Rolling Stones Old and in the Way
Published September 01, 2002
Neal Pollack, America's Greatest Living Writer, writes in the New York Times about the Return of the Living Dead, I mean, the upcoming Rolling Stones tour.
Mick, Keef, and the other guys? How can we miss you if you won't go away? Here in Toronto, where they were rehearsing for their oldies revue, we had the obligatory newspaper photos, and speculation on where you could see them shopping and whatnot. But the reports were rather brief and enervated. The Stones are tired, old and irrelevant. As Pollack writes, nothing drives this home than going to see them on tour.
As he says on his site:
Based on the outraged howls of classic rock fans everywhere that have been pouring into my mailbox at the rate of one an hour, I thought I would provide basic answers to questions that will inevitably arise from my savage attack on the Rolling Stones in this weekend's NY Times Arts and Leisure section. Let me iterate, people: The Stones are not the Greatest Rock and Roll Band of All Time. That was Iggy and the Stooges. I will stand by my opinion, and I will go listen to Fun House to prove my point.
If you get a chance to see Neal Pollack on tour he is recommended, because he rocks. I saw him at the 360 Club in Toronto with a teenage suburban pickup band, and he tore the place up. And he now has a blog, 'cause all the other cool kidz were doing it. Also, there is an audio version of his book with the Pine Valley Cosmonauts.
- Rolling Stones Old and in the Way
- Published: September 01, 2002
- Type:
- Section: Music
- Filed Under: Music: Rock
- Writer: Jim Carruthers
- Jim Carruthers's BC Writer page
- Jim Carruthers's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
I saw the Stones in Louisville in '81 ('82?) and I thought they were ancient then, a bunch of old wankers hanging onto their past glory. They were 40 then! How uncool! (At least "Tattoo You" was a mildly decent record.)
Later in '82 I saw shows by The Ramones, Fear, the Gang of Four, Killing Joke, and Translator and I knew something was seriously wrong with American radio for not promoting these much more relevant (and younger) bands. It was like my generation had been marginalized and ignored by the aging hippies and Boomers who wouldn't let go.
Apparently in '02 they STILL won't. How sad.
Are the Stones currently meaningless? Absolutely. But that doesn't change the fact that the NY Times article was a boring post-modern screed that threw the baby out with the bathwater. When Pollack stated that he sold all of his Stones records because "they had outlived the usefulness" he proved himself to be an irrelevant hipster at best, and a fool at worst. However much of an colossal idiot Mick Jagger may be, it doesn't change the greatness of what the Stones created from 1964-1972. That music continues to LIVE, no matter whether a "corporate" rock radio entity plays it or not.
And also, Iggy sucked this past tour. But he was never a truly a popular artist, so all is forgiven, right Neal?
You super-post-punk-irony people get so predictable and dull after a while.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/337)
Right on Jim - I've said many times, the problem isn't aging and playing: the problem is aging and losing relevance and still trying to play to same venues as if you were relevant. Do a club tour - I'd sure as hell go to that and doubtess enjoy it. But who needs to see these desiccated grandparents playing stadiums like it's 1975?