Log has written
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2010

There was a time, way back in the 1970s, when every time the Rolling Stones were introduced as “the greatest rock and roll band in the world,” there were howls of protest. The Beatles had never claimed to be just another rock and roll band so that was okay. But what about another great British band of the same vintage, The Who? What about Led Zeppelin whose records outsold the Stones everywhere in the world?

No moss: Martin Scorsese paints a no-frills, no-glitz avatar of the Stones in a new biopic, Shine a Light.

No moss: Martin Scorsese paints a no-frills, no-glitz avatar of the Stones in a new biopic, Shine a Light.

These days, nobody quibbles too much when the Stones are described as “the greatest”. Zeppelin never made it past the 1970s. The Who lost their edge. And the other pretenders came and went. Only the Stones, reunited after a bitter battle between Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, are still rocking in the 21st century.

And yet, who knows exactly why they are the greatest rock and roll band in the world? Of course they have a certain historical importance. And they’ve written some great songs. But it’s been a while since the Stones have recorded anything memorable. Their albums don’t really sell that well. I’d be very surprised if more than a handful of Lounge readers could name a single Stones track released in the last 10 years.

I pondered the immortality of the Stones while watching Shine a Light, a new concert movie made by Martin Scorsese.

There are nearly as many Stones movies as there are Stones live albums but in many ways, Shine a Light is the best. Not only is Scorsese a brilliant director but the film takes the bold decision to strip the Stones of the stadium glitz and pyrotechnics that have marred so many of the other concert movies. As he did with the Band in his seminal 1970s movie The Last Waltz, Scorsese gives us the Stones without any frills. He chooses a show at a relatively intimate venue (New York’s Beacon theatre), uses a simple set and shoots the band from so close that you can almost run a motorcycle through the giant grooves on Mick Jagger’s face. Does Shine a Light answer the question of why the Stones are the greatest rock band of all time? Not really. It’s a great show but the Stones are not significantly better than say, The Who, when that band is in form. The music is okay but there are no displays of virtuosity and no great insights into the songs.

What Scorsese does answer, however, is the question of why the Stones remain such icons. The show is a benefit for the Clinton foundation and when the Great Philanderer strides on to the screen to shake hands with the band, you can’t help thinking: “not only is this man much taller than Mick Jagger, he is also younger!”

Tags - Find More Articles On:
READ MORE ARTICLES BY:
 
Sean Said:


First off, the Stones are the Greatest Rock Band in the World for a number of reasons: The Stones have a record number of top 40 hit songs- a record number of consecutive # 1 albums- best selling rock DVD ever (LIVE LICKS sold x 10 platinum- most enduring band- have garnered more publicity than any other rock band, and the Rolling Stones are THE most successful touring band of all-time (A Bigger Bang alone made $550,000,000,). Critics tend to over-look that incredible feet! I consider the Beatles to be a great Pop group. However, The Rolling Stones are the Greatest Rock n’ Roll Band EVER! Yes, The Beatles sold tons of records too, but the Stones music is still current. On the contrary, The Beatles music is somewhat dated. Try playing Yesterday at a Teenage party today-you might get bored faces from the crowd. Play BROWN SUGAR and you get the crowd jumpin'!

Posted On 8/29/2008 5:35:56 AM
Clarence Said:


I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments of the article. The Stones remain an inevitable, relevant force in the music industry today, serving not only as a reminder of days past, but also as an answer to the question of whether rock bands can take it all the way in old (for lack of a better word) age. I have written an article recently on the Stones, in the context of why they never gained much popularity in the Manila mainstream. You may read it, if desired, here: http://blogs.inquirer.net/soundtrip/2008/08/13/reconsider-the-rolling-stones-please/ Best Regards Clarence Yu

Posted On 8/29/2008 10:18:34 AM
Sean Said:


Correction: I meant to say incredible feat, not feet. If I had been speaking, it would have been foot.

Posted On 8/30/2008 5:33:45 AM
atri Said:


Thanks for the great article Mr. Sanghvi. Loved it (as I love most of your articles, especially the Calcutta ones). This was incredibly timed for me as I was listening to Sticky Fingers today in the morning before coming to office (Dubai weekend being Friday and Saturday. This is the first time I played a Stones album in the last... 2 years? while I agree that the performance makes a difference, and Jagger sings every song as if it was released last week, I am afraid I would still consider them an oldies band. We dont want them to play new music, do we? The Richards songs in the show arent the only times people would head for the loo, same would apply to any new material they play. And I wonder how do they do it, playing the same songs a thousand times in a thousand shows, and (I am sure) playing it exactly the same way. Probably, thats why a Rolling Stones Live would never be in the same league as a Grateful Dead one - you've seen one, you've seen them all. Also on Sean's comparison with the Beatles, I dont think putting a "Yesterday" up with a "Brown Sugar", in the context of a teen party, is exactly fair. Why not try a "Come together"? And that leads us to the age old ramble about whats pop and whats rock :)..... the article also makes me wonder about the Queen + Paul Rodgers show in Dubai later this year... should I or shouldn't I?

Posted On 8/31/2008 11:10:15 AM