Were The Rolling Stones King of Baroque Pop?

If it ain't Baroque, don't fix it.

 

What was the question again?

 

Check out Nico's debut Chelsea Girl.

 

I don't know if I'd call it baroque or not, but this is my favorite Stones period -- Aftermath, Between the Buttons especially, Flowers, Satanic Majesties. They were certainly a great POP band in this incarnation.

 

If they were, it was mainly thanks to Brian Jones.

 

We need to think about the word "Baroque"more seriously. Not all pop or pop-rock that shows classical or orchestral influences would be "baroque pop" - there's a big difference between Vivaldi and Wagner! Someone mentioned the Moody Blues - classically influenced yes, but baroque no. Early Bee Gees, mostly yes. (Probably more due to Bill Shepherd's arrangements than to anything the Bee Gees themselves did.) And as for the Stones songs on the OP's list, "As Tears Go By" yes, "Under My Thumb" no.

 

"Baroque" architecture is a euphemism for big ugly brown stuff that you would never have in your home. Just because it has a harpsichord doesn't make it "baroque." Nor do striped pants. Their sartorial style owed more to Edwardian sensibilities, the cited songs to adult-pop sensibilities.

 

Lots of Stones fans love that era. But if pressed, I suspect that 90% would prefer the foot-stomping, head-shaking blues rock that both preceded and followed it.

 

I know a lot of people are mocking the op's premise, (and there are a lot of long shots in there), but members of the definitive baroque pop band The Left Banke stated on more than one occasion that they were directly inspired by 'Lady Jane', and I believe it was an early cover they used to rehearse, so for that alone the Stones were a key stepping stone in the genre.

I also think (and this is something I only realised recently) that 'Play With Fire' doesn't get enough credit for how ahead of it's time it was - we can debate whether it was truly baroque pop or not, but it's from January 1965 and it has a thought out observational lyric and a harpsichord arrangement! I'm a much bigger fan of the Beatles and The Kinks, both of whom would make more extensive use of observational, socially aware lyrics and baroquey harpsichord arrangements in their prime, but when you compare how relatively basic and unadventurous both bands lyrics and musical palettes were in early '65, you realise the Stones actually got there first on both counts.

I used to think of the Stones as dilettantes who copied the trends of the 60s as a distraction from their true passion for blues, but when I examine things like how early 'Play With Fire' was I begin to consider that the truth is more complex. It's especially interesting because 'Play With Fire' doesn't even feature Brian Jones - thus the explanation that the broader array of instruments and textures was solely down to him doesn't apply here.

 

Wow I saw the title Baroque Pop + The Rolling Stones and thought how many songs? One or two... and it was a list of many. And the picture is kind of baroque too. Don't think I've thought so much about it. I love this mid-60s period The Rolling Stones. And the mid-60s in pop and rock generally. And Baroque classical music is a favorite... so, there must be more to this than meets the eye.

 

Jamming with Edwardian, me thinks...

 

More importantly, how great is that hair!

 

No, the Zombies were far better at this style and wrote much better songs.

 

Is that a wig?!?

 

From Hendrix...

 

Have you heard of a band called The Beach Boys?

 

The Left Banke was the first band I thought of also -- but the song that I most associate with the thread subject is "Pretty Ballerina".

(I agree with the above re The Zombies qualifying as well and... The Stones being a tough sell in this arena).

.

 

Yeah, when I saw "Under My Thumb" among the list in the OP, it stuck out like a, well, sore thumb.
.

 

Van Dyke Parks' Song Cycle

 

Directly nonesense.
Firstly, the usual "Brian Jones-was-a-genius"-travesty, is tireing to listen to. He indeed made big contributions to the bands sound, but that was it. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but to call them a 'mediocre rock band' after Jones are simply wrong-headed. After Jones, which are over-praised simply because he is dead, they became the greatest rock band of their era. And that was directly because Jagger and Richards found their muse. The Pretty Things could play and sounded harder, but they didn't write great songs. And Mick Jagger are rock's greatest frontman.

 

Hilarious comment. Joke of the year.

 

Because he could play a dulcimer? There is far more to it than that. Great songs for example.

 

The crown belongs to Andrew Loog Oldham!

Here's how he thinks "Sittin' On A Fence" should sound:



I have a theory that the marvellously sloppy Stones version is actually the demo for the song which was first released by IMMEDIATE stars Twice As Much - perhaps it was written for them?

Anyone who likes this genre will probably love the Twice As Much anthology:



https://www.discogs.com/Twice-As-Much-The-Immediate-Anthology/release/3466245

 

You may not agree, but I think it's true. It wasn't meant as a joke. Odessey and Oracle is a baroque masterpiece, and imo it's a better album than the Stones ever made (I like the Stones by the way, just think this is true). And I think as a group the Zombies wrote far more interesting songs, and Colin's voice is much better.

It's all personal subjective opinion of course, but it's not a joke, and you demean yourself with comments like that.