Inspired by Tuesday’s poll, Townsman General Slocum submitted the following thoughts:
Yoko was the tongue in the sallow cheek of that “band.” I always get a kick out of Mitch Mitchell, and Clapton and Lennon could easily have let me down less than they did in this setting, but like every high-school let’s-play-the-blues-and-make-the-worst-guitarist-play-bass outfit I’ve ever heard, there’s not much humor in there. And if Yoko’s sack-dance and catterwauling don’t tickle you, then wait till she gets into sodomized kitty range, and then look at John: the neutral, unaffected eyes of true love, hearing not a thing wrong with the dulcet warblings of his sweetie. There’s a lot going on there that is more entertaining than hearing the White Men’s Blues Society hammer that five on the turnaround as though they’d finally actually heard a black cat moan!
In my ongoing, unwitting campaign to get banned from Rock Town Hall, I gotta say I like Yoko’s contribution. I mean, not letting Eric freaking Clapton take a solo is kinda stupid, but I’ve known plenty of guitar players who would do the same.
If I have to listen to a 12-bar-blues jam, especially one where the bass player has no concept of the function of the bass, I’d prefer formless caterwauling over a famous classical violinist who doesn’t ever improvise. I don’t think I’d put them on the same mic, though.
My favorite moment is Lennon shaking hands with Yoko like he’d never met her as she is taking the stage.
Perfect timing for this thread — Yoko’s new album is released today.
I just want to say that I received an interesting revelation from a friend of mine who spent some quality time with Clapton recently. It turns out EC is Good People. I can’t go into any more detail than that, but — as much as his guitar playing bugs me — I gotta give him mad props.
Just thought you should know.
hrrundivbakshi wrote:
My man, to date, this is the greatest COP OUT on the new, improved (yeah, I’m sayin’ so) Rock Town Hall! If you can’t go into any more detail – at least about the reasons for this artist’s status as Good People (which I definitely don’t question), then we will need to keep a collective eye on you.
You’re just going to have to deal with my firm “no details” policy on this one. I just wanted the rest of RTH to know that I no longer see the guy as a money-grubbing hack.
OK, I’ll deal with your
cop outneed for confidentiality, but I am sincerely surprised that you didn’t already get a sense of how good an egg Mr. Clapton must be after years of good egg behavior beyond his Rock Crimes-worthy music making. I’m thinking of stuff like his sobriety, his forthright way of dealing with his little boy’s death (if not the song itself), his leading that George Harrison memorial concert… Good eggs nevertheless can commit Rock Crimes!This is a fucking disgrace. There’s nothing cool about it. If I were any 3 of the other Beatles, I would have kicked his Sorry ass out right then and there. Though I do ask myself everytime I see this shit sucking performance, Did Clapton, Keith, and Mitchell think that maybe this is where the whole thing(rock)was headed? After all, this IS a Beatle asking me to do this. He(John) is the greatest innovator the form had ever seen. Or did they know it was nonsense and just went along anyway. And by the way, the only thing more annoying than post Cream Clapton is the term GOOD PEOPLE refering to only 1 person.
SK
Townsman Shawn, your no-nonsense style is a welcome addition to this forum. Judging by facial expressions, I’d say the violin player had the most clear-headed handle on what was going on around him. I would hope that he treated himself and his family to an expensive steak dinner following the cash he checked for supporting the arts that night.
Shawn writes:
If I were any 3 of the other Beatles, I would have kicked his Sorry ass out right then and there.
But judging from the Stones performance at that “show” who *wouldn’t* get kicked out of that band? At least Yoko made every man woman and child within hearing range (except John) acutely uncomfortable. But the Stones, an allegedly “real” band, was awful beyond explanation.
Tull wasn’t bad. Especially as Tull goes.
I can see why this show languished in the can for so long.
TULL(with Iommi) was the shit and ‘a quick one’ from circus may very well be the best live WHO on video anywhere…ever!!!
Agreed, re: “A Quick One”.
I just got this DVD for Christmas, and I thoroughly enjoy the “document” aspect of it (as well as the colors, maaaaaannnnn). The Who performance is tremendous. Tull’s performance is eye-opening (especially the bass/harmonica schtick), and Taj Mahal is pretty good. I enjoy the Dirty Mac version of “Yer Blues”, also in part, for the fact that I simply get to see it. The Stones are good in concept, but they suffer miserably by playing every song too slow and by not yet replacing Brian Jones. Clearly a case of “They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?”
I have, however, taken great delight in General Slocum’s fresh perspective in Yoko’s role in these proceedings. Hail to the General!
do you all feel better about yourselves, now that you’ve bashed some of rock’s greats?
hooray for you.
gee…i like all of the rnr circus stuff, because it humanizes them.
i’d much rather walk into a television studio and see these performances than go to a party and see performances by the painfully mediocre acts fronted by the people on this list (especially the photon band, my GOD what a piece of shit that band is). have you ever watched yourselves? good LORD it’s a fucking train wreck of overweight, balding, big nosed, off key amateurism not even worthy of American Idol’s turd reel.
if it wasn’t for the indie rock ideology you all loathe so much, none of you would be allowed to set foot on a stage.
and yet you find it so easy to rank on john because he wants to do something a little experimental with a woman who, at the time, was one of the most important artists in BOTH HEMISPHERES.
the stones “suffer miserably” and are “god awful”? this is just more evidence of the stones hating that goes on periodically on this list. sorry they’re not doing everything according to your lame-assed protomusicological standards, you guys.
maybe you should enjoy the proficient prog-isms of jethro tull instead (yeah, they’re great), and then go play some dungeons and dragons. maximum charisma points for you.
i think the stones get a nice loose groove on, and i’d’ve killed to be in the room while this shit was going down. turn your noses up if you will, nerdlingers. parachute woman will land on ME tonite.
and btw, keith is a good bassist (see jumpin’ jack flash and sympathy for the devil (studio), which both feature him instead of billy perks). he’s not given much to work with here, but manages to keep this yoko vehicle moving and changing quite nicely.
and what’s this “worst guitarist in the band” shit? best? worst? are we the editors of “guitar player” magazine or something? where do they fall in the rankings? surely they’re both behind al dimeola and uli roth, no? keith is a brilliant riffsman, and an underrated soloist (see the solo on “sympathy for the devil” studio version). clapton could never make a riff happen like keith, and keith could never solo as fluidly as clapton, but so what? they’re just jamming. does everything they have to do BLOW YOUR MIND?
you guys make me wanna puke sometimes with your high and mighty holier than thou shit.
have some fun for a change.
i love you, art
Dr. Love asked:
I feel all right.
Art: do you all feel better about yourselves, now that you’ve bashed some of rock’s greats?
Me: Yes.
Art: hooray for you.
Me: If only you meant that.
Art: i’d much rather walk into a television studio and see these performances than go to a party and see performances by the painfully mediocre acts fronted by the people on this list
Me: Why is the Rolling Stones being painfully mediocre better than, say, you being mediocre?
Art: have you ever watched yourselves? good LORD it’s a fucking train wreck of overweight, balding, big nosed, off key amateurism not even worthy of American Idol’s turd reel.
Me: Not ever having seen that program, I am now going to have to start! I regularly produce one of the most astounding long-running train-wrecks in Philadelphia history. I, overweight, balding, and with a moderately large nose, rock. Off key, well, I’m no KISS, senator, but I get by.
Art: if it wasn’t for the indie rock ideology you all loathe so much, none of you would be allowed to set foot on a stage.
Me:Though not a fan of the Slouching Toward Seattle aesthetic, I do not overly bust on it, nor do I require it to set foot anywhere.
Art: and yet you find it so easy to rank on john because he wants to do something a little experimental with a woman who, at the time, was one of the most important artists in BOTH HEMISPHERES.
Me: A little experimental? Listen to her! And, while you’re at it note the entire lack of experimenting on the parts of every other member of that little group. Like a B night at Bacchanal, with the added boost of years of wild acclaim for each member to give it a wee bit of zest. And let’s go back and establish that pre-Lennon, Yoko getting a footnote in an arts journal would be a red letter day. MOST important artists? I can only thing of 2 hemispheres where that is ture my friend, and they’re both yours.
the stones “suffer miserably” and are “god awful”? this is just more evidence of the stones hating that goes on periodically on this list. sorry they’re not doing everything according to your lame-assed protomusicological standards, you guys.
Me: Art, it’s *proct*omusicological, and such standards have not been applied here for the most part. The Stones in particular display nothing great whatsoever in that outing. Go ahead. Find anything in there with a shred of conviction. Ugh. What, am I not going to call a spade a spade because it’s the freaking Stones? Relax, man. What are they putting in the water there in Académe?
Art: maybe you should enjoy the proficient prog-isms of jethro tull instead (yeah, they’re great), and then go play some dungeons and dragons. maximum charisma points for you.
Me: Now don’t go busting on one of the several bands that better the Stones here! I don’t have to like D & D to like Tull, or to dis any given performance if it deserves it.
Art: i think the stones get a nice loose groove on, and i’d’ve killed to be in the room while this shit was going down. turn your noses up if you will, nerdlingers. parachute woman will land on ME tonite.
Me: Oh, it’s nice and loose, allright. And if you would have enjoyed it so much, more power to you. I would greatly have enjoyed most of the performances, and it would have been funny to be in the room while the Stones implode. Just the odd celebrity meter thing and wierdness would have been fun. I am a curious enough person that watching Brian Jones giggle at his guitar would be better than not seeing such a thing.
Art: and btw, keith is a good bassist
Me: ?
Art: and what’s this “worst guitarist in the band” shit? best? worst? are we the editors of “guitar player” magazine or something?
Me: Do you have to be to open your mouth? Speak UP, man! Get it on! I don’t care for Keef’s playing much. I never have.
Art: they’re just jamming. does everything they have to do BLOW YOUR MIND?
Me: Me or Photon Band or whoever might be “just jamming.” But members of arguably the best four bands in the entire rock and roll canon? Yes, please, sir. May I have just a little mind-blowing?
Art: you guys make me wanna puke sometimes with your high and mighty holier than thou shit.
Me: At my house, it’s just me and a computer right now looking at tiny videos 40 years old! Call ’em like you see ’em. It’s a bunch of music geeks talking music. If anybody here believes themselves superior to all of those people, I’ll eat my hat. As for any of the back four of the Stones, I will be so high and mighty as to say I could have performed that set just as well. On bass, guitar, OR drums. And possibly while on the same drugs! (Well, no, not the same drugs as Kieth.) But really! We’re not heckling locals trying to get it off the ground in a bar.
Art: have some fun for a change.
Me: Wheel up that mirror and say it once more with feeling!
your impassioned defense makes my argument better than i ever could (especially your awesome correction of my “proto {not procto] musicology” typo).
i’ll have to go dust off my conviction meter and hold it up to the computer screen while i play the stones’ rnr circus performance before i comment any further on that matter.
if you’re going to kill this rnr circus stuff, then you should try listening to about 90% of the bootlegs of performances the artists in question. most of them aren’t even up to THIS level. do you realize that? these guys are human beings, and when they perform, they sound like it.
that’s why i like this stuff. they sound like a REAL band, warts and all, instead of an idealized band that got it right on the 276th take. if you like your rock sanitized, that’s fine. but don’t go calling this stuff “god awful”. relatively speaking, it’s not even close to god awful.
and the reason why i’d rather watch this stuff than any of the performances by people in bands on this list is not because of WHO they are. it’s because IS MUCH MUCH BETTER than them on their finest night. perhaps i wasn’t clear about that.
if you think this is about as good as a night out watching autumn carousel, or nixon’s head, or the photon band, then you need your earballs cleaned. the singers in those bands sound like they’re shouting into buckets compared to what mick sounds like in these performances.
and if you think that yoko stuff is more than just a little experimental, you haven’t even scratched the surface of the limits of experimental music. this is tame.
what does “wheel up that mirror” mean?
Truthteller wrote:
TAKE A LOOK IN IT, AND YOU MAY UNDERSTAND!
wheely?
slocum, you really don’t like keith’s playing?
what dontcha like about it?
what kind of guitar playing do you like instead?
Let me clarify, re: Rock and Roll Circus. I own and enjoy it a lot. All the bands are fun, even the Blues Noodlers. That Who performance is human and live AND kicks fucking ASS. The scuttlebutt is that it wasn’t aired because the Stones were so lackluster next to the Who. I simply agree with that.
There are warts and all all over it, and I have defended same many times on RTH. I do not like my music sanitized. But the warts should be the result of liveness or liveliness or gusto or passion or even humor, but not because of indifference. The stones have warts AND clinical depression from the looks of it.
If you long for being in the room when this [Stones] tripe was produced, and see it as so far superior to what your cohorts do live, then you need to have your soul tuned. Don’t ask me what that one means. I don’t know, really. But the mirror one was pretty simple. You said have some fun, didn’t you? The slightly elegiac line about the mirror just meant, “That’s what you are, but what am I?” The mirror is on wheels because it’s so big. You can see it ALL.
As for Keith. I just never heard him play and got swept away by it. I like his studio noodling on Sympathy, it’s fun. And the line about worst guitarist is only a joke. A moderately funny one. Lennon is no great axeman himself. But tell me you haven’t been at those endless blues drivelfests over the years – where everybody is waiting to hear himself bend that b string on the blues for 18 choruses, and nobody in the room is willing to sit on the bass through it without noodling like Richard does on that stuff.
Nice seeing you online, dad. I’ll be over on Monday to take you to your doctor’s appt. Give mom my love.
Haven’t you seen that Godard movie where they’re recording Sympathy for the Devil? It’s been a long time since I saw it, but I believe it took Keith 276 takes to get that bass part right.
Even the Stones didn’t think they were very good the night of the circus. Isn’t that why they sat on the tapes for so long?
steve, is this how your father talks to you? i’m deeply sorry. i had no idea.
but yes, i have seen the godard flick. the point i was making is based in part on having seen that movie.
it doesn’t take keith alot of takes to get the bass in sympathy right. the process we’re shown is them “writing in the studio”. they go from a slow, ponderous groove on day one, to eventually arriving at the final version on day 2. at some point along the way, keith takes the bass from wyman (who was floundering on bass, and is relegated to playing percussion along with the hired help). keith writes the bassline that drives the song. but there’s no footage of a frustrated keith having to do it again and again and again.
the fact that they were in the studio trying to get it right is exactly my point: i’d much rather see them play live, and be like a real live band that makes mistakes. as it is, i think the groove they find on these songs is nice and relaxed. i like it.
and no, the stones didn’t think they were up to par that night. i don’t either. this doesn’t change my point. and for the love of god, if one was to read the descriptions in this thread without hearing the music, one would think they were much worse than that.
i mean REALLY, slocum came right out and said that they’re not allowed to be anything less than mind blowing. cut them some slack.
or, as i’ve already suggested, go enjoy the technically proficient, but entirely colorless performance of that other extremely great rock band, jethro tull. you won’t find mistakes there (yay). tull aren’t after anything special, though. no feel. just a bunch of songs proficiently played. who cares?
after organizing and emceeing the entire show, and sitting through a bunch of bands, the stones dragged their tired asses up on stage at 4 in the morning and played the way they felt. they chose the right songs for it, too.
re. keith as bassist: what are you trying to say? that the bassline in sympathy, which he wrote, isn’t a good bassline? isn’t well played? and what about his bass in ‘jumpin’ jack flash’? again, another memorable bassline that drives its song (especially in the bridge). this is to say nothing of the other landmark moment in stones history that was quarterbacked by Keith on bass: satisfaction. Slade, i know you know what i’m talkin’ about. Again, Billy Perks is relegated to the wings while keith has to put down the guitar to make sure the rhythm section plays according to what he hears for the song.
given this track record, why WOULDN’T john want him up there playing bass?
slocum, thanks for coming clean re. keith. you call it noodling, i call it moving the jam along. you’ll note that during almost EVERY turnaround, keith has come up with another way to play it that actually moves it along, and adds new colors.
a lesser bassist would probably turn his nose up at the thought of playing a simple blues progression, would stand up there bored, would play the same thing over and over again, and wouldn’t even bother trying to MAKE SOMETHING out of it.
we have different aesthetics.
by the way, re. yoko as an artist in her pre-john era, here’s what i know: she had a following in both hemispheres (of course it wasn’t as big as warhol’s or hockney’s, but she had just started making art, so it speaks volumes that she was already well known in japan and was becoming so in england). her work from that time IS highly revered by art historians of modern and contemporary art. to say that she wasn’t important simply because they weren’t talking about her in art journals before she met john is fall into the same dead-white-male chauvinist conceptual trap that’s been driving my chosen field (art history) since it’s inception in the late 19th century: we didn’t write about her, so she’s not important. look: there WERE no women artists (let alone japanese ones) featured in ANY establishment art journals until the late 70s or early the 80s (unless of course, they were like lee krasner: married to a dead white male artist). that doesn’t mean that there weren’t any women artists doing anything.
art
Art: and no, the stones didn’t think they were up to par that night. i don’t either. this doesn’t change my point. and for the love of god, if one was to read the descriptions in this thread without hearing the music, one would think they were much worse than that.
Me: There. Was THAT so hard to say? How do you feel now? Kind of nice, isn’t it? Seriously. I said it was a completely mediocre performance, and it was. FOR THE ROLLING STONES! They still have those giant songs that shaped the sixties, for Pete’s sake. It IS interesting to watch the Stones suck, simply because it does humanize them as you say. But doers that mean they were better than they were? No. They dragged their asses through that set as though, well, as though it was 4 a.m. if you like. They sucked eggs. Their warts were in fine form. I, who will never shape the pop music of any generation, can watch them and tell what a crappy night a legendary band is having, and let fly [40 years on] without prefacing my comment with how great they were in other ways.
Art: i mean REALLY, slocum came right out and said that they’re not allowed to be anything less than mind blowing. cut them some slack.
Me: My comment (I seem to have misread your question) was about Dirty Mac. Members of four of the greatest bands in the history of the genre should do a little more than that in terms of mid blowing. The Stones at least brought songs that, in other renditions, *were* more mind-blowing. Dirty Mac under-delivers in several ways. Again, they’re of absolutely huge stature, these people. I expected to see more of why they were so, and I didn’t see it. If I watched a bunch of performances, maybe it would be different, but those two songs were it, and it wasn’t much of anything.
Art: or, as i’ve already suggested, go enjoy the technically proficient, but entirely colorless performance of that other extremely great rock band, jethro tull. you won’t find mistakes there (yay). tull aren’t after anything special, though. no feel. just a bunch of songs proficiently played. who cares?
Me: Didn’t Tull only play one song that night? Were there two? Tull had just hired Iommi (as RTH pince nez’d me previously) and were the only band lip-synching on the show. If you don’t like them, fine. I happen to be a fan. So the short answer to “Who cares?” is: I do. Are you being as dismissive of a band that doesn’t do it for you so much as I am of a band that doesn’t do it for me? Sure. Colorless? I don’t get that one. Laze your way through another Lightnin’ Hopkins riff – THERE’s color.
Art:after organizing and emceeing the entire show, and sitting through a bunch of bands, the stones dragged their tired asses up on stage at 4 in the morning
Me: My pet LICHEN could have been a better emcee! Duh. They have about 14 seconds total of introductions to film, and they barely make it. Don’t bring up their hosting talents to defend anything. Unless you mean the “No one will be seated during the gripping Lennon eating rice and Mick trying to keep up with the laconic humor sequence!” bit. Mick was expending all his calories there to achieve that fever pitch.
Art: re. keith as bassist: what are you trying to say? that the bassline in sympathy, which he wrote, isn’t a good bassline? isn’t well played?
Me: If that’s what I was trying to say, more words like that would have been in my post. I am not pince-nez-ing Stones history of who played what. I said they were like a crappiest guitarist gets stuck on bass blues band. And that’s how they sound! With 2 days to write a 4 note riff, he may have improved, but that’s not on the show. All your other defences aren’t on the show either. He gets up and plays the bass like a frustrated guitarist. Busy, noodly, and not laying it down with Mitchell. That’s what I’m trying to say. That’s what I hear and see.
Art: [Yoko’s Rep] (of course it wasn’t as big as warhol’s or hockney’s, but she had just started making art, so it speaks volumes that she was already well known in japan and was becoming so in england). her work from that time IS highly revered by art historians of modern and contemporary art. to say that she wasn’t important simply because they weren’t talking about her in art journals before she met john is fall into the same dead-white-male chauvinist conceptual trap that’s been driving my chosen field (art history) since it’s inception in the late 19th century
Me: To say she wasn’t big before she met John is to state a fact. To say it’s because she was a woman, and Japanese, is undoubtedly at least somewhat true. To say that marrying a member of the most popular band on earth got her more notice is absolutely true. To say that not so much has changed as we might like since the 19th century is also true. Yoko’s importance pre-John Lennon has been put in place post John Lennon. More, post post John Lennon. One 19th century sage who knew what he was talking about was P. T. Barnum.
I officially end my commentary on the Great Rock and ROll Circus Debate. Good day, all.
Art, please don’t deny the veracity of this point that the General has been hammering home. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been relegated to bass duty in blues jams.
See for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E0FLbarUJY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVQlntOLQkc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkujzE9Q_C4
I really think this interweb thing is going to take off
Yoko’s a fuckin Jerkoff. Her art (audio&visual) sucks. Her big talent was marrying rich guys. Man this blog’s ablaze!
we’re not that far apart on this. we both enjoy the rnr circus performances as a whole. and we both know that The Who killed it (but everybody knows that). we’re just quibbling over the right words to use to describe the stones performance.
btw, it’s been so long since i watched the tull part that i had no idea they were lip synching. if that’s the case, then why were people in this thread championing them as giving the best performance besides the who? or was that a joke: even a lip synching, mediocre prog rock band is better than the stones that night? good one (no sarcasm there).
look: we can have disagreements all the livelong day, but misrepresenting my arguments, and changing yours in order to save some face, and then trying to slip out the side door by bidding us good day won’t work. i’ll have none of it.
it also seems like you’re not fully reading my posts before you blast off with your responses. you’re missing alot of what i say and making me repeat myself.
I wrote: and no, the stones didn’t think they were up to par that night. i don’t either. this doesn’t change my point. and for the love of god, if one was to read the descriptions in this thread without hearing the music, one would think they were much worse than that.
Slocum: There. Was THAT so hard to say? How do you feel now? Kind of nice, isn’t it?
you can spare me the patronizing maneuver. it won’t make me think i just said something you’ve been trying to get me to say. I have been saying since the beginning that this peformance, “warts and all” “humanizes” them. clearly i’ve been aware of its subpar nature all along. so i’m not saying anything new above.
slocum: Seriously. I said it was a completely mediocre performance, and it was….FOR THE ROLLING STONES!
no, your words were “god awful”, and “suck”.
neither of these are truly accurate words to describe their rnr circus performance, though. as i’ve already pointed out, if you were to survey the stones live oeuvre from what we have on bootlegs, relatively speaking, this is nowhere near the bottom of the pile. the stones have always said they were capable of better than this, which is true, but they’re not capable of much better than this (i’ve always suspected that they were making excuses for themselves because the who were so on fire that night, but that they knew, deep down, they did the best they could at 4 am, when everyone was tired, including the audience). i have one bootleg (‘ca. 74) that is far and away better. But it’s the only one. Seriously.
slocum: It IS interesting to watch the Stones suck,
there you go again….didn’t you JUST get finished insisting that you didn’t think this performance sucked, but that they were merely “completely mediocre” instead? which is it?
in most of my points above about keith as a bassist, i’m responding to steve’s points, not yours.
but you say i’m not talking about keith’s performance in john’s band, which isn’t true.
in your last post, you wrote: “He gets up and plays the bass like a frustrated guitarist. Busy, noodly, and not laying it down with Mitchell. That’s what I’m trying to say. That’s what I hear and see.”
but you had already suggested this in a previous post, to which i had ALREADY responded:
“slocum, thanks for coming clean re. keith. you call it noodling, i call it moving the jam along. you’ll note that during almost EVERY turnaround, keith has come up with another way to play it that actually moves it along, and adds new colors.
a lesser bassist would probably turn his nose up at the thought of playing a simple blues progression, would stand up there bored, would play the same thing over and over again, and wouldn’t even bother trying to MAKE SOMETHING out of it.
we have different aesthetics.”
didn’t you read this? no biggie. we just have different opinions about that. i hear what you’re saying, but i disagree and i like what he does in that jam.
and what are you suggesting by saying that he “needed two days to write a four note bassline”?
first of all, they’re writing the entire arrangement in the studio. not just the bassline.
second, there’s no correlation between the amount of time it takes to come up with a musical part, the number of notes that comprise it, and its quality. and besides, you seem to be suggesting that the rest of the stones were sitting around waiting for keith to come up with the correct four notes, which is not the case. keith is leading the way, and transforming what mick initially intends to be a slow, meditative jam with no center.
third, a bassline can be ONE NOTE, but if it drives the song, and it has a nice relationship with the percussion, then it’s brilliant.
fourth: above, you say you don’t like keith’s “noodling” approach to bass, and then you condemn him for taking two days to come up with a 4 note bassline. i’m not sure where you stand on this one niggling little point, but i’m through sweating the small stuff, so don’t feel the need to explain.
thanks for the comments on yoko.
andrew, thanks for the links.
slade, as the “best” guitarist in a band that had me play bass (uptown bones, and it was to the good, i might add, neither of the other two could’ve played bass), i must demur. to put the worst guitarist in the room on bass is to devalue its importance to the whole.
BLOW-KO!
I agree with this, even though we disagree about the blues jam. I just watched the studio footage of Sympathy for the Devil, and it occurs to me that the reason Keith’s lead bass works on that song is that there’s no guitar. Nicky Hopkins’ piano is the chord instrument. They’ve turned Brian’s mic off, maybe because he’s wasted, but maybe because there’s no room for guitar since Keith is playing bass guitar. On the blues jam, there are two electric rhythm guitars taking up space. It may not exactly suck — it’s just something that didn’t quite gel that’s interesting to watch.
I get the point that the Circus performance humanizes them, though, as Townshend points out in the commentary to the DVD, Jagger really pulls himself together to perform straight at the camera. I gather that Godard’s agenda was to dehumanize them, to show the recording studio as a place of tedium and alienation. As a music geek I was just amazed that they recorded the woo-woos at the same time as the lead vocal. This would have been in the eight- not four-track era, right?
agreed on all points, steve!
and i SWEAR to you, when i was watching those youtubes, i had a hunch you would point out nicky hopkins’ value to the track. it’s weird. the song’s supposed to be so sinister, and here’s this rollicking, beer room PiE-ANNA stuck in the middle of it all, playing an absolutely essential role.
and yeah, it IS amazing that they’re doing that stuff at the same time. i guess they had to because of track limitations. funny to watch keith’s body language when it’s time to go to the higher note: nobody really pays attention.
there are other things in those clips that make me wonder how much of what we see is for the cameras (mick: “what was that thing we were doing yesterday??? it was like…totally different…what was THAT???”).
there really is no room for brian on that track. but he is totally marginalized socially, too. they seem to go together…all a part of the same dynamic.
art
Re: Godard’s strategy
I think Godard’s stategy was to deconstruct the Stones image. They never appear as “rock stars.” On the contrary, they appear more human than they’re usually seen as–trying to make up their minds as to where the song should go, flubbing tracks, etc.
Dr. John wrote:
What’s with the director “deconstructing” the Stones’ image? They were deconstructed by their own doing, no? Godard simply pointed a camera at them and bored anyone not drining the Exile Kool-Aid to tears. Beside the moment when “Tumblin’ Dice” starts to sound like a song, I can’t remember a positive thing about that movie. It’s an example of a feature-length film that would have worked better as a trailer.
Here’s my RnR Circus question.
What’s up with Jagger’s fake tattoos during “Sympathy”? Am I the only person who finds that whole routine highly un-Jagger like? It’s like he decided to sip some of Jimbo Morrison’s shaman kool-aid. Generally, I prefer the cool, distant, ironic, non-exhibitionist Mick.
Oats, how right you are about those fake tattoos. Worthy of Rock Crimes? Maybe not but definitely a citation. Beside early Jagger, in that gray sweatshirt on Ready Steady Go or whatever it was, I like late-70s Jagger, in a suit with a silk scarf, dashing from Studio 54 to a Brazillian model’s pad. To me, that may have been Jagger’s most natural Look.
His hat strategically dipped below one eye.
His scarf, it was apricot.
Well, Godard’s late-60s films would be considered by few to be “entertaining.” That wasn’t his point. It was, rather, to make the audience aware of where the camera was, which he does, explicitly, in “Sympathy for the Devil.”
Yeah, I never could figure out where the camera was until I saw Godard’s films.
Dr. John said:
Well, Godard’s late-60s films would be considered by few to be “entertaining.” That wasn’t his point. It was, rather, to make the audience aware of where the camera was…
I say (quoting d. boon):
What the fuck for?
I suppose I could talk about the importance of self-referentiality to art (when he even, from time to time pops up in rock n roll), but I wouldn’t want to inspire or encourage any more of your “witty” rejoinders.
correction: should read “importance of self-referentiality to art (which, even, from time to time pops up in rock n roll)”
I wouldn’t want to needlessly drag an RTH member into this.
Oh. Well, count me out. I just don’t care — for or about — art that is about itself. Talk about backstory!
All art is about itself, especially music.
Dr. John, I apologize for being a wiseass in light of your Godard post. I didn’t meant o demean your point, exactly, but the way you expressed it. That’s not nice to do. What I meant to cut up on – more nicely – was your tact of pulling out the deconstructionalist stuff. I sincerely think it would not have been hard for any director – even Jon Landis – to have captured the scene around the Stones at that time. I think Godard’s talent was feeling more comfortable than most other directors would be filming that mess, not trying to prod them to “kick it out” for the good of the film. So, call it deconstructing the Stones, if you must. To me it was having the passivity to film that scene and film it for what it was. Doesn’t “deconstructing” sound like an active process? I truly never got what was in any way “active” in what Godard did for that film.
By the way, I love self-referential stuff in art, so count me out of that Poo-Poo crowd. I’m with you, Dr., on that count.
Peace.
Re: Self-Referential Stuff in Art
These are good points, and they remind me of Albert Brooks’s “Real Life,” where a director, played by Brooks, tries to make a “documentary” about a family. Dismayed by the lack of a dramatic ending, he sets fire to their house.
In contrast, Godard, as you suggest, could have cared less about whether the Stones ever finished “Sympathy for the Devil.” As Godard said, a film needed a beginning, a middle, and an end, but not necessarily in that order.
And, by the way, the Minutemen were definitely down with Godard’s aesthetic. Check out their cover of “Dr. Wu” for further proof.