Quote
ash

Quote
Blueranger
The Stones were simply not prepared enough to write great tunes before at least mid/late 1965. I know there are a few exceptions: Tell Me, Heart Of Stone, Play With Fire, but for every decent original tune they did in the first two years, we got loads of cover-versions or re-worked blues songs to fill out the lack of original material.

As a live-act it was another story, though...

by and large I agree except Tell Me is awful. The real break through for Mick and Keith was The Last Time even though they sort of nicked it. It's a fantastic record and a fantastic Stones record - it's got the lot (except a middle 8 but it doesn't need one). After that, apart from the written under pressure fillers they've got their act sorted out. Come 1968 they're absolutely on it on a regular basis.

video: [www.youtube.com]

Awesome.

Quote
Come On
TELL ME

Doxa, I can't take this reducing "Tell Me" to be one other ballad of yours. I must read your posts in this thread later on. "Tell Me" has got flavours and feeling of the original R&B Rolling Stones from the band's first phase, that, whatever song structure it may have, still makes it belonging to R&B and always one of the band's five best songs in a way no other Stones songs can compete with, even if, interchangingbly for any other of those other, four other songs possibly can be as good or even better. This is, of course, a fundamental Rolling Stones fan statement from someone with his outspring in the early era.

Because of all this, as already stated, I must wait to read your posts in this thread to a later occasion. However,where I have kept silence, I must declare in the passion of my very good Chateauneuf-du-Pape wine tonight , all this is provoking, surpassing any level.

Quote
Turner68
I think that as stones fans we don't need to be so defensive, which is one reason I wrote about the Beatles - we can give credit where credit is due rather than dismissing the Beatles as pop or fluff (hairball I also don't get the argument about timing - sounds like a big and little sibling fighting).

I don't think either the Stones fans should be defensive, and if this remark is directed to my direction, I don't see myself doing anything such. A far I am concerned, it is exactly giving the credit where credit is due - in this instance trying to explicate the unique style - and difficulties - of Stones songcraft in compared to The Beatles one. By "Satisfaction" The Stones had shown that they can craft individual songs that are equal in effectiveness to yhe Beatles ones (and as far as "Satisfaction" counts, probably even topping The Beatles for a moment). But of course, as far as originality go, that is chicken shit compared to what John and Paul were able to do by then (and they were around that time when "Satisfaction" hit the charts really starting taking huge steps in evolving their craft to new artistic dimensions). If "Satisfaction" and "The last Time" were results of some lucky accidents, in which every star in the sky seemed to be in right place, Mick and Keith couldn't sit like John and Paul did to write incredible songs one after another. The Beatle guys' genious seemed to base more on real writing skills than to accidental lucky intuition. Or let's say, if more 'traditional', melody-based songs go, for every "As Tears Go By" there probably were some 20 Lennon-McCartney originals to be compared in quality. It was not only the level of quantity in Lennon/MCartney output taht was outstanding - even more outstanding was the level of high quality in there.

Even though I personally like more Jagger/Richards songs than Lennon/MCartney ones - as also The Stones as a band simply just moves me more, and I have never considered myself as any big Beatles fan - I can frankly say that Mick and Keith never achieved that level in which John and Paul were working. Nor they would be any Bob Dylan either. To get Mick and Keith's real 'genious' one needs to have a certain kind of idiosyncratic, probably even 'cultivated' taste (I tried somehow to describe that kind of tendency in my earlier posts), but I think (almost) anyone can recognize the genious in John and Paul's stuff. That's why it was so popular back then and its charm hasn't fade away one bit. John and Paul's - and their band's - pure musicality and talent - going beyond any genre limits - was in a sphere of its own. I think only Bob Dylan - "The Picasso of the Song" - can be with a justification compared to them. Occasionally Mick and Keith - or whoever did that - were able to write stuff by their own means that was as good or even better than theirs (to achieve a sort of universal recognation of that), but they were not able to maintain such a consistant touch of brilliance of The Beatle guys or Dylan. I simply think they were too limited talentwise for that (still, we can say that Keith have written the best guitar riffs ever, or the Stones some of the best rock songs ever).

So comparing Mick and Keith as songwriters to Paul and John - or The Stones as a band to The Beatles - would be like comparing Keith Richards as a guitarist to Jimi Hendrix. One can prefer Keith's idiosyncratic style, in which he is a master, but no one can really speak in the same sentence of him with Hendrix. Jimi belongs altogether to another galaxy in talent, skills, creativity and influence. The relativist talk of 'being different' - apples and oranges - is just bullshit, or just tries desperatively justify one's personal preferences. The real musical talent goes beyond stylistic or genre boundaries, and can be recognized an sich. It is because of talent of giants like like that, the whole rock music was able to arise to an artistically respectable form of art. John and Paul exploded the boundaries of a pop song writing possibilities, as Dylan exploded the lyrical content and Hendrix of what can do with a guitar. THe Stones were there also for sure, adding their contribution, but I wouldn't quite class them into that level as far as originality, musical talent, creativity, and pure genious go.

So this was not to belittle Mick and Keith's talant or their incredible legacy - just to put things into perspective. Besides, the Stones is the greatest rock and roll band in the world...

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-12-12 23:12 by Doxa.

+1 Doxa

Quote
Doxa
John and Paul exploded the boundaries of a pop song writing possibilities, as Dylan exploded the lyrical content and Hendrix of what can do[be done] with a guitar.

- Doxa

That is indeed well put and I agree with your comments about the Beatles. The Stones may not compete within those contexts but as a band they have set the mark and defined boundaries in many other ways. Their sheer longevity and creating a brand, a business model and live show standard certainly cannot be over looked. Their true innovations may actually be less about the music and more about the presentation of the music.

And one could say the stones is really travelling jazz group or circus or actors with new versions of songs and the members themselves. Their reputation part of the act.

A difference is perhaps that the Stones tried to repeat themselves or, too the untrained ear, sounds the same. They're conservative. The Beatles never sounded the same, every song is unique and they even made ironic references to earlier work.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
And one could say the stones is really travelling jazz group or circus or actors with new versions of songs and the members themselves. Their reputation part of the act.

kind of like the harlem globetrotters but for music?

it's funny you mention this way of thinking about them, i was having similar thoughts recently, i imagined one day Mick and Keith auctioning off the licensing rights to "The Rolling Stone" to a young group of british blues musicians and so on and so on, so that 100s of years from now there is still a "Rolling Stones" tour going on.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-12-21 17:38 by Turner68.

Yeah why not. They have to exist.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Redhotcarpet
And one could say the stones is really travelling jazz group or circus or actors with new versions of songs and the members themselves. Their reputation part of the act.

kind of like the harlem globetrotters but for music?

it's funny you mention this way of thinking about them, i was having similar thoughts recently, i imagined one day Mick and Keith auctioning off the licensing rights to "The Rolling Stone" to a young group of british blues musicians and so on and so on, so that 100s of years from now there is still a "Rolling Stones" tour going on.

I think Menudo tried that strategy back in the '80's (continuously replacing members), but evidently it didn't work out as planned - where are they now?

Nevermind...best left forgotten.

As for the Stones, there will probably be some form of tribute band ala Beatlemania that will live on in Vegas forever - be it officially licensed or not.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......