Jun 182008
A recent Rock Town Hall poll question may have tipped you off to the inner workings of the Rock Town Hall Research and Development department.
From 1969 through 1976, Rod Stewart, including his work with Faces, released music on par with or better than the Rolling Stones, during that same period.
False: 68% (17)
True: 16% (4)
Mmmm, I need to think about that…: 16% (4)
Total Votes: 25
Coming soon, I will make the case that, I believe, will satisfy those who need to think about this issue as well as support those who think it’s true. Feel free to use this entry to prepare for this potentially mind-blowing examination. Thank you.
Jesus Fucking Christ, people. Look at the dates. During that period, the Stones made one demonstrably great album, one patchy but decent one, one that would be better off as an EP and a whole lot of worthless shit.
“Stay With Me” and “You Wear It Well” ALONE trump the Stones’ output in this era!
Honestly. The shit I put up with.
And where the hell’s my Esbjorn Svensson post?
Whuffo that vuh-deo, which rather pointedly shows no Rod?
Rod is on the bass. The video does pointedly show Lane being rather too impressed with minimally competent playing though.
It’s more amazing how much he sounds like George Harrison, or vice-versa. Maybe you could have put up the you-tube of them doing Love In Vain.
I’m one of the ones who said false. But that’s not because I don’t think Rod Stewart made a lot of great music at that time, because I think he did. But he’s just not working with the Stones rhythm section and so it just doesn’t fly off the disk in the same way. Nothing does.
That said, Rod Steward rocks, and I’m eager to listen to this mind-blowing examination and willing to change my mind if you convince me. But somehow I think it’s going to go like this: “Stewart had more tightly constructed songs, while the Stones were just throwing paint on the walls to see what sticks and doing all that second-rate country fried Stones stuff.”
Maybe it won’t go that way though. I can hope, can’t I?
Have we started? Or are we supposed to wait for the case to be made?
I thing we’re waiting.
I mean, think. Geez.
Seems to me this Battle Royale should purely be Faces v. Stones. I hope the upcoming polemic will explain why solo Rod counts at all. Why do I suspect the New Barbarians will figure into play?
This is time and a space to prepare. Feel free to express your initial thoughts on the subject now. As the evidence rolls forth, probably beginning late tonight, I will hope to gather your thoughts on specific parts of the argument. Thanks.
I do think the Faces are underrated, but I think they’re basically a high grade party band. The Stones were more than a party band, especially during the period in question. You are free to think that rock and roll is party music, and being a high grade party band fulfills the mission. I disagree.
I’m willing to include the early Rod Stewart albums in the discussion. A lot of that music is indistinguishable (to me) from the Faces music, and of course some of Rod’s best work is on those records. If they’re excluded, it’s even more of a no contest.
I suggest that the expression “the Mod” be barred from the proceedings.
Oats wonders:
I hope the upcoming polemic will explain why solo Rod counts at all.
I don’t know if I jarred this at all when I said I’d just picked up the first Rod solo record for $5 at the CVS, but I think it mostly counts because that’s what Mr. Mod posits as the subject. Is a “why” required?
I have enjoyed these cheapo CDs I’ve been finding of early 70s Rod Stewart. It is surprisingly good, in terms of never-heard album tracks (never heard by me, anyhow.) And though I’m not the biggest Stones fan, by any stretch, this is my fave period for them. All in all, though, I don’t think Rod pulls it out. I believe there is something about being meta-huge as a rock star which, just before it kills your psyche or soul, or leads you to kill your *self* by accident or by design, lends you a unique listenability. It doesn’t always happen, but it happened, in my opinion, to the Beatles and the Stones. Rod still has the overall sound of someone knocking at the door to the clubhouse.
I picked up the first Rod solo record for $3.99 at nearby Lou’s Records a little less than a year ago. What’s up with that? Is the market suddenly flooded with them?
It looks like Rod’s back catalog was reissued/remastered. Can we assume the cheapo CDs are the superseded editions?
Exile on Main St.
Duh.
Steve sez:
It looks like Rod’s back catalog was reissued/remastered.
Yah. The CDs I’ve got are from 1998. No extra tracks, &c.
I’ve always said that I preferred The Faces to The Stones. I’ve made that statement to really jump start a broad discussion. Most people know The Stones and are willing to defend them to the bitter end, for better and for worse. I admit that I was somewhat late to the Stones party. I grew up with The Beatles and later discovered The Who. The Stones were always the third in my preferred “British Invasion Triumverate.” I have come to adore Mick and Co., but when I discovered The Faces, I was turned around.
I hate using the term “sell out.” I’m not really sure what it means fully. I hate applying such a term to artists. But, if selling out means that you betray your talent to make money/become more successful, then I think the term certainly applies to Rod. This guy used to have so much substance. Unfortunately, people only know him for those late 80s soft rock hits. Let’s not even talk about Truth by Beck.
Ronnie Lane was a great talent who was grossly underrated. I think anyone who seeks his work will be rewarded time and time again.
Long term, I know The Stones are far superior, but when it comes to the time period in question, I’ll take The Faces.
TB