Tell Me :
Talk
You should have attended Rotterdam '73.
That sounds so cool. I don't know about anything like that going on around here. I can imagine I would have a lot of fun attending your class :-)
When you say "Scolarship", do you mean "a grant" - as in "someone gives you money so that you can go to University and study"? Or do you mean a "University course"? Did you mean that the Stones should donate scolarships/grants to students who want to take a University course in "The Rolling Stones"?? Or do you mean "academic interrest" in the Stones?
With "no philosophy or much there beyond WYSISYG--good rockin' music", do you mean What You See Is What You Get? As you said earlier - we DO HAVE a language problem here on iorr.org...
(Keith said: Rock'n'Roll is music from the WAIST down. Meaning it's very sexual. And that's hard to deny.)
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-07 14:39 by Addicted.
fascinating!... Care to share the syllabus (if it's in English)?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-08 19:01 by cc.
so you're taking a bold stance against dissection of beautiful women, now?
probably, most of us feel the same way--I sure do--but the fact is that academic studies are made of popular music, and swiss wondered why the Stones are underrepresented there (kind of an assertion, really; I'm not sure it's true). Whether we think that academic work on any pop music should be happening is kind of beside the point of the original post.
This is a lost art today I'm afraid.
Swiss, this is a great topic, and very surprising. I would have thought for sure there are many books analyzing the Stones' songwriting, music and sound. But searching through Amazon.com, one finds a deluge of books about the decadent scene around the band in the 60's and 70's, but precious little on their achievements as musicians. Led Zeppelin has a similar problem, IMO. There is a small industry of books focusing on the band's (admittedly impressive) sex, drugs 'n mayhem lifestyle, but not a lot of non-biographical works that examine the music. Perhaps publishers reject such books for being academic and not commercial enough? And yet, there are serious books on the Beatles and Brian Wilson as musicians.
course sounds terrific, though--I think I once took a similar one, courtesy of the Stones... actually, I'm still on it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-08 19:00 by cc.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Why no "scholarship" around the Rolling Stones...?
Posted by:
swiss
()
Date: December 7, 2010 11:38
hi,
This may be a rhetorical, or an unanswerable, question.
it occurred to me today that--for example--the Grateful Dead and the Beatles have "scholarship" around them. Meaning: university courses, lectures, extensive bibliographies, annotated discographies, sessions at conferences on popular culture and musicology, archives and special collections in academic and research libraries, renowned "subject matter experts," well-documented webs of influence with other artists/musicians before and after them, in-depth analysis of their lyrics/poetry and music, etc.
Is it because they're still going? and the Beatles and the Grateful Dead (since Jerry died in '95) don't exist as such?
Is it because they're anti-intellectual? (Keith believes rock n roll is from the neck down; Mick believes it's from the wallet up - I know, not entirely fair)
Is it because we fans are "earthier" than all that? and wouldn't appreciate someone pontificating on the tonal structure of the 5-stringed open G tuning and its relation to eastern harmonics blahdy blah?
Is it because their music and lyrics don't lend themselves to much analysis; there's not that much to analyze?
Is it there isn't a "transcendent" element to the Rolling Stones? no philosophy or much there beyond WYSISYG--good rockin' music and rebellion (which Mick says this week he never actually believed in--it was just image opportunistically wielded to sell tickets and albums). That the music doesn't inspire you "believe" in anything?
Not saying I wish there were scholarship around the Stones. Just saying I'm becoming aware of scholarship of other bands...and it just made me wonder what the difs might be?
- swiss
This may be a rhetorical, or an unanswerable, question.
it occurred to me today that--for example--the Grateful Dead and the Beatles have "scholarship" around them. Meaning: university courses, lectures, extensive bibliographies, annotated discographies, sessions at conferences on popular culture and musicology, archives and special collections in academic and research libraries, renowned "subject matter experts," well-documented webs of influence with other artists/musicians before and after them, in-depth analysis of their lyrics/poetry and music, etc.
Is it because they're still going? and the Beatles and the Grateful Dead (since Jerry died in '95) don't exist as such?
Is it because they're anti-intellectual? (Keith believes rock n roll is from the neck down; Mick believes it's from the wallet up - I know, not entirely fair)
Is it because we fans are "earthier" than all that? and wouldn't appreciate someone pontificating on the tonal structure of the 5-stringed open G tuning and its relation to eastern harmonics blahdy blah?
Is it because their music and lyrics don't lend themselves to much analysis; there's not that much to analyze?
Is it there isn't a "transcendent" element to the Rolling Stones? no philosophy or much there beyond WYSISYG--good rockin' music and rebellion (which Mick says this week he never actually believed in--it was just image opportunistically wielded to sell tickets and albums). That the music doesn't inspire you "believe" in anything?
Not saying I wish there were scholarship around the Stones. Just saying I'm becoming aware of scholarship of other bands...and it just made me wonder what the difs might be?
- swiss
Re: Why no "scholarship" around the Rolling Stones...?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 7, 2010 12:00
I had a talk with a german engineer some years ago. He was studying acoustics, and did some of his research on the Stones.
His conclusion in his thesis was that the Stones had the best sound in the world (this was right after the SW/UJ tour).
He said that the Stones' main force was to make the sound come across very crisp and detailed, and at the same time play at low decibels.
His conclusion in his thesis was that the Stones had the best sound in the world (this was right after the SW/UJ tour).
He said that the Stones' main force was to make the sound come across very crisp and detailed, and at the same time play at low decibels.
Re: Why no "scholarship" around the Rolling Stones...?
Posted by:
SwayStones
()
Date: December 7, 2010 12:04
This is a very interesting question,swiss.
I think that Rock music should be discussed at school.
There is already a music class at school -at least in France- but they mostly talk about classical music -but no opera,no jazz,no rock .
What a shame!
I remember that my English teacher asked us once to bring at school our favorite vinyl .Of course,I came with GYYYO !
I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .
I think that Rock music should be discussed at school.
There is already a music class at school -at least in France- but they mostly talk about classical music -but no opera,no jazz,no rock .
What a shame!
I remember that my English teacher asked us once to bring at school our favorite vinyl .Of course,I came with GYYYO !
I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .
Re: The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: December 7, 2010 12:33
i teach a course on the history of rock & roll (in the broad sense of the term).
the Stones occupy about 35% of it, and the rest is the Stones' roots and other influences
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-07 13:10 by with sssoul.
the Stones occupy about 35% of it, and the rest is the Stones' roots and other influences
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-07 13:10 by with sssoul.
Re: The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 7, 2010 12:34
Quote
with sssoul
i teach a course on the history of rock & roll (in the broad sense of the term).
the Stones occupy about 35% of it, and the rest is music the Stones' roots and other influences
Re: Why no "scholarship" around the Rolling Stones...?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: December 7, 2010 12:36
Quote
DandelionPowderman
He said that the Stones' main force was to make the sound come across very crisp and detailed, and at the same time play at low decibels.
You should have attended Rotterdam '73.
Re: Why no "scholarship" around the Rolling Stones...?
Posted by:
Addicted
()
Date: December 7, 2010 13:07
The University of Oslo just opened up a new university course: Bob Dylan. (30 points only)
And there's been talk of introducing a course about the Stones. Nothing's final yet.
And there's been talk of introducing a course about the Stones. Nothing's final yet.
Re: The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
Happy24
()
Date: December 7, 2010 14:04
Quote
with sssoul
i teach a course on the history of rock & roll (in the broad sense of the term).
the Stones occupy about 35% of it, and the rest is the Stones' roots and other influences
That sounds so cool. I don't know about anything like that going on around here. I can imagine I would have a lot of fun attending your class :-)
Re: Why no "scholarship" around the Rolling Stones...?
Posted by:
Addicted
()
Date: December 7, 2010 14:29
Quote
swiss
hi,
This may be a rhetorical, or an unanswerable, question.
it occurred to me today that--for example--the Grateful Dead and the Beatles have "scholarship" around them. Meaning: university courses, lectures, extensive bibliographies, annotated discographies, sessions at conferences on popular culture and musicology, archives and special collections in academic and research libraries, renowned "subject matter experts," well-documented webs of influence with other artists/musicians before and after them, in-depth analysis of their lyrics/poetry and music, etc.
Is it because they're still going? and the Beatles and the Grateful Dead (since Jerry died in '95) don't exist as such?
Is it because they're anti-intellectual? (Keith believes rock n roll is from the neck down; Mick believes it's from the wallet up - I know, not entirely fair)
Is it because we fans are "earthier" than all that? and wouldn't appreciate someone pontificating on the tonal structure of the 5-stringed open G tuning and its relation to eastern harmonics blahdy blah?
Is it because their music and lyrics don't lend themselves to much analysis; there's not that much to analyze?
Is it there isn't a "transcendent" element to the Rolling Stones? no philosophy or much there beyond WYSISYG--good rockin' music and rebellion (which Mick says this week he never actually believed in--it was just image opportunistically wielded to sell tickets and albums). That the music doesn't inspire you "believe" in anything?
Not saying I wish there were scholarship around the Stones. Just saying I'm becoming aware of scholarship of other bands...and it just made me wonder what the difs might be?
- swiss
When you say "Scolarship", do you mean "a grant" - as in "someone gives you money so that you can go to University and study"? Or do you mean a "University course"? Did you mean that the Stones should donate scolarships/grants to students who want to take a University course in "The Rolling Stones"?? Or do you mean "academic interrest" in the Stones?
With "no philosophy or much there beyond WYSISYG--good rockin' music", do you mean What You See Is What You Get? As you said earlier - we DO HAVE a language problem here on iorr.org...
(Keith said: Rock'n'Roll is music from the WAIST down. Meaning it's very sexual. And that's hard to deny.)
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-07 14:39 by Addicted.
Re: Why no "scholarship" around the Rolling Stones...?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: December 7, 2010 15:11
yes the stones scholarship will be awarded to the person or persons that are the most elegantly stoned and wasted guitarist that has mastered the art and nuance of the rolling stones .judges will include keith richards and ronnie wood .in case of ties sir mick jagger will cast the tiebreaking vote .good luck to all applicants!!!!!!!
Re: Why no "scholarship" around the Rolling Stones...?
Posted by:
Green Lady
()
Date: December 7, 2010 15:13
A subject has to be safely dead before it can be dissected.
Re: Why no "scholarship" around the Rolling Stones...?
Posted by:
djgab
()
Date: December 7, 2010 16:17
I remember that I read somewhere about Beatles lessons at the University of Liverpool
maybe part of the IPM (institute of popular music) ?
[www.liv.ac.uk]
anyone knows about this ?
maybe part of the IPM (institute of popular music) ?
[www.liv.ac.uk]
anyone knows about this ?
Re: Why no "scholarship" around the Rolling Stones...?
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: December 7, 2010 17:19
i took a dylan class at the UofO from a fabulous scholarly professor - Dr. Bill Strange (RIP)....dropped out of it so i could take it again.
i simply don't think the stones' music lends itself to the same level of scrutiny....
i simply don't think the stones' music lends itself to the same level of scrutiny....
Re: Why no "scholarship" around the Rolling Stones...?
Posted by:
wanderingspirit66
()
Date: December 7, 2010 18:42
At some point, I suspect there will be a Harvard Business School case study on "Brand Management" in the music industry
Re: Why no "scholarship" around the Rolling Stones...?
Posted by:
cc
()
Date: December 7, 2010 21:01
I haven't read any of the Grateful Dead scholarship, but I imagine that most of it is more about the fans as an exemplary subculture, as a phenomenon, than about the band as musicians or even as figureheads of the cultural movement. It's probably true that there's a positive feedback loop to these things--the existence of a few scholarly publications about the Dead has likely led to more, at the expense of other groups who were as or close to as worthy of study. They're unique, I suppose, but not all alone in what they mean... though people do know who "Deadheads" are, or at least something of what they represent, without knowing any of the Dead's music (actually that nearly goes for me... though it's funny with the Dead... some music journals take them very seriously while ignoring most other pop, and some journals have no interest in them).
the Beatles somewhat exist in their own sphere, often to the detriment of thinking about them seriously as part of the rock scene. About 10 years ago, there was something of a trend to consider them as "just another rock band, but the best" (this was around when Revolver began taking over from Sgt. Pepper as most often cited best album), but now--thanks to the i-Tunes thing? the Cirque du Soleil? I don't know--they seemed to have regained their mystique.
I realize I'm speaking very vaguely... I don't have sources at hand.
as for the Stones, they may have done too good a job of signaling where their music came from, so would-be students of their music are likely to keep on going to their sources in American black music, where the story is simply more interesting.
I think a broader study of the cross-cultural influence of American black music on Britain would be useful--it's something that now seems so obvious but actually needs explanation--but this would encompass Cyril Davies, Clapton, and all those guys. You know, the handful of white players the Stones actually seem to respect, from back in the day.
one might also study the reception of the Stones in different areas. The Stones' normalization as a virtually "American band" in the eyes of many US fans would be baffling if the group didn't seem to court it, especially recently, what with the sell-outs to the NFL and the hyping of their connection to NYC and Madison Sq. Garden. And the surge in popularity in S. America (at least I think there's been a surge) in the '90s is something I never got.
but their music itself seems pretty well understood. The really extraordinary thing to a non-fan would probably be to track jagger's performances, as an icon of pop culture. There might be something there from an almost art history perspective.
looking elsewhere, I think dylan's writing really does justify the ink spilled on it, and no one else in rock is really close. The Velvet Underground and Lou Reed are near the same league as artists, and they might also be relevant to the art history discussion, with the Warhol connection. I've found the fans who are drawn to the VU from that angle, though, to be insufferable, at least online.
the Beatles somewhat exist in their own sphere, often to the detriment of thinking about them seriously as part of the rock scene. About 10 years ago, there was something of a trend to consider them as "just another rock band, but the best" (this was around when Revolver began taking over from Sgt. Pepper as most often cited best album), but now--thanks to the i-Tunes thing? the Cirque du Soleil? I don't know--they seemed to have regained their mystique.
I realize I'm speaking very vaguely... I don't have sources at hand.
as for the Stones, they may have done too good a job of signaling where their music came from, so would-be students of their music are likely to keep on going to their sources in American black music, where the story is simply more interesting.
I think a broader study of the cross-cultural influence of American black music on Britain would be useful--it's something that now seems so obvious but actually needs explanation--but this would encompass Cyril Davies, Clapton, and all those guys. You know, the handful of white players the Stones actually seem to respect, from back in the day.
one might also study the reception of the Stones in different areas. The Stones' normalization as a virtually "American band" in the eyes of many US fans would be baffling if the group didn't seem to court it, especially recently, what with the sell-outs to the NFL and the hyping of their connection to NYC and Madison Sq. Garden. And the surge in popularity in S. America (at least I think there's been a surge) in the '90s is something I never got.
but their music itself seems pretty well understood. The really extraordinary thing to a non-fan would probably be to track jagger's performances, as an icon of pop culture. There might be something there from an almost art history perspective.
looking elsewhere, I think dylan's writing really does justify the ink spilled on it, and no one else in rock is really close. The Velvet Underground and Lou Reed are near the same league as artists, and they might also be relevant to the art history discussion, with the Warhol connection. I've found the fans who are drawn to the VU from that angle, though, to be insufferable, at least online.
Re: The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
cc
()
Date: December 7, 2010 21:03
Quote
with sssoul
i teach a course on the history of rock & roll (in the broad sense of the term).
the Stones occupy about 35% of it, and the rest is the Stones' roots and other influences
fascinating!... Care to share the syllabus (if it's in English)?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-08 19:01 by cc.
Re: Why no "scholarship" around the Rolling Stones...?
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: December 7, 2010 21:05
>> Keith said: Rock'n'Roll is music from the WAIST down. <<
yes he did, and the man knows what he's talking about :E
>> I can imagine I would have a lot of fun attending your class <<
i reckon you would! you're welcome, next time you're in town
yes he did, and the man knows what he's talking about :E
>> I can imagine I would have a lot of fun attending your class <<
i reckon you would! you're welcome, next time you're in town
Re: Why no "scholarship" around the Rolling Stones...?
Posted by:
doubledoor
()
Date: December 7, 2010 21:36
Like good food or beautiful women, the Stones are best to be enjoyed rather than dissected and analysed. The left side of my brain enjoys history science and philosphy, but I'll leave the Stones to my right side so I can intuitively enjoy them as a whole rather than rationally explore their parts. Their cultural impact (together with the Beatles and other peers) would be somewhat interesting, and I would have loved StonesTod class on Dylan as he is indeed a poet of genius in my book.
Re: Why no "scholarship" around the Rolling Stones...?
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: December 7, 2010 21:43
Quote
doubledoor
Like good food or beautiful women, the Stones are best to be enjoyed rather than dissected and analysed. .
so you're taking a bold stance against dissection of beautiful women, now?
Re: Why no "scholarship" around the Rolling Stones...?
Posted by:
cc
()
Date: December 7, 2010 21:47
Quote
doubledoor
Like good food or beautiful women, the Stones are best to be enjoyed rather than dissected and analysed. The left side of my brain enjoys history science and philosphy, but I'll leave the Stones to my right side so I can intuitively enjoy them as a whole rather than rationally explore their parts. Their cultural impact (together with the Beatles and other peers) would be somewhat interesting, and I would have loved StonesTod class on Dylan as he is indeed a poet of genius in my book.
probably, most of us feel the same way--I sure do--but the fact is that academic studies are made of popular music, and swiss wondered why the Stones are underrepresented there (kind of an assertion, really; I'm not sure it's true). Whether we think that academic work on any pop music should be happening is kind of beside the point of the original post.
Re: Why no "scholarship" around the Rolling Stones...?
Posted by:
Claire_M
()
Date: December 7, 2010 21:54
Quote
DandelionPowderman
He said that the Stones' main force was to make the sound come across very crisp and detailed, and at the same time play at low decibels.
This is a lost art today I'm afraid.
Swiss, this is a great topic, and very surprising. I would have thought for sure there are many books analyzing the Stones' songwriting, music and sound. But searching through Amazon.com, one finds a deluge of books about the decadent scene around the band in the 60's and 70's, but precious little on their achievements as musicians. Led Zeppelin has a similar problem, IMO. There is a small industry of books focusing on the band's (admittedly impressive) sex, drugs 'n mayhem lifestyle, but not a lot of non-biographical works that examine the music. Perhaps publishers reject such books for being academic and not commercial enough? And yet, there are serious books on the Beatles and Brian Wilson as musicians.
Re: Why no "scholarship" around the Rolling Stones...?
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: December 7, 2010 21:56
>> auf Englisch <<
er ... cc honey ... wrong language in more ways than one!
but the syllabus goes: Lesson One is the Delta Blues, and we rampage on from there, and it rocks
er ... cc honey ... wrong language in more ways than one!
but the syllabus goes: Lesson One is the Delta Blues, and we rampage on from there, and it rocks
Re: Why no "scholarship" around the Rolling Stones...?
Posted by:
duke richardson
()
Date: December 7, 2010 21:58
I thought this board was the place for scholarship. there are a lot of Stones historians here.
Re: The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
ChrisM
()
Date: December 7, 2010 22:03
So, du bist eine Leherin Fraulein Soul? I would love to see a detailed syllabus of your course!Quote
with sssoul
i teach a course on the history of rock & roll (in the broad sense of the term).
the Stones occupy about 35% of it, and the rest is the Stones' roots and other influences
Re: Why no "scholarship" around the Rolling Stones...?
Posted by:
cc
()
Date: December 7, 2010 22:17
Quote
with sssoul
but the syllabus goes: Lesson One is the Delta Blues, and we rampage on from there, and it rocks
course sounds terrific, though--I think I once took a similar one, courtesy of the Stones... actually, I'm still on it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-08 19:00 by cc.
Re: The Rolling Stones
Posted by:
cc
()
Date: December 7, 2010 22:22
x
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-08 18:59 by cc.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-08 18:59 by cc.
Re: Why no "scholarship" around the Rolling Stones...?
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: December 7, 2010 22:23
>> du bist eine Leherin Fraulein Soul <<
yikes, look what you've done, cc!
people talkin to me in languages i don't know ... do something!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-07 22:46 by with sssoul.
yikes, look what you've done, cc!
people talkin to me in languages i don't know ... do something!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-07 22:46 by with sssoul.
Re: Why no "scholarship" around the Rolling Stones...?
Posted by:
cc
()
Date: December 7, 2010 22:38
x
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-08 18:59 by cc.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-08 18:59 by cc.
Re: Why no "scholarship" around the Rolling Stones...?
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: December 7, 2010 22:49
well some tongues i can do myself, thank you!
it's just: Polish isn't German, and vice versa
(and the course isn't in either of the above)
but what did ChrisM say, anyway? and then back to thread, i hope!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-07 22:50 by with sssoul.
it's just: Polish isn't German, and vice versa
(and the course isn't in either of the above)
but what did ChrisM say, anyway? and then back to thread, i hope!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-07 22:50 by with sssoul.
Re: Why no "scholarship" around the Rolling Stones...?
Posted by:
rbarnes00
()
Date: December 8, 2010 02:32
As a Spanish language and literature major in college, I frequently read language and linguistics journals. I do remember coming across a journal article about the Stones' use of African-American slang in their lyrics...I seem to remember "Monkey Man" being cited. I don't remember any bibliographical information - I have been trying to locate the article since I found it the first time.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Andrew , BeastyBurdeny , big4 , blackadder , ChrisL , daniel t , Irix , JMoisica , mako1964 , NilsHolgersson , philrock90 , Sir Mick , spunky , steady , stoneslib , StonyRoad , TumblinDice76 , werner67976
Guests:
1932
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10