As book reviews go, I have rarely seen a worse one!

[www.theguardian.com]

Ouch!

The Cambridge Companion to the Rolling Stones, edited by Victor Coelho and John Covach, is published by Cambridge University Press (£15.99). To order a copy go to guardianbookshop.com or call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p over £15, online orders only. Phone orders min p&p of £1.99

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-10-01 15:28 by bv.

Oh dear!
The article also suggests that both Mick and Keith went to Grammar Schools.
Which is not the case of course.
Keith went to a Technical High School in Dartford.
This was long before the 'Comprehensive' system of education in the UK was developed.

Quote
jlowe
Oh dear!
The article also suggests that both Mick and Keith went to Grammar Schools.
Which is not the case of course.
Keith went to a Technical High School in Dartford.
This was long before the 'Comprehensive' system of education in the UK was developed.

Indeed.

I was initially confused and read that bit as a reference to a bad mistake in the book being reviewed. It's a major clanger dropped by the reviewer.

So, if an ignoramus says something is really bad, does that really mean that in the real world it's good? ( -1 times -1 equals +1)?

If you look at the review author's profile you'll see why I am certain that the guy is a waste of time.

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

Are you saying the reviewer is an idiot? And that the book is good?
Or that both are no good?

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Are you saying the reviewer is an idiot? And that the book is good?
Or that both are no good?

Apologies. It's a hard point to make, and I guess I failed.

Because the reviewer's profile shows him to be a fool, I was trying to make a point - slightly philosophically - about whether or not something deemed by a fool to be dreadful would in fact be dreadful.

If someone is demonstrably an idiot, should we trust their judgement?

I guess the only way to know would be to get the book, read it, and then see how (if) it maps against the idiot's review.

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

Came across this. No idea if posted before.

[www.wbur.org]

Really good.

The excerpt cites Brian Jones' death "in 1968."


I see a lot of sloppy editing in books these days. When dates are cited they should be fact-checked.

" A Scholarly Approach To The Rolling Stones"?

Well that's only ever going to be bollocks then

Good read.

I too have been introduced to certain types of music, reggae for example, by The Rolling Stones.

i still think a really well-researched biography of Ian Stewart would be a great addition to Stones lit..

Quote
duke richardson
i still think a really well-researched biography of Ian Stewart would be a great addition to Stones lit..

It's not exactly a biography, but there is this amazing (and costly) book with the title "Stu". Maybe a "paperback" version for the ordinary Stones fan would be nice.

Quote
georgie48

Quote
duke richardson
i still think a really well-researched biography of Ian Stewart would be a great addition to Stones lit..

It's not exactly a biography, but there is this amazing (and costly) book with the title "Stu". Maybe a "paperback" version for the ordinary Stones fan would be nice.

Can you post a link? I can't find it on Amazon.
thanks

Can you post a link? I can't find it on Amazon.

Wont find STU there …. only a thousand printed …..
Nine hundred and fifty of those for public sale …..

Expensive but such a beautiful leather bound book .. even to hold ...



ROCKMAN

There is something not quite...organic, when saying "scholarly approach to the Stones". On the one hand I am always glad to see them recognized and celebrated. But teaching them in school? Or analyzing their songs on a cerebral level?

It's like when Lennon heard about them discussing some Mixo Lydian scale or a sophisticated chord change in a Beatles song. And he was like "wtf; we were just writing a little song".

I am probably wrong about that. But I think it doesn't grab me.

edit - And BV, I am not trying to be negative. Just offering my side of scholarship. Be gentle.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-10-31 12:39 by Palace Revolution 2000.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
There is something not quite...organic, when saying "scholarly approach to the Stones". On the one hand I am always glad to see them recognized and celebrated. But teaching them in school? Or analyzing their songs on a cerebral level?

It's like when Lennon heard about them discussing some Mixo Lydian scale or a sophisticated chord change in a Beatles song. And he was like "wtf; we were just writing a little song".

I am probably wrong about that. But I think it doesn't grab me.

edit - And BV, I am not trying to be negative. Just offering my side of scholarship. Be gentle.

I understand your point of view, but PR2000, you can't get around the fact that the band (among other famous bands of course) have (had) quite an impact on the emotions of millions of people around the world. Music, in whatever form, is highly essential for the well-being of people, so it can't hurt to teach younger generations about it.
I don't see a difference between being taught about the likes of Ludwig van Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, or Miles Davis, Ella Fitzgerald, or the Rolling Stones (just to name a few greats). But having said that, it is very difficult to teach about it in the right context (economic and political changes, wars, natural disasters, etc.), because music is not a "stand alone" phenominon. The human race can't progress without a thorough knowledge of the past and music is part of it.
For me, I'm too old to be taught much more so ... I just enjoy it.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
There is something not quite...organic, when saying "scholarly approach to the Stones". On the one hand I am always glad to see them recognized and celebrated. But teaching them in school? Or analyzing their songs on a cerebral level?

It's like when Lennon heard about them discussing some Mixo Lydian scale or a sophisticated chord change in a Beatles song. And he was like "wtf; we were just writing a little song".

I am probably wrong about that. But I think it doesn't grab me.

But it will grab someone, some people, in this kind of way, so... it's not your bag, I get it - I started playing piano when I was 5 (which involved reading music), then learned various other instruments (other than trumpet, everything was by ear) and in college took music theory and FAILED!

Perhaps you just need to look at it from another angle - say, a record review. A record review is a cerebral reaction - and they are steered, like storms, by the wind of the context (bad albums bring on funny reviews, good albums bring on serious reviews etc).

How do you think Hunter S Thompson took the Stones? Ha ha.

Maybe you're lumping "cerebral" into something being bad... or lame, when actually, it's probably very stimulating.

When you bring scholars into it, yes, you can get some pretentious nonsense spouted, but despite that risk, I'd welcome some serious analysis of what the Stones did.
I believe that when Mick and Keith came off the road in 1966, they very deliberately (and very ruthlesslly) created their sound and created their image. It was definitely art.
And later, like the article states, they have spent the past 30 years curating and preserving themselves.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
There is something not quite...organic, when saying "scholarly approach to the Stones". On the one hand I am always glad to see them recognized and celebrated. But teaching them in school? Or analyzing their songs on a cerebral level?

It's like when Lennon heard about them discussing some Mixo Lydian scale or a sophisticated chord change in a Beatles song. And he was like "wtf; we were just writing a little song".

I am probably wrong about that. But I think it doesn't grab me.

But it will grab someone, some people, in this kind of way, so... it's not your bag, I get it - I started playing piano when I was 5 (which involved reading music), then learned various other instruments (other than trumpet, everything was by ear) and in college took music theory and FAILED!

Perhaps you just need to look at it from another angle - say, a record review. A record review is a cerebral reaction - and they are steered, like storms, by the wind of the context (bad albums bring on funny reviews, good albums bring on serious reviews etc).

How do you think Hunter S Thompson took the Stones? Ha ha.

Maybe you're lumping "cerebral" into something being bad... or lame, when actually, it's probably very stimulating.

Yeah, I hear what you're saying (and georgie48 too). It's not a logical reaction I have; it';s a knee jerk thing. I think I just get jealous, or possessive. Because I know what the Stones have been for me when I was on the street, and then I think "What? Now the suits are going to move in on this too?"

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
There is something not quite...organic, when saying "scholarly approach to the Stones". On the one hand I am always glad to see them recognized and celebrated. But teaching them in school? Or analyzing their songs on a cerebral level?

It's like when Lennon heard about them discussing some Mixo Lydian scale or a sophisticated chord change in a Beatles song. And he was like "wtf; we were just writing a little song".

I am probably wrong about that. But I think it doesn't grab me.

But it will grab someone, some people, in this kind of way, so... it's not your bag, I get it - I started playing piano when I was 5 (which involved reading music), then learned various other instruments (other than trumpet, everything was by ear) and in college took music theory and FAILED!

Perhaps you just need to look at it from another angle - say, a record review. A record review is a cerebral reaction - and they are steered, like storms, by the wind of the context (bad albums bring on funny reviews, good albums bring on serious reviews etc).

How do you think Hunter S Thompson took the Stones? Ha ha.

Maybe you're lumping "cerebral" into something being bad... or lame, when actually, it's probably very stimulating.

Yeah, I hear what you're saying (and georgie48 too). It's not a logical reaction I have; it';s a knee jerk thing. I think I just get jealous, or possessive. Because I know what the Stones have been for me when I was on the street, and then I think "What? Now the suits are going to move in on this too?"

Ha ha - the suits moved in on the Stones eons ago. It started with Jovan...

More like beards, sandals, Cardigans and pipes!

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
There is something not quite...organic, when saying "scholarly approach to the Stones". On the one hand I am always glad to see them recognized and celebrated. But teaching them in school? Or analyzing their songs on a cerebral level?

It's like when Lennon heard about them discussing some Mixo Lydian scale or a sophisticated chord change in a Beatles song. And he was like "wtf; we were just writing a little song".

I am probably wrong about that. But I think it doesn't grab me.

But it will grab someone, some people, in this kind of way, so... it's not your bag, I get it - I started playing piano when I was 5 (which involved reading music), then learned various other instruments (other than trumpet, everything was by ear) and in college took music theory and FAILED!

Perhaps you just need to look at it from another angle - say, a record review. A record review is a cerebral reaction - and they are steered, like storms, by the wind of the context (bad albums bring on funny reviews, good albums bring on serious reviews etc).

How do you think Hunter S Thompson took the Stones? Ha ha.

Maybe you're lumping "cerebral" into something being bad... or lame, when actually, it's probably very stimulating.

Yeah, I hear what you're saying (and georgie48 too). It's not a logical reaction I have; it';s a knee jerk thing. I think I just get jealous, or possessive. Because I know what the Stones have been for me when I was on the street, and then I think "What? Now the suits are going to move in on this too?"

Ha ha - the suits moved in on the Stones eons ago. It started with Jovan...

More like beards, sandals, Cardigans and pipes!

Really;
...but on a more interesting note: you play trumpet?

Does anyone know anything about this book and is it any good?

[www.amazon.co.uk]

Some info here: [iorr.org]

Ok, thanks. Didn't find that one. This topic can close now.

Can anyone provide specifics about this book? What exactly is being discussed? Is it a review of albums, songs, performances or an attempt at a biography of the band? Not really looking forward to another history lesson but if it's interesting critique I might look into it.

Anyone?

This is a minefield for me. The last time I had an opinion about a Stones book I was expelled from the forum for six months.
So, I'm not going to have an opinion about this one. Whether I have read it or not. I assume it's good, like they all are?