The year was 1962. Rock and roll music had been in existence for eight years, according to a 2004 Rolling Stone article which declared (quite controversially) that Elvis's 1954 recording That's All Right Mama was the first rock and roll song. Kids were cruising the boulevard in Modesto, and George Lucas was eleven years away from immortalizing the moment in American Graffiti. The British Invasion was a year away. So was the death of President Kennedy.
That year, boyhood friends Mick Jagger and Keith Richards decided to form a little band. They also invited multi-instrumentalist Brian Jones, pianist Ian Stewart, bassist Bill Wyman and drummer Charlie Watts.
They were looking for success, just like every garage band that has ever arisen from childhood friendships. And if forty-seven years of being what most consider to be the greatest rock and roll band in history is what you would term success, then I suppose they have done okay for themselves.
In order to try to put the Rolling Stones into perspective, let's look at a few entities that cause nods of admiration if they manage to last forty-seven years:
- A corporation.
- A professional sports franchise
- A tree
- An airline
- A building
- A newly-formed nation
So, what exactly are the odds that a rock and roll band could possibly approach five decades in longevity, particularly one that is known for putting the E in excess?
How could such a cosmically improbable situation arise? Well, the band is based on friendship of the highest degree: Keith and Mick are best friends, which means that sometimes they get mad at each other, but in the end the friendship wins out. Over the years, disagreements in the band's direction have arisen, and have been played hard in the tabloids, but the roots that the Dartford, Kent schoolmates share have always won out.
In contrast to the squeaky-clean Beatles, the Stones showed a hard edge. While John and Paul smiled, Keith and Mick sneered.
Brian Jones could play anything, thus he contributed harpsichord, sitar, cello, dulcimer, xylophone, and many more decidedly non-rock-and-roll instruments to the mix. Watts and Wyman provided solid bass beat, essential for the recycled blues tunes the Stones would belt out on their early albums. Indeed, they owe their very name to a favorite Muddy Waters tune of Keith's, I'm a Rollin' Stone.
The Stones made the connection between R&R and R&B obvious. Where the Beatles headed more into the world of pop, the Stones stayed down in the dirt of the blues. Even though they would take occasional journeys down the roads of chamber music, psychedlia, and yes, even pop, you knew that they were, and would remain, a rock and roll band.
As the 60's wore on, the Stones began suffering from the plagues common to successful groups of the era: battles of egotistical wills, erratic drug-induced behavior, and legal problems. Keith and Mick (barely) maintained enough self-control to see that Brian was truly out of control from drug use. Jones had never been the easiest bloke to get along with, and his newfound unreliability was the straw that broke the camel's back. He was given less and less participation in the group's albums and shows, and was finally formally cut loose in June, 1969. He was found dead in a swimming pool the next month.
1969 was a bad year for the Stones for another reason: Altamont.
The idea was to give a free concert with a bunch of big names, the biggest being the Stones themselves, that would rival Woodstock. The crowds were huge and unruly. Rumor has long had it that the Stones hired the Hell's Angels for security. Three people died, including one drug-crazed, gun-wielding fan at the hands of one of the Angels.
The concert was a public relations nightmare, and has long been seen as a fitting farewell to the troubled 60's.
But the Stones kept moving forward through the 70's, adding guitarist Ronnie Wood and releasing some of their most critically and commercially successful albums. Johnny Carson made this wisecrack during a Carnac the Magnificent routine in the late 80's:
Where can the world's oldest stones be found? I believe they're appearing in Chicago this week.
As each decade has come and gone, the Stones have pulled off one miracle after another. Their most recent album, A Bigger Bang, was met with great reviews and big sales. I found it just a tad too political, but that's just me. However, I'm looking forward to the next one, and all of the rest of them after that.
Jagger has long stayed fit, despite his bouts with various excesses. The four-times-now grandfather reportedly runs seven miles daily. He has (again, reportedly) also put drugs and cigarettes behind him, and enjoys an occasional social drink.
But Richards is the real enigma. He owes his longevity to Marlboros and countless bottles of Jack Daniel's.
So there you go, Boomers.What is the secret of longevity? Many of us have elected to hang on to our youth through healthy habits. But for those who have decided to go out smoking and drinking like it was 1970, lift the next early-morning shot to Keith.
Comments (6)
Great article...but when did the Stones get so old? Hard living, I guess.
Thanks for the memories.
Sharon
~The Baby Boomer Queen~
Posted by Sharon/The Baby Boomer Queen | April 27, 2009 2:04 AM
Posted on April 27, 2009 02:04
Good article on the Stones. I am currently annotating the Stones lyrics, and for those who are interested in digging deeper into their music may go to http://theannotatedlyrics.blogspot.com
Posted by Ken Rafferty | April 27, 2009 8:07 AM
Posted on April 27, 2009 08:07
47 years was and is a long time to be making a style of music they said would not last. However, one could dispute some points in their career as being non-productive music wise. And while the Stones made some great music, The Beatles did make much more in much less time with a much greater range of styles. And yes, the Beatles were clean cut due to the insistence of their manager, Brian Epstein. But R&R might have been a lot longer in being accepted had they been like the Stones and the Stones might not have been what they are, had the Beatles not softened up the resistance.
In my opinion, the Beatles were far more noteworthy for overall accomplishments in music. That is not to slight the accomplishments of the Stones. They are remarkable for lasting so long with a damn good collection of music. But much of what they accomplished was made possible by the lads of Liverpool.
The Beatles had wit which inspired the creation of the Monkees. It was the wit of the Beatles that charmed America and disarmed them, till that special comment of John’s found elsewhere on this sight. The Stones could not match that wit. Stones had attitude, no doubt, but I think that attitude helped lead us to Alamont, too.
The Beatles and later John, were more constructive in their pursuit of change or meaning. George was. But I believe music should be judged independent of character, etc. After all, “It’s Only Rock and Roll,” right? Great article, Ron!
Posted by Scott I | April 27, 2009 9:38 PM
Posted on April 27, 2009 21:38
The Rolling Stones made a pact with Satan in order to eclipse the Beatles. Brian Jones tried to back out and what happened to him is a direct result of his actions. Altamont was just a gentle reminder of what would happen if the others tried to renege.
In return for their souls and appropriate deference and fealty and PR for Lucifer (I hope you guessed his name) in song (Their Satanic Majesties’ Request, Sympathy for the Devil etc.) they would enjoy Rock ‘n Roll stardom until their markers were called in prolly when they reach 100.
True to his word, Mick & Keith have been able to live dissipative and philandering lives with apparently no ill effects. Keith falls out of a tree and is none the worse for wear and Mick has a zillion children and still is as randy as he ever was.
They are still the Kings of Rock & Roll and their popularity shows no signs of abating. I'll wager that their tunes will be featured heavily in the Muzak piped into Boomer Old Age Homes.
Posted by Burt | April 29, 2009 6:22 PM
Posted on April 29, 2009 18:22
Classic Band! I love the Stones! Mostly their early music and early seventies. I must admit that even when the Stones tried the disco beats in the lates seventies, it was good! Brian Jones was a mess, but he had so much potential! I saw the Stones for the first time on the Start me up tour in Philadelphia. That was when a ticket was about 50 dollars. Now you can't get a ticket for under a hundred these days. I like the Stones music very much, but really didn't like it live. Just me I guess! I have to hand it to the Stones for lasting so long and still going strong! It's Only Rock n Roll!!
Posted by Rivers End | May 5, 2009 9:58 AM
Posted on May 5, 2009 09:58
To Rivers End:
I agree with you a lot. Stones rot live. They don't even attempt good musicianship. Sounds nothing like their studio material.
Stones had a lot of great different material from different periods but I often like the Mick Taylor era the most. I found his style distinctive and pleasing. It made the Stones stand out, too; from other bands and from each other, particularly Keith, the other guitarist.
Brian contributed a lot but could not keep it together. There was some conflict tween him and Mick/Keith as well. Stones were less without him. After Mick Taylor, things went downhill.
Start Me Up was a good album but not much more. Stones are stale now.
Posted by Scott Irv | June 20, 2009 11:54 PM
Posted on June 20, 2009 23:54