Texasky, on 06 September 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:
Hey, thanks for your insightful post. I always enjoy reading your big picture point of view. You seem to be like an encyclopedia of knowledge and history.
I do feel that the Stones starting back sliding after Brian Jones left the band (and then died). And then re-emerged years later sounding better then ever.
As a female I found the album cover really offensive and no doubt that they saw the worse of females in that groupie/drug world. I know Mick had a difficult divorce from Bianca too. But to write and sing about and put it in records for young kids to listen to really bothered me. Young minds will latch on to anything they think is cool. I just don't understand why the RS had to put it so blatantly into their songs. There is that element of misogyny where females are marginalized.
As for the woman's movement, Mick was already writing and singing these songs in the mid-sixties. I feel Mick was just expressing his personal point of view about females from his own experiences. Maybe Keith was lending him a hand in the joint credit of writing songs was also some of his contribution.
I loved the RS, I bought their albums in the 60's.......and when I go back to listen to those early albums today, they are just as good if not even better. Maybe many of you don't know this but the sides were very concise and drawn back in the 60's about who was a RS fan and who was a Beatle fan. But I loved the Beatles just as much as the RS. I had a romantic heart and the Beatles wrote and sang so many love songs. I don't feel the Beatles ever did a mediocre song.
the stones in the mid '70's were ruthless. their '72 tour was a bigger success then they even expected. so thru '81 they stay entrenched to a formula that worked very well for them commercially & artistically.
I would agree w/ you that they werent socially responsible during that era, esp torwards women, but that wasnt their agenda. mick knew art had shifted from cause & message to who could hold up a sharper mirror to an era who had lost all belief in idealism, whether it be broadly cultural or internally personal.
the stones, like the who & zep, also commercially capitalized on the emergence of the lucrative mega stadium tours. their formula had even more legs then the latter. big was cool as long the shows could roll thru cities like take no prisoner tank brigades.
they geniously struck a brand image balance between their brit invasion fame of the '60's & their rawier, meanier sound & image of the early '70's-mid '70's. jagger impressively upped the stage presence & energy to make the show bigger & even showier, yet they also made sure their image was edgier & more sexually nihilistic.
so if they could project & flaunt keith's open heroin use & exploit mick's coked, in your face, exploiter of women, fame & rock market share strut.... then they were going to do it w/ the pedal to the floor. it was good for business & of all the era's they played in (w/ arguable exception of the '69 tour, though in my mind that was catchup to bands like the doors), it was most reflective of the cutting edge of the Time they played in.
it also helped a lot, that the band was also very tight & produced a lot of consistently good material in the early to mid '70's. their addition of ron wood in this era for ex. fit like a glove.
the music may have been slightly better when jones was onboard, but ive always felt like the stones didnt hit full stride until '72. esp when you consider for them it wasnt just all about music, but also about image, show & power. it just so happens their nakedly arrogant & nihilistic stance in that era also in many ways more mirrored the mid '70's. Certainly imo, moreso then their more idealistic & soulful '60's motif. Mick's, be cool, peace pleas, to the crowd at altamont for ex were almost laughable in his lack of connection, if it wasnt for the chilling fact that people actually died there.
it seems they figured out very quick that by '72 the sixties were long dead & 'FU' exploitation for the sake of, ive got the power & dont care about reprecussions... was truely more reflective of their own stance & as it was, also more reflective of what boomer ethos had become for many at that point. hence, imo, the closest their work reflected art (albeit steely) as oppossed to just good music.
unlike zep & the who, i always felt mick had a more shrewd eye to that changin shift in the culture in the early '70's. as i said earlier, probaly the punkest of the blues based name bands in that regards.
thus in that context, imo, they left the proper treating of woman to guys like cat stevens or james taylor (at least in verse) to sing about. & thats not a slight in my view of guys like taylor or cat, who if you were looking for some level of insight into good will treatin of your fellow human at that particular time, it wasnt a bad place to start. cause, as you pointed out, the stones obviously werent selling that.
Edited by the_manassa_mauler_1919-'26, 10 September 2013 - 01:04 AM.