the charts, re-formulate the distinctions between 'black' and 'white' music, redefined the sexual borders and identities; their tours were always backed up with things like hysteria (stonesmania years), riots, later with always scandals, wild parties and drugs, you name it. They were the idols of pop artists like Andy warhol, they were dug by Black Panthers and underground; they were inspiring and learning attitude and looks for people like Pete Townshend, Jim Morrison, Iggy Pop, Joe Strummer and Patti Smith, not to mention all the numerous rock groups who take the scheme of sexy frontman and wasted, but cool guitarist to the basic unit. But perhaps most of all, with their wild reputation, music and life they represented hopes and dreams to millions of people. Just by being themselves, sound and look cool.

That's mostly do with out-musical things I described, that is, their cultural impact. But somehow, when they had most 'impact' that also co-incided with their musical peak and relevance. During those years they created the musical legacy that have carried them for goddamn long and far now. Or - one could ask - is it really co-incidence that their musical creativity died out about the same time when they were not anymore viewed rebellious nor their music somehow 'dangerous'? That their last great album was based on the material from the vaults of earlier decade?

I have waited that sort of book of the topic of this thread to be written for a long now. The Stones deserve it, at least for their first 20 years. I think their impact both in musical and non-musical levels has not really recognized yet. It look like that if there some 'rebellous' thing left in them is that they are not seen appropriate for such an academic research (compare for instance The Beatles or Dylan)

- Doxa

I'm also a fan since 1964. I were 24 when Some Girls came to us, but can't remember that I paid any attention to it as a good album amongst all them artists as Clash, Costello, Dire Straits, Police, Johnny Thunders, Ramones, Stiff Little Fingers...that was hot bands 1978...
Now its 2007 and I can say that Some Girls is a brilliant album, now I got time to listen to it...academic terms...Jagger is the outstanding singer amongst singers...

2 1 2 0

Good Post Vesaas, of course different cultures would have different viewpoints. It all depends on who you are, what class you represent and what country your in. But if you can understand what I am trying to convey, the best viewpoint for you is your own, thats the one that has the best meaning. I could never understand how others have viewed the impact the Stones have had on various events, only my own view for me. Being a Stones fiend I guess I could conjure up all sorts of things of importence, as would a Mario Lanza fan for themselves for instance. Do I know what I am talking about, stuffed if I know, just love to talk about the Stones.

some really interesting points from the above posts. lets keep it going.

two quick obsevations- the stones have always been essentially blues stylists- in that I mean they incorporate the classic american blues (and country) tradition into their new music and make it sound up to date. I think that's one of Jaggers talents to go back to the roots and make it sound fresh. in terms of relevance and culture I think that one of the things that has happened is that the traditional blues heritage has been largely replaced by hip hop/rap.if the culture at large has abandoned that, then the stones wont be relevent. the aren't going to lead the way in creating a new music genre that's not what the're about so like Doxa said above

It looks like during the 80's The Stones decided that 'taht's it: as far relevance goes, that's not our cup of tea anymore. Let's see how long and far we can reach with our existing image and the status and material achieved in the previous 15-20 years.

I think the stones themselves realized their talents and genius as well as their limitations.They can only do what they know how to do and what they've always done.

second point- I guess there is an upside to not having to be culturally relevant. the stones dont parade around with inflated egos like some bands that take themselves way too seriously. Witness Keith backstage at the Music awards when asked about the secret to ageing gracefully. whisky voiced chuckle: I dont know about "gracefully", but....

It's hard to discuss the cultural relevance of the Stones since 1964 because there aren't many Stones fans who have been alive that long. Unfortunately, there is a prevailing attitude among most fans that the Stones truly began its climb to relevance in 1968, which marked the beginning of the band's so-called 'golden era'. There are very few discussions about the pre-1968 Stones and it has long become the forgotten era in the band's history.

as a youngster at the time i recall immediately connecting with the stones because of their sometimes acerbic but always excitingly fresh and accurate, (and intelligent and fearless) persepctive on things thru their music...
ie....'have you seen your mother baby standing in the shadow'
!!! one hell of a freudian onslaught in the midst of a lot of 'do the freddie' stuff...19th nervous breakdown...mother's little helper!!!!...satisfaction...even the 'lose your dreams and you will lose your mind' from ruby tuesday...'under assistant west coast promo man' a lotta stuff actually...ray davies was starting to have hits with smart socially revelant dry humor and angst in his songs...and lennon also to some extent...dylan opened the door for all of this in pop music of course...

but the stones were a tremendously relevant and exciting band for me as a kid, socially and intellectually stimulating; daring... and on a cultural edge attitude-wise, (as well as the down-home rolling bluesy sonics and feel...and the excitement factor when they rocked it up...
they were an early force in the culture before the obvious ones like gs, sfm and sympathy etc...from my perspective...
'stupid girl' another one, (before they themselves became a bunch of stupid girls a decade or 15 years or so after '64...)
they were actually really saying something to many fans...and did represent freedom of thought and a changing social value system...or at least presented a wise and powerful observational window on some of the basic hypocrasies and tragedies of ignorance in the lives of the 'characters' in the songs...
the 'teenbop girl diary' thread with the link from a hard-core early fan shows some of this...very very early on...it wasn't just the burgeoning sexuality of a teenybop running into this sexy music...she was being mentally stimulated and was starting to think and question things around her to some little degree...even as a very young kid...

tho it was to mature and get more focused and pointed from within the band and out into the culture very shortly thereafter...'65, '66 and so on...and their studio output was regular and enormous...like two albums a year...or close to that...i don't have the discography in front of me right now...
tho timeisonourside.com is wonderful place for this...
real stones fans who have somehow, (and understandably due to age and personal revelancy in their histories) missed the first half dozen or eight of the original albums, has a storehouse of delight waiting for them.
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

(also culturally stimulating and fascinating to me as a young kid and early fan for each tv performance and record release in the states...were those b.jones performances...a dulcimer, a recorder, a marimba, a harmonica, an organ, eventually, but pretty early on, a sitar...slide guitar etc...
brian was exotic and bright and a doorway to all kinds of influences and spices and flavours...and another clue to me anyway, as a young kid, that something very uniquely special in this amalgam was honestly original, full of great melody and lyrics...and some of that 'lyricism' ...a lot of it for me in the early going, came from jones, tho he didn't write nary an acutal 'lyric' in the catalog...)

but for me, also right from the very start, tisms, 'downhome girl' and 'mona' and stuff like that from their records amazed me and got played over and over and over....



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2007-04-14 22:39 by Beelyboy.

I was 17 when theit 1st lp came out. From the start of Route 66 I knew they were the band for me. I loved their early "cover" lps, was dissapointed in Buttons but adored Aftermath [I was lucky to purchase the British version].Then they really hit their stride with the big 3, went into a slump after Exile and but came back strong with Some Girls. People talk about the Stones being more rebelious than The Beatles and somehow a myth has grown that our parents liked The Beatles but hated The Stones witch is false. They hated them both equaly as did most of my class mates. I liked the Beatles for their style and music equaly to the Stones. John Lennon was more rebelious than any of the Stones, but the Stones stayed together which means a lot to me. It shows that people can work together even through bitter disputes[though its a good thing Jaggers albums bombed]. Today they mean more to me than ever because they are the last 60's band with most of their original members and playing at top form to larger audiences than ever. It tells me that the spirt of the 60's lives and is being passed on to the young generation. And it makes me feel that, eventhough I'm 60, I can put out the CD I've been recording. They give us baby boomers insperation to keep going while showing each new generation what real rock n' roll is all about. Long live the Rolling Stones!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2007-04-15 09:12 by keithfan64.

a lot of interesting thoughts posted here; to add one
on the topic of cultural impact:

if you want to think and elaborate about the cultural impact of the STONES you must consider the cultural role of music itself ; esp. in europe and then maybe worldwide...

for those who cant remember:

as the sixties began, the second world war was over - but still people were living who had witnessed it. they had a feeling for life in general, I guess, that cant be imagined in the present, - you know today it is: the global village, the worldwide war on terror , global polution - global problems.

in the sixties this global conscesness was just arising from the destruction of world war 2 but was not the maintheme in the media -

in the sixties the focus of the mass media - and a lot of people - of looking to culture was another than today: culture should be fun after all that war; the negativ things like the atomic bomb and the reasons of war had been put aside by mainstream people and media - they just wanted to live and enjoy their lifes.
Thats easy to understand. Listen to sixties hits from the monkeys, the beatles and others - it' s mostly "feel good" music.

But life wasnt (and isn't ) that easy - as it was/is revealed from the "normallife".
at this point, esp the lyrics and the attitude of the Rolling Stones come into the play. MJ was singing about "mothers litlle helper" and the more frustrating aspects of modern life.
Or "I cant get no satisfaction" with all that coulorful products in the supermarket and the man on the radio is telling useless information - as MJ sang. That lyrics were a comment - and the music as a whole piece of work, too - an artistic way of saying: this modern life is not enough - for my soul. And who is getting satisfaction nowadays from whom?

that is a point which I want to point out: the lyrics of the RS. It is not possible to give a recipe or a formula in general to understnad all of it in a hush - but to me it occurs that MJ as a songwriter, is a critic of a lot of aspects of modern western society. He named "bad things" before others and so he maybe encoureged others to do so themselves.

In that lyrics the dark side of life was not only put in secrets or metaphers but named and adressed directly.

So the RS songs are giving the two aspects of life which affect all people: joy and pain of life. which was not "normal" in these former days in the mass culture. (is it nowadays?)

BUT it was "normal" for music in general in the western culture during a lot of thousands of years and more: good music always has reflected all the feelings and thoughts and even stories of the people.

remember: our ancestors had sung their important stories of their people and heroes. in the celtic culture (and others) - which lasts raondabout 1000 years and is not forgotten in the hearts and souls of people in europe - there were singer/poets which came next to the king in the old society and their words and thoughts were very very important to the whole society.

Considering that facts I think that the storytelling (about the pain and joy of life) in combination with rhythm and melody near to the feelings to people (and their heartbeats) - back to the roots of stomping and dancing around a fire, you know - is an old european (and worldwide) part of mankinds culture.

If you want to think and elaborate about the cultural impact of the STONES you must consider the cultural role of music itself.

I think the impact to worldwide culture that the RS give is not a reanimation of
an old art form - not only of the the celts - ah, how to say it ?
Ah, I remember a word from Keith Richards. Asked what he wanted to be written on his gravestone, he answered something like : "He gave the light further" or
"He transported the torch / the flame to others" - in that sense.

And for me one of the impacts on global culture is that the music of the stones brings the dance of life to a worldwide audience. Who or what else is drawing so many people as volunteers to public shows? Politicians? No. OK, the catholic pope - and thats it. So the aspect of religion and cult should be considered , too.

another aspect of cultural impact: the music ( I mean the cover songs , too) is a mix of styles - not only this and that style, but a lot of american and european styles: ballads, irish folk, country as a follow-up from italian and french accordeon playing mixed with irish melodies and so on.
It is done with a rebellious personal attitude and mastership.
That attitude and mastership combined with a mix of styles - that is modern contemporary culture.

the worlds people are coming closer together and are mixed up by technical and economic phenomens and global problems - as we experience - and feelings and needs of human beeings are woldwide not the same but similar - this is one expression of the global impact of the Rolling Stones that I understand now.

-
What is understood of the phenomen of the Rolling Stones by most of the mass media and journalists? In my opinion: not much. most of them dont even scratch the surface. They are blinded by rainbows :-) but pretty rainbows they are.
thats for the childish ones. others are aware of the sympathy for the devil in our culture - esp the hard core fans, I think - no , I hope ' cause I know some.

THe "normal" journalist or radio anchor is blinded by the success of these "old" men in a mass culture that adores only young people. (For what reason?)
Maybe they envy them.

"when I travel coast to coast
you' re the hook I miss the most
feel on, baby"



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-04-15 12:33 by yeager.

>> somehow a myth has grown that our parents liked The Beatles but hated The Stones which is false. They hated them both equally <<

obviously you know your own parents' reactions, but on a broader scale this isn't a myth at all.
the Beatles were accepted by the Establishment - look which band was doing royal command performances and getting OBEs
and which one was being arrested on an increasingly regular basis. the Stones being busted for taking a leak
was funny in its way - but look at the attitude it represents, and look at how very unfunny it got later.
i mean: some parents grumbling about the Beatles' hair and music is not at all the same thing
as governments actively trying to deprive the Rolling Stones of their liberty.

and where did all that hostility come from?? like i said up there somewhere,
to me it seems very plainly a fundamentally racist deal, at least in the US.
look at those early-60s press clips calling them ugly dirty smelly cretinous indecent violent -
"if you gave an ape a guitar" and "they don't even wash" - all that atavistic fear coming out
over the Stones not looking/sounding/moving "white enough". i was too little at the time to know or care
that what the Stones were playing was black music, or that moving/sounding/looking like that "wasn't white enough",
or to get why it disturbed the grown-ups that i looooved King Bee so much -
but there was no way not to notice that the grown-ups were condemning these cats simply because they were different:
glaring social injustice right in my own home! it was astonishing. it was revelatory.
and it's a big part of what grew up into the 60s counterculture.

meanwhile the Beatles ... yeah i am aware that they had their pre-fame wild-rocker phase,
and later in the 60s they certainly started having a strong social/cultural message,
but what they hit it big with was not that. what they were doing in the pre-psychedelic 60s was "white enough":
solid white pop, delivered in a nice neat solid-white-pop manner, and if they pissed in a garage forecourt in 1964
the worst thing that happened was probably that they got asked to sign autographs.

>> it's a big part of what grew up into the 60s counterculture <<

and also a big part of why i'm always so baffled when folks dismiss the way-early albums -
the Stones bringing that music to us that way changed the world.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-04-15 12:54 by with sssoul.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> somehow a myth has grown that our parents liked
> The Beatles but hated The Stones which is false.
> They hated them both equally <<
>
> obviously you know your own parents' reactions,
> but on a broader scale this isn't a myth at all.
>
> the Beatles were accepted by the Establishment -
> look which band was doing royal command
> performances and getting OBEs
> and which one was being arrested on an
> increasingly regular basis. the Stones being
> busted for taking a leak
> was funny in its way - but look at the attitude it
> represents, and look at how very unfunny it got
> later.
> i mean: some parents grumbling about the Beatles'
> hair and music is not at all the same thing
> as governments actively trying to deprive the
> Rolling Stones of their liberty.
>
> and where did all that hostility come from?? like
> i said up there somewhere,
> to me it seems very plainly a fundamentally racist
> deal, at least in the US.
> look at those early-60s press clips calling them
> ugly dirty smelly cretinous indecent violent -
> "if you gave an ape a guitar" and "they don't even
> wash" - all that atavistic fear coming out
> over the Stones not looking/sounding/moving "white
> enough". i was too little at the time to know or
> care
> that what the Stones were playing was black music,
> or that moving/sounding/looking like that "wasn't
> white enough",
> or to get why it disturbed the grown-ups that i
> looooved King Bee so much -
> but there was no way not to notice that the
> grown-ups were condemning these cats simply
> because they were different:
> glaring social injustice right in my own home! it
> was astonishing. it was revelatory.
> and it's a big part of what grew up into the 60s
....
>
> meanwhile the Beatles ... yeah i am aware that
> they had their pre-fame wild-rocker phase,
> and later in the 60s they certainly started having
> a strong social/cultural message,
> but what they hit it big with was not that. what
> they were doing in the pre-psychedelic 60s was
> "white enough":
> solid white pop, delivered in a nice neat
> solid-white-pop manner, and if they pissed in a
> garage forecourt in 1964
> the worst thing that happened was probably that
> they got asked to sign autographs.

I agree with [ with sssoul].

the RS had to overcome a lot of obstacles - racism is one of them.
And the prejudices of the white establishment in Europe and the US.
Or lets call them the establishment "interests".
Conservative interests focussed on the wellfare of the white race, underlined with a narrowminded form of religion, that sat one people - "the believers" - over others - the "unbelievers".

Now that I think about it: is the social situation very much different from the early days of the RS?
IMO the conservative rollback is almost overwhelming the world, its people and our lifes. The established "happy few" can afford a lot of Stones tickets for the wrong reasons - but maybe they will be enlightened by the music.

"when I travel coast to coast
you' re the hook I miss the most
feel on, baby"

When I was 14 (in 1964), nobody's Mum minded very much if you had a picture of the Beatles on your bedroom wall. Maybe their hair was a bit long, but they did look like nice clean tidy boys underneath it, and most of their songs (this was before drugs and psychedelia, remember) were pleasant enough to the adult ear - they were the group that your parents admitted to liking, or at least to "not minding" to show that they were With It.

The Stones, on the other hand, were the Undesirables. In the UK I don't think the perceived "blackness" of their music was much of a problem. But it was loud and vulgar and joyfully sexy and seen as liable to encourage bad behaviour in the young - and as for the Stones themselves, they seemed to be everything our parents had spent the 1940s and 1950s learning to despise - undisciplined, rebellious, disrespectful, untidy, spotty and believed (wrongly) to be dirty …. The Beatles were charmingly cheeky, but the Stones were RUDE.

Some of this must have been the effects of their respective publicity machines. The Stones did make a big thing of their bad image, but we loved them in those days first and foremost for that music. The whole Rebellion thing came later, as a reaction to the Establishment's attitude. I don't think the Stones or their earliest fans had anything of the kind in mind.

It's worth remembering that both groups belonged to the first generation of young lads in Britain who hadn't had to do compulsory National Service in the forces for two years. Even now in the UK there are still calls for the return of National Service to drill some discipline, tidiness and self-respect into the rebellious younger generation, and in the early 1960's older people looked at this generation with a mixture of envy and horror as they got away with things that would never have been allowed in THEIR youth. There must have been thousands of apoplectic military minds just itching to tell them to GET YOUR 'AIR CUT. The Stones were living evidence that the country was going to the dogs. People wondered whether they had fought the War so that louts like this could flourish. (Oddly enough, they had indeed fought the war to allow this kind of freedom - they just didn't like it when they saw it in practice).

That generation had opportunities that hadn't been available to their parents. Since the 1950's it was possible for poorer kids to have a good education if they were bright enough, instead of having to go to work at 14, and now they were coming of age and making their way in lots of different fields - music, theatre, design, film and so on. The old class barriers to success were coming down all over the place, and the stuffier members of the older generation hated it. The Stones were an outstanding example of how you could be enormously successful in this new order of things without bending the knee to the Establishment. They showed us that it could be done.

The Stones have set a certain standard back in '64, they were the so called bad boys and it has followed them all of this time. in that time they have made some damn fine music. The reason why the Stones have never gotten the so called respect that Dylan, the Beatles and others have is because there is no hook to grab on to with the Stones, they are not lovealble, critics tend to rag on the Jag's thing for young girls, to paraphrase Joe Tex...."Young girls is his weakness" so what and in a weird sort of way they have remained slightly mysteroius. We think we know about the Stones but we really don't. But the the most important thing for me is that the Stones are musicians, strip away all of the nonesense and it comes down to GREAT MUSIC. The amazing thing about the Stones is that they had HIT RECORDS back in the day, hit 45's, at the same time they were doing a balancing act of being dangerous. See the Stones were dirty and pretty at the same time. Hey the Beatles changed the world and so did the Stones, not on the level that the Beatles did but they are pretty damn important because any band that is playing now, at a certain they have to give props to the Stones,the origianl bad boys. But one of the major reasons the Stones haven't gotten the respect is because they are still here. They might be a mere shadow of '64 Stones but on any given night, they can still tear the roof off the sucker. That is a cultural phenomenon. Stoned since '64......can't let go.

>> It's worth remembering that both groups belonged to the first generation of young lads in Britain
who hadn't had to do compulsory National Service in the forces for two years. <<

this was truly crucial, wasn't it - a generation suddenly finding out their lives weren't pre-programmed after all,
and that they had a few extra years to do what they felt like doing instead of going off to learn
discipline and obedience and conformity - and BOY did they know what to do with the opportunity!

>> They showed us that it could be done. <<

smile: they sure did. and they sure still do.

ps ... not sure i know how to say this without it coming out sounding awful,
which is not at all what i mean, but: the music was just one layer of the perceived "blackness"
that was freakin the grown-ups out so bad - it was the Stones' whole look and manner and delivery,
that same exuberant raunchiness you're talkin about, Green Lady. i mean ...
what's so scary about "blackness" anyway? Africa as a metaphor for hot steamy uninhibited physicality - yikes!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-04-15 19:16 by with sssoul.

It's hard to comment on this kind of thing from a modern viewpoint, many of the things that were new and shocking are now just boring and cliched...

I like to think that the stones brought 'authenticity' to the charts. For sure they played the game a bit, but even then, their delivery was rarely ever 'straight'.

The greatest achievment of the first Rolling 'bues band on a mission' Stones was getting Little Red Rooster to No.1! I also think this was part of why a certain member began to lose interest, the goal of bringing blues to the masses had been achieved!

Another major impact is the fact that the stones didn't hide their dick bulge haha!!! :-()



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-04-15 18:50 by His Majesty.

his majesty wrote:

Another major impact is the fact that the stones didn't hide their dick bulge haha!!! :-()

me agree grinning

now I see the coincidence with the present "old" RS with Charles Bukowski, the author - the dirty old man - may he rest in peace.

why should men or women over 50 , 60 or 70 years be not a dancing singing pack of energy? life is not over with 30 - and this is a point or a impact on the youth fixated culture of our times which is shown by the RS now, too.

"when I travel coast to coast
you' re the hook I miss the most
feel on, baby"

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the music was just one layer of the perceived "blackness"
> that was freakin the grown-ups out so bad - it was
> the Stones' whole look and manner and delivery,
> that same exuberant raunchiness you're talkin
> about, Green Lady. i mean ...
> what's so scary about "blackness" anyway? Africa
> as a metaphor for hot steamy uninhibited
> physicality - yikes!

That was exactly what was freakin out the grown-ups - but I think for different reasons on different sides of the pond. Both the US and the UK establishments were freaked out by the idea of an uninhibited "underclass" that might get out of control - but in the US that was quite literally black people, whereas in the UK it was the "lower orders" in general - the common people, workers and the unemployed - and actual black people and their culture weren't such an important fear factor. (There weren't that many of them in 1960's Britain).

One of the great things about the Stones' attitude to their blues idols was that they saw them as musicians first, and treated them with some respect as musical inspirations, in a country where their music had been confined to the ghetto for years. Of course us Brits can be as nastily racist as anyone when we put our minds to it - but the Stones in general weren't and aren't.

No credits



ROCKMAN

I still say, in my personal experience, [I was 17 in '64 and lived in the rich part of a midwest city] adults and my classmates saw no difference between the Beatles and Stones in '64. They were both despised for having long hair. I was physicaly threatened on a regular basis and pulled over by cops and had to attend saturday detention because I combed my still short hair forward. In a class of 600 there was only one other guy who started wearing his hair Beatle like. Adults and squares wouldn't have known a Stone from one of the Dave Clark 5! There was a song by Delaney Bramlet a few years later called "Are You a Beatle or a Rolling Stone?" I guess his experience down south was similar to mine



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-04-16 06:04 by keithfan64.

>> No credits <<

that beautifully archetypal photo was taken by John Hopkins, 1964.
smile: one of the brilliant things about the ways the Stones kept outraging the grown-ups -
at least the ones in my vicinity - was that they couldn't even articulate what was bugging them so much.
i mean what are you going to tell an eight-year-old girl -
that it ain't fittin for her to dig someone whose dickbulge shows?! :E

Thanks Soully...knew you'd know the photographer ...



ROCKMAN

This classic 'Hoppy' shot, can be purchased, signed and framed, here:-
[www.blowuppress.com]

it looks great on my wall!