smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | Stewart Mason <flamingo@theworld.com> |
| Subject | Re: Sticky Fingers |
| Date | Sat, 12 Apr 2003 00:48:31 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain us-ascii (1.5 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
At 06:52 PM 4/11/2003 -0400, Josh Chasin wrote:
>From: "Stewart Mason" <flamingo@theworld.com>
>> I think of the '65-'67 Stones as being the Real Deal. Revisionist history
>> has done the Stones no favors -- everyone acts like they were these
>> degenerate rock and roll badasses who spent all their time pissing against
>> garages and sucking Mars bars out of Marianne Faithfull, but in the
>> mid-'60s, they were doing the same kind of pop-art exploration as the
>> Beatles, the Kinks, the Who and all the other most worthwhile groups of
>the
>> era. It's hard for me to see the '68-'72 era, no matter how much I like
>> those records, as anything but artistic calcification. "This is what our
>> image demands we do. This is what we shall do, with diminishing returns,
>> for the rest of our lives."
>
>To me-- and clearly this is all subjective-- those Stones records all sound
>dated. 60s Stones conjures for me an image of Brian Jones in a funny hat
>playing a sitar. I'll take "Moonlight Mile" over Nineteenth Nervous
>Breakdown" any day of the week. Of course, maybe you had to be there...
I dunno, I wasn't there either, and the Stones I *was* there for -- the
first Stones song I remember on the radio was "Angie," which came out when
I was about four, and I think the last album I actually heard at least part
way through was STEEL WHEELS -- is exactly the stuff that I largely can't
stomach.
S
NP: "I'm Downright Amazed At What I Can Destroy With Just A Hammer" -- Atom
and His Package
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.