For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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
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.
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
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
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
Quote
doubledoor
Like good food or beautiful women, the Stones are best to be enjoyed rather than dissected and analysed. .
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.
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.
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
Quote
with sssoul
but the syllabus goes: Lesson One is the Delta Blues, and we rampage on from there, and it rocks