|
Ten Thousand Motels
|
Rolling Stones vs. The Who
Rolling Stones
Charlotte Downes
Issue date: 11/5/08 Section: The Edge
WesternCourier.com
Here is the core reason why The Rolling Stones were so amazing, so hypnotic and able to produce such unbelievable art: their music was 100 percent a result of lifestyle.
Life always took precedence over their art. Whether they were putting album production on hold for Mick Jagger's honeymoon or taking a trip to Morocco with Anita Pallenberg, lifestyle was interwoven with their music and creativity. While it was nerve-racking for producers and managers, when they did finally get around to making music, it was based on real experiences. Because of this, the Stones never lost touch, and they never will.
Like any great band, the folklore surrounding the Stones has built to frenzy, transforming them from men to legends. And with the constant stream of confidants, hangers-on and leeches coming and going, the truth is somewhat murky as there are about a thousand different versions of each story, many of the accounts rendered hazy by questionable adult recreation.
Regardless of whether or not the stories are true, they are, for the most part, widely accepted by fans.
And why not? Who can't picture a young Mick Jagger hunched over blues albums painstakingly procured from Chess Records in Chicago, hearing for the first time music that would later influence brilliant blues-based rock? You want to believe it, because how else could some skinny little British men cover Robert Johnson's "Love in Vain" with such acuity? Why else would they name themselves after a Muddy Waters song?
It's primal to believe the stories about the hellish summer on the French Riviera, during which the Stones recorded the seminal "Exile on Main Street" and almost killed each other in the process. So close to the sea, the French summer was so humid and suffocating that recording often had to be stopped because their guitars went out of tune halfway through a song. The one small fan in the window kept distorting the sound on Mick Taylor's instrument, thus the indescribable, jolting sound for "Ventilator Blues."
Allegedly, the summer was the catalyst of a chemical dependency for Keith Richards, the wildest Stone of them all. They pounded on the ceiling to get him to come down when they needed him for recording. Whether he came down or not was up in the air. Who doesn't geek out about that kind of tragic and fascinating story?
Those stories not only add depth and context to the albums, but contribute to the legend and the appeal of the Stones. While The Who are amazing and as charismatic on stage as ever, their appeal has changed since the wilder days of their youth. They have become an artifact, and their purpose is nostalgia. You may be experiencing the music on a very deep level, and it may be making a huge impact on you, but the fact that it's your father's music is always lurking in the back of your awareness. You love the music, but it isn't yours.
The Who will always be relevant, but at the same time, they'll always be generational. Look at one of the most iconic photos of them: the cover of "The Kids are Alright." Each member is dressed mod, all draped in a British flag. Every symbol of their music period is incorporated to the point that The Who themselves have become a symbol. People windmill in concert and it's immediately a kickback. Everyone suddenly feels like their dad rocking out back in his college days, and while that is really awesome, the fact remains that you still feel like somebody else listening to music instead of being in that moment.
The Stones, however, are not generational. They belong to everyone. Their job, their whole purpose, is to radiate an image of youth and rebellion. The Stones are sexy no matter what and they radiate a timeless youth. Like The Who, the Stones appeal to everyone. But when people hear them, it immediately becomes their music, their songs. It speaks to what was happening in the '60s, '70s, 1998 and what happened to you yesterday on the way to English 280. While The Who could do this too, for some reason it's impossible to get past the dad music thing.
Maybe it's a reliability thing. Pete Townshend's band Deep End wasn't that great, and the solo album "All The Best Cowboys Have Chinese Eyes" had a cover that was really creepy. Also, Pete Townshend is kind of screwed up in the depressing way; he's a tragic hero that's a little too tragic.
After all, in his autobiography, the poor man says his senile grandmother dragged him around London looking for a specific handkerchief when he was very young. His attractive father told him he was ugly and his nose was too big. That's so sad. I spend a lot of time listening to The Who and feeling very sorry for Pete; his life is honestly very heartbreaking.
Mick Jagger is a hot mess, but in an awesome way. I don't feel sad for him at all. And he looks amazing on the cover of his solo albums. His face may age, but you can bet he'll still be on stage in painted-on pants, strutting around and oozing charisma.
The Stones are timeless. Both are amazing bands in the top five of best rock bands ever, and nobody can argue that point. And maybe The Who did best the Stones. After all, they got the CSI theme music and Keith Moon of The Who did crawl into Bianca Jagger's bedroom on her wedding night.
But at the end of the day, The Rolling Stones are singing for you, not for the memories, and they'll sing for you until they are all in wheelchairs.
|
Pages: 1
Rolling Stones vs. The Who (Read 679 times)
