THE ROLLING STONES

 “She just can’t be chained

to a life were nothing’s gained

or nothing’s lost,

at such a cost”  

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 "A"

Main Decada:

60's, 70's 

Main Eras:

Rock & Roll II, Early Sixties (1960-1966)

Psychedelia (1966-1969)

Hard Rock (1968-???)

The Great Transition (1970-1980+)

Key Members:

Mick Jagger, Singer

Keith Richards, Lead Guitar

Brian Jones, Rythm Guitar

Charlie Watts, Drums

Bill Wyman, Bass

Mick Taylor and Ronnie Wood, Rythm Guitar 

​

Canciones Clave: 

​

Satisfaction, Jumping Jack Flash, Paint It Black, Gimme Shelter, Ruby Tuesday, You Can't Always Get What You Want, Wild Horses, Let's Spend The Night Together, Symphathy for the Devil, Let It Bleed, Get Off of my Cloud, She's a Rainbow, Brown Sugar, Angie, Midnight Rambler, It's Only Rock & Roll, Heart of Stone, Honky Tonk Women, Tumblin' Dice, Street Fighting Man, Sister Morphine, As Tears Go By, Under My Thumb, Time is on my Side,  Mother's Little Helper, Stray Cat Blues, We Love You, Lady Jane, Shine a Light, Have You Seen Your Mother Baby, I Miss You, Out of Time, Can't You Hear Me Knocking, 2000  Light Years  From Home, Rocks Off, Beast of Burden, Hang Fire, You Got Me Rocking

 

Ladies and gentlemen: Their Satanic Majesties, The Rolling Stones!

​

​

 

This was the second band I discovered, immediately after the Beatles, and it seems my tastes have a chronological tendency. The truth is that the cassette (original now, yes) I bought in Mexico City blew me away. It was the hits of the London Records years, only songs from the '60s. And so much energy and sound contained in 50 minutes had me drooling for weeks. I still have the tape today, and although I later discovered the post-Jones years, some tremendous songs from the '70s, I'm still struck by the freshness, the riffs, the catchiness, and the originality of the '60s Stones.

​

 

I remember when I heard Jumping Jack Flash, it seemed to me that at the time they recorded it, they must have been the most harmonious, most cohesive band on the face of the earth. Poor naive kid, he didn't know anything about rock. Well, NO! Today I still listen to Jumping Jack Flash and the hairs on the back of my neck stand up, and I still think it's the perfection of a rock band.

​

The Rolling Stones were considered the quintessential antithesis of the Beatles. I don't know if it's true that in the US, people would ask you if you were pro-Beatle or pro-Stone and pigeonhole you based on your answer. The Stones simply drew their influence from a much darker blues and rhythm & blues style than the Beatles' rock & roll, with a more primitive sound (not necessarily worse) or closer to the roots. The good vs. bad phenomenon perhaps comes from another coincidence: when the Beatles were rejected by DECCA and within months had five songs in the top 5 on Billboard, the record label desperately searched for a band they could compete with, and Jagger and company were just passing through the neighborhood.

​

It turns out that more than a natural rivalry, it was a marketing rivalry, accentuated by the natural characteristic of more aggressive music and more provocative lyrics (consciously or unconsciously?). Their music sounds very revolutionary for its time. Today we can listen to their debut album and laugh at the sound, but at the time, it was something no band other than a bar in the suburbs had done. That early music has a strong undertone of dive bar vibes, the smell of whiskey, sweat, and nicotine, and even songs like King Bee and Walking the Dog have a strong sexual connotation, both in the guitar slide and in the lyrics and intonation (not to mention "I Just Want to Make Love to You," whose title alone provoked censorship), something I don't think I found on albums before that.

​

 

If DECCA cast them as bad boys, they don't seem to have been bothered by it at all. On the contrary, they exploited it by making more noise, shouting more, creating more intricate arrangements than any other band, and, not content with that, writing lyrics that any father not only considered dangerous, but practically had to wash the ears of his rebellious children who dared listen to such infernality, which was not the case with the Beatles.

​

Sin embargo los Stones sobrevivieron a esa supuesta rivalidad y crecieron mucho más allá de ella. Digo supuesta porque es de todos sabido que nunca existió. Prueba de ello es que los de Liverpool les regalaron I Wanna Be Your Man a los de Londres; y que en voz de Ringo sonaba muy pero, MUY gris y que los Stones la retoman y la convierten en otra de sus canciones peligrosas y provocativas al grado de llegar preguntarme quién la regalo a quién.

​

And like the Beatles, the Stones didn't stay stuck in two or three rhythms; they dared to explore while setting trends, encompassing an impressive number of genres and styles in both the '60s and '70s. They would later become a dinosaur band, but that's another story. I'm talking about the Rolling Stones up until 1975 because otherwise, I'd have to devalue them a bit.

​

 

The Rolling Stones had a couple of years to make a name for themselves with their rhythm & blues. They had an astonishing transition in a single album, Aftermath (which for me is still tied with Let It Bleed as the band's best), before launching into psychedelic exploration. This transition of just a few months took the Beatles practically two years and three albums, which never ceases to amaze me. From then on, they would metamorphose at least every year, managing to venture into hard rock, a purer blues, Latin rhythms, country, gospel, and later even disco, etc. This, without ever losing (we continued until '75, well, maybe '78) that unmistakable essence that makes any of their songs recognizable.

​

 

The Stones perhaps represented the most violent part of the musical revolution of the '60s. The Animals were also savages on stage (hence their name), but their lyrics never reached that level. Even in those early days, the still-referred-to song "Satisfaction" (we generally ignore its lyrical significance) was a hit, as it was the first song in which, putting on the T-shirt of an entire generation, he shouted with the deepest rage: "I'm not satisfied!" And that was a year before the Vietnam show. And when the Beatles released things like Sexy Sadie or Revolution 9, they would come along, say, "Move out, here I come," and dare to sing Sympathy for the Devil or Honky Tonk Woman.

 

While Dylan, Lennon, and company seemed to be calling young people with their music to seek new horizons and propose a new order, the Stones protested by attacking the old system head-on, criticizing it bluntly and, more accurately, spitting in its face, wanting to bring it down completely. "What a Drag it is Getting Old," they said, although they later conveniently forgot about it. And it's that attitude, in addition to the brilliant pieces of music, the harmonies and melodies, the arrangements, the riffs... all of which have led them to be considered by an overwhelming majority as the second-best rock band of all time... Although I hate those labels, and thank goodness they've never been able to agree on a third.

​

​

Another point in favor of the Rolling Stones, or their creativity, is that they didn't have a George Martin. Of course, there were arrangers, but no one was as instrumental in the musical aspect as the support the Beatles had from their producer. In other words, the creative aspect rested solely on them: Jagger and Richard on the compositions, and Jones on the arrangements (for as long as it lasted). That's why the idea of ​​a close-knit band that came to me when I first heard them has its share of truth. Jagger and Richard were (are) a true symbiosis as composers, and on most of the songs they actually shared pen and authorship, unlike Lennon and McCartney, who only shared legal rights and royalties. To the surprise of many, Keith has a huge library, and even more surprisingly, he seems to have read most of its contents, so the myth that he only made the music is just that: a myth. I think the main weight in the composition falls on him, but Mick also contributes a lot, and a lot of his anger and sarcasm come through.

​

Of course, Jones played the role of arranger that Sir George Martin had with the Beatles. But not only that, he also made an extraordinary partnership with Keith on guitar. Especially in the early days, with the Stones, you could hear two very powerful guitars, sometimes responding to each other, sometimes carrying the rhythm, but not simply providing accompaniment as in many other groups. Brian had a bluesy soul and some riffs that sound dry and desert-like to me, but in a very good way… How can I put it? Jones wasn't a virtuoso, but he gave the songs an aura somewhere between primitive and modern, somewhere between a New Orleans bar and the most revolutionary thing of the moment: glamorous nakedness. It would be unfair not to mention Ian Stewart, keyboardist and unofficial sixth member of the band, and therefore very little known. But very important in the consequences of the sound.

​

Returning to Brian Jones, he was never the brains of the band; that role fell to Keith. Mick was the face, the frontman who commanded attention. Brian was the one who finalized the songs, the one who gave the final touch to that framework designed to give it its essence. He never credited himself as the author of any song, but it can't be denied that the Rolling Stones had three stages, and that the most brilliant was the first, with him on the lines. Just look for a compilation of the band's entire history to see how many songs from the '60s fill the album.

​

 

Around '66, Brian began to take on new sounds. It's impossible for me to hear Paint It Black in the live version from the recent tours. It's a mockery, a rehash of the original without a sitar to give it new dimensions, without a brilliance and darkness at the same time. The mastery of the original is inconceivable without that instrument. Needless to say, it's one of my favorite songs, although, as with the Beatles, to name my favorite song by the band, I'd have to name at least 10.

​

Well, getting back to the topic, from the psychedelic period (1967), which was (the only one) spearheaded by Brian, no song became an anthem, and the compilations only feature the beautiful Ruby Tuesday, the extravagant Dendelion, She's a Rainbow, and Let's Spend the Night Together, which isn't psychedelic by mistake, but is from the era (where, by the way, Ian Sewart shines like never before). However, the three LPs and singles from that year contain authentic gems that have never been appreciated as they should: Mothers' Little Helper (the sitar returns), We Love You, etc.
 

​

In '68, they returned to blues and dry, gritty rock. Jones, already immersed in drugs, began to lose himself musically after the luminary he had once been. What would have happened to the Stones if Brian hadn't died? NOTHING. Nothing that hadn't already happened. Brian drowned in drugs and depression, literally, in their pool (Extra, Extra! They've already accepted it was murder!), after having officially been out of the band for a couple of months and practically a studio musician for a couple of years. Brian couldn't adapt to the changes; they couldn't always play the way he wanted, since changes in music and times required it. True, the most brilliant period musically (in all aspects) was the psychedelic era of '67, but can you imagine if the same trend had continued for ten years? Can you imagine the Stones without Let It Bleed? Nope. One is enough. Of the good stuff, not much. And Brian died, or he was killed.​

​

That's where my favorite Rolling Stone era ends. But now comes my favorite Stone: a young lad much younger than the rest, who led them through the extremely difficult transition from the '60s to the '70s. There are really few bands who could do it. And I don't think any were as successful. Mhhh... Maybe Zeppelin... Okay.

​

 

IIt has to be said: neither Brian Jones nor Keith Richard were guitar virtuosos. One was a very good arranger, and the other was the best riff creator of all time; that's all. Mick Taylor was a virtuoso, and he raised the band's level to an impressive level, providing proficiency on the bass guitar, with enough skill to extend live songs to epic levels à la The Who or Cream. Not only was he very technical, but he also knew how to convey emotion on the guitar. Hence, one of the best live albums of all time is Get Yer Ya Ya's Out.

​

Taylor brought an artistic touch to the band's powerful rock, even more artistic than Brian's baroque style. And it worked, at least for a while. I don't know if the others got fed up with him, or if he didn't like carrying the weight of a band where he was barely allowed to write a song, and where on the last album he was on, It's Only Rock & Roll, a tremendous rift in the old songwriting symbiosis was noticeable. So it was one of two things: either they fired him because he overshadowed them, or he left because he was fed up. I'm more inclined to believe the latter, and that's why I admire him, because not everyone has the balls to tell the Rolling Stones to go to hell; but only they really know what happened.

​

So then Ron Wood came along, and the rest is... a sad and boring story, which I won't tell because it would lower the status of my second-favorite band.

​

Well, I won't tell it, but I'll give my reasons. Of course! The difference with Ronnie Wood isn't just the lack of someone with the real talent to accompany Richard on guitar. Ron has his stuff, but I've never been able to stop seeing him as the Rod Stewart guitarist he once was, and that's not exactly a compliment. I mean, with Rod and the Faces he was great; but with the Stones? The classic guitar duels we were accustomed to went to hell. And he couldn't even play the old songs the same way his predecessors did. But nope, it's not just that. It's not just the gap in the second guitar:

 

The Stones had always been known for imposing a style, or for enhancing one. While they were never creators, like the Beatles, they were the ones who drove the latest trend they embraced. Starting with Black & Blue, but especially starting with Some Girls (which is still a fairly redeemable album), the Rolling Stones abandoned all of this to follow completely commercial trends. I love I Miss You, but my God, it's still a disco song! The Stones doing disco??? Then came the punk wave of the late 70s, and the Rolling Stones started doing punk. Yuck. Nope, that was a huge mistake. Don't even try to listen to it. And of the five albums from the 80s (I keep asking myself, what's a 60s band doing playing in the 80s?), only Tattoo You was halfway passable; the rest can be thrown away without the slightest remorse. From then on, only Vodoo Lounge has any merit, and I even like some songs that seem to return to their roots (No, Love Is Strong isn't one of them). From then on, we can even hear them doing hip hop. What comes next? Are they going to become a boy band? It makes me shudder and nauseous just thinking about it.

 

2. Nope, the Rolling Stones have never been ones to follow established trends. And lyrically, they've also lost a lot of power since '76. No, since '74, but there were still melodies in '76. Jagger (was it really Mick?) had been known for writing incisive lyrics that, when you look at it closely, were very critical of society. of the world, of culture. From '76 onwards (maybe earlier), it lost its touch and fell into vulgarity, into coarseness, it lost its poetry (can you call it that?) and fell into facile insults. Or banal pop. Who can believe a 60-year-old man asking, "Has anyone seen my baby?" On the local radio station, they caricatured him by introducing the song as "Has anyone seen my granddaughter?" The Stones sold out. Period.

​

 

3. The global environment mattered a lot. In the mid-70s, it would have been impossible for the Stones to survive otherwise. True. Rock stopped attacking the system to become part of it. Punk was never a real threat; perhaps Grunge was, although more sociologically than politically. The point is that both Mick and Keith got their heads in a swell more than was permissible for a musical hero of the '60s and ended up more concerned with their image than their music. It's That is, they cared more about magazine covers than the quality of their music. And it was very noticeable. So much so that the old riff master, Keith Richard, was only able to make two memorable riffs from '81 onward: Start Me Up and You Got Me Rocking, and I don't even know if you can call them riffs.

​

4. The Stones had us accustomed to unparalleled albums. Few bands, really few, have managed to make albums where most of the songs are tremendous. Songs that define an era and become immortal (which is not the same as being commercial), and where fillers were mere exceptions. In '76, the rule was reversed. The Stones became what any average band would be: two or three redeemable songs and the rest filler. That, to me, is no merit. Create fame and go to sleep? Nope, better to create fame and die when you must. But anyway, everyone has their reasons.

​

 

5. Finally, and as a conclusion to this post-Taylor diatribe, there are those who say the Rolling Stones are a living legend and that we post-Taylor detractors have never been to a concert. In my case, it's true; I haven't had the opportunity to go to any of the three tours they've presented in Mexico. And I think I'd kill to go to the next one (if it happens). But to you, worshippers of fallen idols, I return the question: Did you go to hear the songs from the last album or did you go to beg for the classics from the '60s and early '70s? Be honest.

​

​

 

For all this, I can't take the entire Stones discography and rank them at the top, just below the Beatles, in the musical rankings of the last half of the 20th century. If I had to, I'd have to classify them as a B or C because they have albums that suck. Honestly, they SUCK. And many great bands have them, and that doesn't make them any less great. It remains for me to say that in their time they were undoubtedly the second greatest, if not the greatest in many ways. And yes, the most daring.

​

​

 

Lineup: Mick Jagger: lead vocals. In the '70s, he took the stage with a guitar, played maracas, a tambourine, and composed lyrics that were devilishly good and prohibitive for their time. Keith Richard: Lead guitar. The greatest riff creator in history, and the guy who, like McCartney with Yesterday, dreamed up Satisfaction and also brought it to life. I don't know if it counts as saying he inspired Johnny Depp to play Jack Sparrow. Maybe not. Bill Wayman: Bass. One of my favorites. As a bassist, I can say he was always sober but precise, managing the beats with that almost vertical bass that makes him unmistakable. Charlie Watts: Drums and rhythms. They say he's the true leader of the band. I couldn't confirm or deny it, but like Bill, he discreetly did what he had to do and with flying colors. Brian Jones: First second guitar (I always wanted to say it!) in the group. He gave it its first personality and psychedelic spirit with the sitar, harpsichord, trumpets and other exotic instruments that occurred to him (just name whatever comes to mind, he played it). Mick Taylor: The master of the requinto, the only one who could command Richard to accompany not with words, but with music. He more than replaced Jones, not only because he elevated the Stones to an artistic guitar level, but because he helped them survive the difficult transition from the 60s to the 70s. Ron Wood: Third second guitar (alsoeeeee) Former guitarist of Rod Stewart, Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack. Need we say more? Ian Stewart: Unofficially, the soul of the Rolling Stones on keyboards. Ladies and gentleman: Their Satanic Majesties, The Rolling Stones!

​

​

By Corvan 

Sep/6/2007