According to the Rolling Stones - NY Times Book Review

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/books/index.html

NY Times Book Review:
October 19, 2003
'According to the Rolling Stones': Please Allow Us to Introduce Ourselves
By JOE QUEENAN
ACCORDING TO THE ROLLING STONES
By Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Charlie Watts and Ronnie Wood. Edited by Dora Loewenstein and Philip Dodd.
Illustrated. 360 pp. San Francisco: Chronicle Books. $40.

Midway through their 1982 European tour, the Rolling Stones gave a party for their crew. The entertainment was provided by a local D.J. with a fondness for very bad disco. This affection showed no signs of abating until the Stones' lead guitarist, Keith Richards, no Village People buff he, wandered up to the D.J., unsheathed a bowie knife and pressed it directly against his throat. Sure, Richards knew it was only disco. But he didn't like it.

Whether or not this story is true -- it is reported by no less an authority than Peter Wolf, the former lead singer of the J. Geils Band, in the Stones' oral history, ''According to the Rolling Stones'' -- the anecdote embodies the us-versus-them, this-versus-that philosophy that makes Richards such a beloved pop-cultural figure. Chastened by their one brief, disastrous concession to fashion in the late 60's, when they fleetingly fell under the spell of the Beatles and released the god-awful ''Their Satanic Majesties Request,'' the Rolling Stones have spent the past 35 years preaching and repreaching the gospel of rock 'n' roll. No folk. No smooth jazz. No emo. No really bad disco.

Starting out as young English urbanites who borrowed from old rural Americans to create a hybrid genre that is still immensely popular with middle-aged suburbanites everywhere, the Stones have become the equivalent of the Himalayas: very old, very imposing, very resistant to change and dwarfing everything else in the landscape. In fairness to Mount Everest, its northern face has aged slightly better than Richards's has.

Masters of marketing, repackaging geniuses -- it is almost impossible to keep track of the number of greatest-hits compilations the band has released over the years -- the extant Stones (only three of the original quintet remain) recently decided to compile their own official history of the band. A coffee-table book, to be sure, but a very entertaining coffee-table book, ''According to the Rolling Stones'' is almost entirely about music, with Mick Jagger, Charlie Watts and Richards, the last three remaining original members, doing most of the talking. Readers looking for any further chilling, first-person accounts of Richards's knife-brandishing exploits will be sadly disappointed.

The first half of the book is by far the best. Hypnotized by Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf and Chuck Berry, and to a lesser extent by Elvis Presley, Jerry Lee Lewis and the Everly Brothers, two shy teenagers (Jagger and Richards) decide to start their very own pop combo. Almost immediately, they become the second-greatest band in the world; then, after the Beatles split up, the greatest. The Stones still seem mystified by the speed with which their careers took off, and believe they would have flamed out quickly had they not been forced to write their own songs by their manager, Andrew Loog Oldham. Generous toward their peers (the Beatles, Elton John, Michael Jackson), contemptuous of second-stringers (the Hollies, Herman's Hermits), the Stones love to talk inside baseball. Indeed, for a coffee-table book loaded with photos, ''According to the Rolling Stones'' can get remarkably technical.

Jagger is particularly good on set design, record production, touring logistics. Richards likes nothing more than discussing the recording devices he used to get particular sounds on songs like ''Jumpin' Jack Flash.'' Watts loves to talk about band dynamics, as well as the equipment employed on songs like ''Street Fighting Man,'' which ''was recorded on Keith's cassette with a 1930's toy drum kit called a London Jazz Kit Set, which I bought in an antiques shop, and which I've still got at home. It came in a little suitcase, and there were wire brackets you put the drums in; they were like small tambourines with no jangles. The whole kit packs away, the drums go inside each other, the little drum goes inside the snare drum into a box with the cymbal. The snare drum was fantastic because it had a really thin skin with a snare right underneath, but only two strands of gut.'' Somehow, one doubts that when ''According to the Backstreet Boys'' is published in 2040, the details about percussion will be quite so exhaustive.

Jagger, who became hooked on applause at the age of 4 when he performed ''Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered'' at a Christmas gathering, does not hesitate to discuss the band's failures. For example, even though ''Exile on Main Street,'' released in 1972, is viewed by many critics as the band's greatest record, Jagger dislikes it.

''When I listen to 'Exile,' '' he explains, ''it has some of the worst mixes I've ever heard. I'd love to remix the record, not just because of the vocals, but because generally I think it sounds lousy. . . . 'Exile' is really a mixture of bits and pieces left over from the previous album. . . . Those were mixed up with a few slightly more grungy things done in the south of France. It's seen as one album all recorded there and it really wasn't. We just chucked everything in. As long as people like the album, that's fine. It's just that I don't particularly think it's a great album.''

A good deal of the book is devoted to the rise and fall of the self-destructive proto-metrosexual Brian Jones, who died of mysterious causes in 1969. A good though not great guitarist, but a highly accomplished drug addict, Jones eventually became a legitimate threat to the stability of the Stones, who were rapidly evolving from a band into an industry. Richards, who stole his sidekick's girlfriend the same day he was chauffeuring Jones to a hospital, says, ''What really killed Brian . . . was not getting the mixture right between the music and the fame.'' This is quite an indictment, coming from a man who did not kick his own heroin habit until confronted by the prospect of a lengthy jail term in Canada in the mid-70's.

The book has some notable omissions. Bill Wyman, the enigmatic Stones bassist until 1992, when he decided to stop being enigmatic and stay home, is not interviewed. Neither is the group's former guitarist Mick Taylor, by far the best musician ever to play in the now geriatric ensemble. Almost nothing is said about the band's craven abdication of responsibility at the Altamont concert in 1969, where a young black man was stabbed to death at an event where security was provided by members of the Hell's Angels. Who'd have thunk it? Jagger and Richards do not even mention the incident, which is widely thought to have officially ended the Age of Aquarius; Watts skates over it as just another bad-boy mishap.

Quite naturally, since the band is still pushing ''Forty Licks,'' yet another greatest-hits package with a few new duds sprinkled in, the Stones prattle on about records like ''Voodoo Lounge'' and ''Bridges to Babylon'' as if their recent work were somehow in the same class as the great records of their youth. It's not, but then again Duke Ellington's autumnal ''Satin Doll'' is treacle compared with his youthful classic ''Mood Indigo.'' It's worth noting that on the ''Forty Licks'' tour, the show consisted largely of material recorded before Ronnie Wood, another good but not great guitarist, joined the band. The Stones are haunted by the specter of the unfortunate Mick Taylor, who helped them make their greatest records when he was young, lean and mean, but never amounted to much as a solo act.

In addition to the Stones' reminiscences, each chapter contains a brief, self-congratulatory essay by a photographer, producer, financier, critic or fellow rock star. Basically, these people are here to remind readers that the Stones are really, really cool and that it's really cool to hang out with guys who are this cool. Gushes Edna Gundersen, pop music critic at USA Today, ''As a budding flower child in high school, I grooved on Jimi Hendrix and idolized Bob Dylan, but it was the mystique of the Rolling Stones that steered me towards a career in rock journalism.'' Well, golly, aren't USA Today readers the lucky ones!

The glorified backup singer Sheryl Crow, no less star-struck but considerably more perceptive, puts the whole Stones legacy in perspective when she says: ''I will never know what it is like to be the kind of rock star the Stones are. They simply wrote the book and the rest of us are imitators.'' True, it is a bit self-serving for the Stones to include this sort of testimonial in their own autobiography. But Crow is right. Sorry, Metallica. Sorry, Strokes. Sorry, R.E.M. Sorry, Mr. Timberlake. It'd be nice to be as famous and influential and enduring and all-round ornery as the Rolling Stones. But you can't always get what you want.

Joe Queenan's most recent book is ''True Believers: The Tragic Inner Life of Sports Fans.''

 

Saw it at Costco today.

 

All very, er, interesting. BUT:

1. The Stones didn't bow to current trends just *once*. Whether we enjoyed these songs or not, Aftermath was doing a "Rubber Soul" complete with sitar (as long as you're in the USA!), Between the Buttons has many tracks that are totally Dylan and specifically Blonde On Blonde, and about "Miss You" (which I love) must I point out that it is disco? The Stones aren't notably aloof from trends -- is all.

2. I was persuaded to LISTEN to "Exile" by a description of the murkiness of the mix. Never looked back. If someone remixes that record I will know the world has been turned upside down. Mick has always seemed blind to the virtues of his band's finest hour.

 

"...Chastened by their one brief, disastrous concession to fashion in the late 60's, when they fleetingly fell under the spell of the Beatles and released the god-awful ''Their Satanic Majesties Request...''

That's a bit extreme, IMHO. My recent needle drop of the mono mix has been getting a few spins around my place recently. I've always enjoyed that record especially "She's A Rainbow", "2000 Man", "2000 Light Years From Home". While not one of the most consistent Stones outputs, it's certainly not a "gawd-awful" album.

Exile On Main Street is arguably the best offering of whole Stones career, right at the top, along with Let It Bleed and Beggar's Banquet. Mick, what are you thinking?
______________

Ben, let's add "Emotional Resuce" and "Dance Pt.2", I think is the song's title, from one of those OOP best of albums, as a couple of other songs that could be considered disco.

 

Yeah, I rather like Satanic as well...though Exile is far from my favorite Stones album.

 

There seems to be a trend to end articles on the Stones with the line "you can't always get what you want". I've also seen "you can't always get satisfaction" or something like that.

I do wish they had included interviews with Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor. Oh well...

 

I never bought Exile until this year, of course I think it's great. I'd have to say Let it Bleed is my favorite (at the moment, anyway).

 

Read that this morning. Fair review, though to hate TSMR is kinda silly....it wasn't a joke, really, just a reminder of how the Stones could be followers rather than leaders....they reclaimed things soon enough. Good to know there's some interesting technical info, stuff about the sessions, rather than the usual rehash of celeb BS. But apparently not the last word on the band. That's not likely to ever come....


ED

 

How typically arrogant of a NY Times reviewer.

mud-

 

Satanic Majesties is my all time favorite stones album, followed by Between the Buttons.

 

It's right up there for me too. Equal fave with about 15 other Stones albums

 

Well Said!!!

 

I read this book last week - for longtime Stones followers, there isn't a lot of new stuff, but it is a good read. To me, the highlights are getting to hear what Charlie Watts thinks about things - he's very open, and the insights are fresh, because he is so rarely interviewed at length. Ronnie Wood, to a lesser extent, offers a similar contribution.

 

Re: Re: Re: According to the Rolling Stones - NY Times Book Review

It may be but doncha think that was uncalled for?

mud-

 

I picked this book up today--only $24.95 at Sam's Club (cover price: $40)
I really like what I've seen so far and the interviews are fresh. It covers the recording of the new songs and the "Licks" tour. In just skimming over the pages, I've read some things I hadn't heard before. The band really seems open in this interviews, Charlie included. It's interesting to hear him speak about his mid 80's drug problem...I'm so glad he cleaned up! This book really gets me jazzed about the "Four Flicks" DVD box coming next month.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: According to the Rolling Stones - NY Times Book Review

Well, if he has that rep then it's more understandable.

mud-