Post by Wayne Hall on Aug 28, 2021 5:26:54 GMT -5
Rolling Stones and Beatles
The death of Rolling Stones drummer Charlie Watts seems to have aspects of ending an era and although probably it doesn't end an era (or even end the Rolling Stones: while ever there are Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and Ronnie Wood there will be Rolling Stones) it does serve to revive what was indeed a serious issue (for adolescents) in my adolescence: who are greater, the Beatles or the Rolling Stones? The jury is no longer out. The Stones have won, hands down.
It is not just that they have long outlasted the Beatles (by over fifty years, with Charlie Watts winning first prize in endurance, never having been absent from a single appearance of the Rolling Stones). It is that their internal composition has proved to have elements in it that can make it exemplary for what the world needs, in this time, and in all times. The Stones have an undisputed leader in Jagger and they also have a support team comprising human beings, not yes men, with a camaraderie between them that has lasted and strengthened, not disappeared as that of the Beatles did under the eyes of the cameras and the pressure of female partners. It isn't necessary to cite the example of Charlie Watts punching Jagger in the face and telling him "Never again call me your drummer. You are my singer!" to show that. There is other much other less lurid evidence.
And Jagger's leadership was not of a de facto and self-appointed kind like that of John Lennon. It was the result of obedience to the dictates of a cynical young brat of a marketing man: Andrew Loog Oldham. Oldham decided that Jagger, not Rolling Stones founder Brian Jones, was going to be the front man. Although he cannot be blamed for Brian Jones' drug addiction and death, his decisions can be seen to have played a role in their happening. The question of "who is boss" was imposed, in a pragmatic and authoritarian manner. And that seems to have benefited the Rolling Stones.
There was never a tussle between niceness and nastiness within the group. They were all nasty. Bad boys, of the kind you wouldn't want your daughter to marry or even have anything to do with. So no divide-and-rule John vs Paul Democrat vs Republican Tory vs Labour games were put on the agenda. A nice boy, Mick Taylor, was brought in to replace Brian Jones. A great musician but never really a Rolling Stone and never an influence on the group's bad boy image (perhaps it did exert some influence in the video of Angie). Self-effacing and focused on his playing,he is usually conspicuously different from the grandstanding Jagger and Richards of the 1969-1974 videos (and indeed from the later Ronnie Wood). There are some exceptions to this.
When Mick Taylor decided to leave, his replacement Ronnie Wood fulfilled needs that were not public image needs but real internal needs. (In this he resembled the Stones' incredible pianist Ian Stewart, who was not - however - permitted to be part of the group's public persona). Ronnie Wood showed the others what it was like to be a Rolling Stone: he was the personification of what the group was trying to be: not the showy front man aspect but the collective backing aspect. Not as modest as Charlie Watts, but not trying to upstage Mick Jagger either. Ronnie Wood was made to be what he became.
As for Mick Taylor, the adolescent energy that led him to becoming a virtuoso guitarist must (one speculates) have been activated more by the Beatles than by the Rolling Stones, but fate dictated that his virtuosity would take him not into the Beatles (John Lennon's death was years in the future, as was the death - more pertinently perhaps - of George Harrison) but into a group where he was evidently never able to feel completely at home, and voluntarily left.
The Rolling Stones never got overtly political. There was no "Back in the USSR", but there was no internal revolt over politics either, like the one staged by Ringo over "Back in the USSR". And although Paul McCartney never disowned "Back in the USSR", it sits in his repertoire like a museum piece. If the Beatles were still all alive and playing, they would not be playing "Please Mister Postman. The Rolling Stones do not have to forget anything that they once played, except perhaps on grounds of quality, for they have quite a few poor-quality songs in their discography, along with the gems.
Unlike the Beatles, at least two of whom co-opted their partners into their musical activity when the foursome broke up into separate solo artists, the phallocratic Stones kept their wives and girlfriends out of it.
A common theme in Beatles songs is disappointment /bitterness/sadness at betrayal/abandonment by women. This sometimes reaches extremes of masochism and self-pity (I'm a loser), sometimes reflects postures of self-abnegation (Anna), sometimes is expressed as naked and even sadistic jealousy (You can't do that ) (Run for your life). With maturity the reflex becomes more nuanced and reflective (I'll be back) (a confused song - half way grown-up) and later (Girl). At a certain point in their career they come to express a light variant of Rolling-Stones-style cynicism (Drive my car) but even here there is a benevolence almost entirely absent from the Jagger-Richards stance on life in general and women in particular (Backstreet girl). Even when the Rolling Stones composed songs collectively under the Nanker-Phelge pseudonym (e.g. Little by little) the Beatle-style "complaint-about-women" message was undercut by self-mockery ("Things ain't been the same since my mother died"). But the Stones were capable of the sensitivity of the Beatles at their most mature. The moving song Angie represents an emotional peak in their repertoire.
The Stones have not left a legacy of disgruntled former members with a chip on their shoulder about the way they were treated (Pete Best) or about how being a fill-in Beatle was very bad for the course of their life (drummer Jimmie Nicol: "Standing in for Ringo was the worst thing that ever happened to me. Until then I was quite happy earning £30 or £40 a week. After the headlines died, I began dying too.") Former Rolling Stones who are still alive have often been welcomed back for one-off reunion concerts with the band. And being a member of the Stones has never prevented Ronnie Wood from performing in parallel with numerous other artists, including old buddies (Rod Stewart, Bob Dylan, Eric Clapton). The watchword has been freedom.
The enthusiasm of the crowds in Havana when the Rolling Stones played to them in 2016 was not just a reflection of the fact that they had been banned for so long there. The Stones in 2016 projected a euphoria, joyfulness and friendliness in no way inferior to any human quality the revolution in Cuba might like to claim credit for.
The death of Rolling Stones drummer Charlie Watts seems to have aspects of ending an era and although probably it doesn't end an era (or even end the Rolling Stones: while ever there are Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and Ronnie Wood there will be Rolling Stones) it does serve to revive what was indeed a serious issue (for adolescents) in my adolescence: who are greater, the Beatles or the Rolling Stones? The jury is no longer out. The Stones have won, hands down.
It is not just that they have long outlasted the Beatles (by over fifty years, with Charlie Watts winning first prize in endurance, never having been absent from a single appearance of the Rolling Stones). It is that their internal composition has proved to have elements in it that can make it exemplary for what the world needs, in this time, and in all times. The Stones have an undisputed leader in Jagger and they also have a support team comprising human beings, not yes men, with a camaraderie between them that has lasted and strengthened, not disappeared as that of the Beatles did under the eyes of the cameras and the pressure of female partners. It isn't necessary to cite the example of Charlie Watts punching Jagger in the face and telling him "Never again call me your drummer. You are my singer!" to show that. There is other much other less lurid evidence.
And Jagger's leadership was not of a de facto and self-appointed kind like that of John Lennon. It was the result of obedience to the dictates of a cynical young brat of a marketing man: Andrew Loog Oldham. Oldham decided that Jagger, not Rolling Stones founder Brian Jones, was going to be the front man. Although he cannot be blamed for Brian Jones' drug addiction and death, his decisions can be seen to have played a role in their happening. The question of "who is boss" was imposed, in a pragmatic and authoritarian manner. And that seems to have benefited the Rolling Stones.
There was never a tussle between niceness and nastiness within the group. They were all nasty. Bad boys, of the kind you wouldn't want your daughter to marry or even have anything to do with. So no divide-and-rule John vs Paul Democrat vs Republican Tory vs Labour games were put on the agenda. A nice boy, Mick Taylor, was brought in to replace Brian Jones. A great musician but never really a Rolling Stone and never an influence on the group's bad boy image (perhaps it did exert some influence in the video of Angie). Self-effacing and focused on his playing,he is usually conspicuously different from the grandstanding Jagger and Richards of the 1969-1974 videos (and indeed from the later Ronnie Wood). There are some exceptions to this.
When Mick Taylor decided to leave, his replacement Ronnie Wood fulfilled needs that were not public image needs but real internal needs. (In this he resembled the Stones' incredible pianist Ian Stewart, who was not - however - permitted to be part of the group's public persona). Ronnie Wood showed the others what it was like to be a Rolling Stone: he was the personification of what the group was trying to be: not the showy front man aspect but the collective backing aspect. Not as modest as Charlie Watts, but not trying to upstage Mick Jagger either. Ronnie Wood was made to be what he became.
As for Mick Taylor, the adolescent energy that led him to becoming a virtuoso guitarist must (one speculates) have been activated more by the Beatles than by the Rolling Stones, but fate dictated that his virtuosity would take him not into the Beatles (John Lennon's death was years in the future, as was the death - more pertinently perhaps - of George Harrison) but into a group where he was evidently never able to feel completely at home, and voluntarily left.
The Rolling Stones never got overtly political. There was no "Back in the USSR", but there was no internal revolt over politics either, like the one staged by Ringo over "Back in the USSR". And although Paul McCartney never disowned "Back in the USSR", it sits in his repertoire like a museum piece. If the Beatles were still all alive and playing, they would not be playing "Please Mister Postman. The Rolling Stones do not have to forget anything that they once played, except perhaps on grounds of quality, for they have quite a few poor-quality songs in their discography, along with the gems.
Unlike the Beatles, at least two of whom co-opted their partners into their musical activity when the foursome broke up into separate solo artists, the phallocratic Stones kept their wives and girlfriends out of it.
A common theme in Beatles songs is disappointment /bitterness/sadness at betrayal/abandonment by women. This sometimes reaches extremes of masochism and self-pity (I'm a loser), sometimes reflects postures of self-abnegation (Anna), sometimes is expressed as naked and even sadistic jealousy (You can't do that ) (Run for your life). With maturity the reflex becomes more nuanced and reflective (I'll be back) (a confused song - half way grown-up) and later (Girl). At a certain point in their career they come to express a light variant of Rolling-Stones-style cynicism (Drive my car) but even here there is a benevolence almost entirely absent from the Jagger-Richards stance on life in general and women in particular (Backstreet girl). Even when the Rolling Stones composed songs collectively under the Nanker-Phelge pseudonym (e.g. Little by little) the Beatle-style "complaint-about-women" message was undercut by self-mockery ("Things ain't been the same since my mother died"). But the Stones were capable of the sensitivity of the Beatles at their most mature. The moving song Angie represents an emotional peak in their repertoire.
The Stones have not left a legacy of disgruntled former members with a chip on their shoulder about the way they were treated (Pete Best) or about how being a fill-in Beatle was very bad for the course of their life (drummer Jimmie Nicol: "Standing in for Ringo was the worst thing that ever happened to me. Until then I was quite happy earning £30 or £40 a week. After the headlines died, I began dying too.") Former Rolling Stones who are still alive have often been welcomed back for one-off reunion concerts with the band. And being a member of the Stones has never prevented Ronnie Wood from performing in parallel with numerous other artists, including old buddies (Rod Stewart, Bob Dylan, Eric Clapton). The watchword has been freedom.
The enthusiasm of the crowds in Havana when the Rolling Stones played to them in 2016 was not just a reflection of the fact that they had been banned for so long there. The Stones in 2016 projected a euphoria, joyfulness and friendliness in no way inferior to any human quality the revolution in Cuba might like to claim credit for.