Dotoar

First of all: Regarding any kind of comparisation between european and american musical heritage, I will utilize at least some level of generalization to put forth my point. I would in no way ever consider supposedly 'american' music as being bad or anything, not least because such a statement would be simply untrue, but what I am going to do here, or at least try to do, is to put into words some kind thesis in order to explain (not least to myself) why I tend to gravitate toward certain strains of musical approaches rather than others. For me, such an obvious example is my perpetually dubious stance on the Rolling Stones, so that's where I will begin.

Yeah, let's have some music to go with that, will ya!



Now, well past the initiation of The Beatles and The Who during my teens, I was well determined to continue my quest to acquaint another obvious exponent of the sixties, namely the Stones. Of course, as any youngster with a western upbringing during the 20th century, I already knew about their most obvious hits due to the cultural osmosis, like "Satisfaction" and "Paint it, black" so the initial experience didn't take that much of an effort. What's more remarkable though is that to this day, they still don't quite crack it as being the highly accomplished milestone for me as they are traditionally revered for, only now I finally am beginning to see the background to why it's so.

See, the Stones disappointed me from the very beginning. Of course, most bands didn't really stand the chance when being upheld against the Beatles so any such comparisation is not really fair to anyone, but since the Who managed to pass the test without leaving me with a feeling of dissatisfaction there has to be more to the story here. I remember getting some money for my somethingeth birthday for which I immediately purchased the "London years" triple album which, as you all know, contains their entire singles catalogue from their start in 1963 up to 1971. It proved to be an essential buy, not least since it gives you a fairly decent picture of their evolution during the 60's and thus to this day remains probably one of the best introductions to them as a band, but I remember having to sort of fumble through the entire first disc which reaches up to around 1966. There were all these clunky and jagged old blues/r&b workouts which virtually all meshed together in an incomprehensive mess, bar a few standout tracks like "Play with fire", "Get off my cloud" and of course "Satisfaction". Well, I certainly knew someone who couldn't get no satisfaction. The alleged antithesis to the Beatles sure wasn't just a widespread myth and I can easily see why Stones fans may dismiss Beatles as well as the other way round; they simply did not sound alike on any significant count.

The second CD on the other hand, stretching from '66 up to '68, was a different story. Suddenly they came up with actual songs, built up on melodies and a variety of arrangements instead of the same ol' blues or whatever. Still today, I consider this to be the most interesting period of their career, with seemingly unjustly overseen gems like "Ruby tuesday", "She's a rainbow", "Dandelion", "The lantern" and "We love you". Yeah, let's put that one on:



Of course, critics residing in both the Beatles and the Stones camp will agree upon that they were simply unfit for psychedelia and that they only tried to ape Beatles and/or other more purely psychedelic acts of the period and that they accordingly didn't really blossomed until they went back to the roots in 1968. To be frank, I don't buy that at all. Stones were as worthy candidates of psychedelia (or at least psych-flavoured pop) as most of the other major act of the 60's, and there are much, much worse examples of acid-fuelled experimentation gone awry. "Their satanic majesties request" is a minor masterpiece by the Stones' own standard, not least since it sounds so unlike their commonly known repertoire.

The psychedelic heydays didn't last very long though and it was probably just as well that they made a 180 turn in 1968, commencing with "Jumping Jack Flash" (or as on the third CD, with "Street fighting man"), both of which are ace and there's little doubt even in my mind that the third half of this triple album is just as good as the second. They somehow resorted to their initial roots as present on the first CD, albeit this time much tighter and suspended in memorable riffs and more melodic and profilic vocal delivery from Jagger which is probably the one reason why I can stand their late 60's/early 70's output while the counterparts of the early 60's leave me cold. I mean, it's not that songs like "Sympathy for the devil" and "You can't always get what you want" sport much of a melody, but the arrangements are as intriguing as anything, and you can hear that this pseudo-american rootsy sound is their main forte after all.

Now, back then I was kind of a purist in terms of albums and I made it a rule to focus on any band's official studio output and when possible acquire the albums chronologically. With the key at hand in the form of "The London years" I decided to skip forward to their supposedly interesting period, starting around 1966 with the purchase of "Aftermath". And wow, that was an anticlimax if there ever was one! I really, really tried, nay, forced myself to like it after discovering that past the initial tracks it was just as dull as the early singles collection, if not duller. The first few tracks I had already heard, starting with a by now rather tiresome "Paint it, black" and ending with "Under my thumb" which I already had heard as performed by The Who in a superior way. All in all the album was okay up until then although I didn't have much use for it with the singles collection at hand. Then it just took a nose-dive with melody-less, hookless, bland and on occasion simply annoying r&b workouts, ending with a neverending pile of drivel called "Going home". This was supposed to be the Stones' big breakthrough as an album band?! In hindsight I sort of wish that "Between the buttons" had been present in the store instead as I probably wouldn't have had to actually force myself to like it. Not as much, at least.

I gave them one more serious chance though, based on the positive impression of the last third of "London years", and grabbed a vinyl copy of "Goat's head soup" that happened to be lying around in that same record store. Once again, big disappointment, even if I years later learned that this particular album wasn't that big a favourite even among fans. I recall a vague liking for "Dancing with mr. D" and "Heartbreaker" at first, which quickly wore off, and a more consistent appeal in "Angie" and most of all in "100 years ago", something I still stand for. But apart from those it was all a messy, rootsy-tootsy pile of mud, as suggested on the murky album cover. Yawnfests like "Winter" and "Silver train" only added to the harm initiated by "Aftermath". Seems like I just couldn't 'get' the Stones after all. On with The Doors!

---

As the years have gone by, I have provided myself with several of their albums ever since and have given them an occasional listen, including the obligatory "Beggar's banquet" (underwritten), "Let it bleed" (overrated) and "Exile on Main Street" (dull and interminable), and equipped with a more academic approach to just about anything, I think I'm beginning to see my main problem with the Stones. It's not so much them as a band - they are masters of their game - as the styles they choose to cover. See, it's no secret that they preferred to dabble with american roots, especially Richards nurturing a great love for blues, and keeping in mind my ever present liking for their least american-sounding (and thusly most british-sounding) era it's not that hard to see why they don't speak to me on a general level. Not that they or their fans need my approval or anything, but neither do I need them to fulfill my scewed preferences as there are still enough artsy-fartsy european-sounding bands to fill a lifetime and a half that I can give the full attention they deserve, and thus leave Stones to the attention they deserve. Life is too short to spend it on picking on music just because it doesn't appeal to you (and the Stones do appeal to me on occasion, mind you, which is why I bother to write this much about them). One could learn a thing or two from the fact that both Rolling Stones and Beatles had the uttermost respect for each other during the 60's, maybe because they simply didn't aspire to intrude on each other's musical territorry, maybe not.

Now one might state that I'm being ethnocentric for dismissing purely american influences, and I'm not gonna argue with that (on a european level at least; as a swede, I cannot afford to be that ethnocentric). The interesting question is rather why I am, and I was originally going to slide into that strain of thought after my Stones-related introduction but since I already have written a mouthful I'm gonna go ahead and stop right here and save the rest of my thesis for the time being. As of now, my ultimate verdict on the Stones is and will always be: They're alright, and certain parts of their discography deserve an occasional run, preferrably on a friday evening accompanied with a beer or two.

And with that I will leave you with what I consider one of their more obscure stellar moments:

__________________