Quote
Turner68
longbeach - i think a lot of genuine blues fanatics were created as well.

dandelion - naturally we will never know. i tend to think that cream (no pun with the band intended!) always rises to the top, and so it was inevitable for blues to get the recognition.

however, i'm not sure it's a good idea to turn the question around in the way you suggest - because in the hypothetical you cite, there would have been no stones at all ... as things turned out, the blues helped the stones and the stones helped the bluesmen, everyone benefitted. a great story really.

Quote
Green Lady
I can't answer for the reaction of black musicians, but from the British point of view it's clear that turning the US back on to the blues was never the original intention. I'm not sure that before they visited the States the Stones were aware of how neglected the blues artists were in their homeland, or of the extent of the racial divide, both social and musical, in the US. The target audience was a British one, and the loving imitations of their favourite songs were not done with the idea that the original artists would ever be listening to them, or that Mick's American accent would ever need to pass muster in New York or Detroit. It was certainly convincing enough to annoy lots of the older generation in England.

It's probably hard for Americans to realise the extent to which the race of their idols wasn't an issue for the 1963 band (except as something to envy) or how much of a culture shock that first US visit was for them. I doubt, for instance, that saying a black man was painting a ceiling would ever have occurred to Keith in those days as being racially insulting.

Quote
camper88
Longbeach,

Don't worry about the tone or criticism of any responses. Everyone means well, and may not be putting their comments in a clearly congenial context. But they do mean well.

Another thing to look at is Keith's most recent documentary: Under the Influence. The film makes the very good point that that Stones were outsiders when they first came to the States who were not exactly embraced by white culture on their first tour. However, they did get on well with black artists and their fans, they had no overt prejudices, and they connected with many black communities before they connected with white communities.

At the same time, the Stones brought attention to blues artists that they had never received in their own country, and they were grateful for the appreciation that otherwise may not have come. Check particularly, the point in Under the Influence where Howlin' Wolf performs on television. That only happens because Jagger et al. demanded it. NBC wasn't looking to put the Wolf on television.

As for the voicing or phrasing, Mick's a magpie who will sound like the musical influences he's channeling, whether that's country, blues or funk. So yeah, he sounds black when he's covering Sol Burke, but he sounds whiter than soda crackers when he's driving home early Sunday morning through Bakersfield.

Camper

Quote
Turner68
Good post Camper.

I think that in the music world there have always been fewer barriers between communities spiritually (although sadly of course with segregation there were also actual physical barriers in the south). Yes, there are some sad counterexamples. But even someone from an early generation and from the states like Sinatra did things to bring together different communities.

I think the tribe of musicians is much more color blind and has been than the rest of society.

Also, Longbeach, I don't think Keith's comments on rap had anything to do with race, and I think his track record gives him the right to say harsh things about a type of music without race coming into it. Indeed, I feel that rap music traditionally is positioned to explicitly reject anyone's sympathy or "support". While the blues are known in part for the theme of lamenting life's trouble and how little can be done (of course many exceptions), rap music is explicitly going in a different direction - i'm in charge, i'm undefeated, no one can stop me. The fact that Keith doesn't see this because he doesn't like the fact that they don't play their own instruments or sing doesn't make me think less of Keith or of rap. Like I've said before, it's more a case of the time-honored divide between generations and their musical tastes.

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
Turner68
Good post Camper.

I think that in the music world there have always been fewer barriers between communities spiritually (although sadly of course with segregation there were also actual physical barriers in the south). Yes, there are some sad counterexamples. But even someone from an early generation and from the states like Sinatra did things to bring together different communities.

I think the tribe of musicians is much more color blind and has been than the rest of society.

Also, Longbeach, I don't think Keith's comments on rap had anything to do with race, and I think his track record gives him the right to say harsh things about a type of music without race coming into it. Indeed, I feel that rap music traditionally is positioned to explicitly reject anyone's sympathy or "support". While the blues are known in part for the theme of lamenting life's trouble and how little can be done (of course many exceptions), rap music is explicitly going in a different direction - i'm in charge, i'm undefeated, no one can stop me. The fact that Keith doesn't see this because he doesn't like the fact that they don't play their own instruments or sing doesn't make me think less of Keith or of rap. Like I've said before, it's more a case of the time-honored divide between generations and their musical tastes.

I agree, Turner. I don't think Keith doesn't like rap because most of its practitioners are black. If I suggested that, then I was wrong. The connection for me is the following: Keith was a strong proponent of "underdog" black music in the past; he now dismisses the most important once-underground now-mainstream black music of the last 3 decades. Just seemed ironic to me. I know it's because he didn't like the music, not the color of the skin of most hip hop artists.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
Turner68
Good post Camper.

I think that in the music world there have always been fewer barriers between communities spiritually (although sadly of course with segregation there were also actual physical barriers in the south). Yes, there are some sad counterexamples. But even someone from an early generation and from the states like Sinatra did things to bring together different communities.

I think the tribe of musicians is much more color blind and has been than the rest of society.

Also, Longbeach, I don't think Keith's comments on rap had anything to do with race, and I think his track record gives him the right to say harsh things about a type of music without race coming into it. Indeed, I feel that rap music traditionally is positioned to explicitly reject anyone's sympathy or "support". While the blues are known in part for the theme of lamenting life's trouble and how little can be done (of course many exceptions), rap music is explicitly going in a different direction - i'm in charge, i'm undefeated, no one can stop me. The fact that Keith doesn't see this because he doesn't like the fact that they don't play their own instruments or sing doesn't make me think less of Keith or of rap. Like I've said before, it's more a case of the time-honored divide between generations and their musical tastes.

I agree, Turner. I don't think Keith doesn't like rap because most of its practitioners are black. If I suggested that, then I was wrong. The connection for me is the following: Keith was a strong proponent of "underdog" black music in the past; he now dismisses the most important once-underground now-mainstream black music of the last 3 decades. Just seemed ironic to me. I know it's because he didn't like the music, not the color of the skin of most hip hop artists.

i choose to take it as a sign of progress that a genre of music doesn't need the support of people like keith just because it's dominated by black people! the charts say it all.

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
camper88
The film makes the very good point that that Stones were outsiders when they first came to the States who were not exactly embraced by white culture on their first tour.

Camper

I'm not sure about your point bolded above. . . .But there was also a "regional" factor at work: the band were beloved, even on the early tours, by white kids in NYC and LA and a looked at a little more quizzically by white folks in more rural areas.

Quote
camper88

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
camper88
The film makes the very good point that that Stones were outsiders when they first came to the States who were not exactly embraced by white culture on their first tour.

Camper

I'm not sure about your point bolded above. . . .But there was also a "regional" factor at work: the band were beloved, even on the early tours, by white kids in NYC and LA and a looked at a little more quizzically by white folks in more rural areas.

You're right on the regional distinction. That's very important to contextualize and that's really what I was thinking about. When they went into the south they found prejudice against them and against black Americans that helped build connections rather than distance.

In the new documentary, Keith makes mention of his discovery that there were two washrooms: one for whites and one blacks while at the same time indicating that the Stones were (often) looked on as not fitting in with white culture in the south.

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
camper88

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
camper88
The film makes the very good point that that Stones were outsiders when they first came to the States who were not exactly embraced by white culture on their first tour.

Camper

I'm not sure about your point bolded above. . . .But there was also a "regional" factor at work: the band were beloved, even on the early tours, by white kids in NYC and LA and a looked at a little more quizzically by white folks in more rural areas.

You're right on the regional distinction. That's very important to contextualize and that's really what I was thinking about. When they went into the south they found prejudice against them and against black Americans that helped build connections rather than distance.

In the new documentary, Keith makes mention of his discovery that there were two washrooms: one for whites and one blacks while at the same time indicating that the Stones were (often) looked on as not fitting in with white culture in the south.

Good point, camper, I remember that from the doc. You know, the other thing I find interesting is that it's not so simple to think of America as having the race problem that shocked The Stones and Britain being this racially enlightened enclave on the other side of the Atlantic. I'm no expert on this, but I do know that there were some nasty race riots in Notting Hill in '58 and Brixton in '81. Admittedly, the UK didn't have the relatively recent legacy of slavery like we did here in the U.S., but it does seem that guys like Mick and Keith couldn't have been unaware of racial tension. Maybe just the scale and background of it in the southern states of the U.S. were what struck them.

Quote
LongBeachArena72
Maybe just the scale and background of it in the southern states of the U.S. were what struck them.

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
Naturalust
An interesting question that arises from all this is, was racism so prevalent in American society in the 50's and 60's that we required white artists to play black music to us before we could truly accept it as great stuff? It seems so odd to me but it seems that was exactly the case. And if that was the case were the Stones exploiting that element of racism to make their careers?

I guess you could say they were throwing the music out in the face of racism in order to say look you stupid people this is the real deal, but you could also say there was something wrong in capitalizing on racist values. I don't think the Stones themselves have a racist bone in their bodies but in a larger cultural context, you can almost say that racism made their careers.

I think that's very much true, NL, and I also think it's true that The Stones themselves don't have a racist bone in their bodies. Racism is ridiculously ingrained and pernicious in the U.S.--we still see examples of it every day. But I don't think it was in the calculus of The Stones to think "hey, we've got an oppty here--let's make black music ok for white people!' I think they just dug the music, found it "authentic" (to borrow from another current thread), and wanted to turn people on to it.

In a perfect world, Muddy and Howling Wolf and Bo Diddley and Robert Johnson and many others would have been far wealthier and more celebrated men than they actually were. That's one of the reasons I started this thread: if I were one of those dudes, I can TOTALLY imagine myself being partly pleased by what bands like The Stones were doing, but also partly resentful that it took them to get people to listen to MY music. Just human nature, I think. Again, none of this is the fault of Mick, Keith, and the boys. I just think it's an interesting topic, given the importance of this music to the very existence of this band we love.

I came across a great quote from Mick J the other day, from 1968:

"What's the point in listening to us doing `I'm a King Bee' when you can hear Slim Harpo doing it?"

By this time, of course, The Stones had written TONS of classic songs of their own, some very blues-based, others not so much. And although there might be a bit of false modesty in Mick's words, I think they reflect a spirit of tribute (that also runs through CROSSEYED HEART, for example) toward the music they all fell in love with.

It would be nice, though, to hear the perspective of some black fans of The Stones, or to hear how aware young black people today are of this history and what their attitudes toward it are.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
Naturalust
An interesting question that arises from all this is, was racism so prevalent in American society in the 50's and 60's that we required white artists to play black music to us before we could truly accept it as great stuff? It seems so odd to me but it seems that was exactly the case. And if that was the case were the Stones exploiting that element of racism to make their careers?

I guess you could say they were throwing the music out in the face of racism in order to say look you stupid people this is the real deal, but you could also say there was something wrong in capitalizing on racist values. I don't think the Stones themselves have a racist bone in their bodies but in a larger cultural context, you can almost say that racism made their careers.

I think that's very much true, NL, and I also think it's true that The Stones themselves don't have a racist bone in their bodies. Racism is ridiculously ingrained and pernicious in the U.S.--we still see examples of it every day. But I don't think it was in the calculus of The Stones to think "hey, we've got an oppty here--let's make black music ok for white people!' I think they just dug the music, found it "authentic" (to borrow from another current thread), and wanted to turn people on to it.

In a perfect world, Muddy and Howling Wolf and Bo Diddley and Robert Johnson and many others would have been far wealthier and more celebrated men than they actually were. That's one of the reasons I started this thread: if I were one of those dudes, I can TOTALLY imagine myself being partly pleased by what bands like The Stones were doing, but also partly resentful that it took them to get people to listen to MY music. Just human nature, I think. Again, none of this is the fault of Mick, Keith, and the boys. I just think it's an interesting topic, given the importance of this music to the very existence of this band we love.

I came across a great quote from Mick J the other day, from 1968:

"What's the point in listening to us doing `I'm a King Bee' when you can hear Slim Harpo doing it?"

By this time, of course, The Stones had written TONS of classic songs of their own, some very blues-based, others not so much. And although there might be a bit of false modesty in Mick's words, I think they reflect a spirit of tribute (that also runs through CROSSEYED HEART, for example) toward the music they all fell in love with.

It would be nice, though, to hear the perspective of some black fans of The Stones, or to hear how aware young black people today are of this history and what their attitudes toward it are.

No. It's not that they were making it off the racism, it's that black music was the best music and that's what they mostly wanted to play (there were some white people in there too) - in England, of course, and they played it and... white people in England and then the US liked it.

Let's leave the chemtrail conspiracies somewhere else, please. I don't think the perspective of black Stones fans would provide a 'black' look at it because it's 2015, not 1965. I don't think there'd be an automatic 'you're black so you know' kind of thing. The Stones were heralded by the greats for getting their music back in the public eye.

Wouldn't that give the Stones cause to simply and strictly be a (black blues) cover band?

No. They just loved the music.

Quote
Green Lady
[And they made their decision about what music to play long before they knew how matters stood in the US.