THE ROLLING STONES: ENGLAND'S NEWEST HITMAKERS (1964)
1) Not Fade Away; 2) (Get Your Kicks On) Route 66; 3) I Just Want To Make
Love To You; 4) Honest I Do; 5) Now I've Got A
Witness; 6) Little By Little; 7) I'm A King Bee;
8) Carol; 9) Tell Me (You're Coming Back To Me);
10) Can I Get A Witness; 11) You Can Make It
If You Try; 12) Walking The Dog.
Sidenote 1: With this review, we inaugurate the "Important Artist Series" as a replacement for the "Important Album Series". This time, instead of following the RateYourMusic recommendations, the series will focus on my favorite artists that had already been reviewed on the old site, in approximate order of appreciation - and, since The Beatles were already done according to the alphabetic principle, what would be the most logical Sunday choice for a follow-up? Okay, stupid question.
Sidenote 2: I did
consider a possible change of course, but in the end, I decided to still follow
the same path that I originally chose for the old site and review the Stones'
American Decca catalog rather than the «authentic» UK releases, simply because
the American LP sequence ends up being more comprehensive with its inclusion of
singles and American-only tracks. But technically, this record should indeed be
simply called The Rolling Stones,
and feature Bo Diddley's ʽMona (I Need You)ʼ instead of Buddy Holly's ʽNot Fade
Awayʼ, their first hit single that was tacked on specially for the American
market.
"What's the point of listening to us doing
ʽI'm A King Beeʼ when you can hear Slim Harpo doing it?", Jagger once
famously remarked — long after The Rolling Stones had mastered the art of
writing their own material, of course; had he humbly and honestly admitted this
in April 1964, this could go a long way in ruining Andrew Oldham's carefully
constructed promotional campaign. But here we are in 2016, when both Slim
Harpo's original from 1957 and the Stones' 1964 cover of the original have all
but merged in the same time dimension, and as much as I like and respect Mr.
Slim, I think that «the point» is now fairly self-evident.
Too much silliness, some of it PC-motivated
rather than substantial in any way, has been spread about the «whiteboy soulless
blues imitations» of the British Invasion — well, sometimes there's a grain of
truth to it, depending on the level of talent and technique of the artist in
question (and, no doubt about it, there were plenty of second- and third-rate
imitators back in the day, just as there are in any time period), but in the
case of The Rolling Stones, this is an utterly misguided position. The thing
is, while early Stones did indeed mostly cover their overseas idols rather than
write their own songs at first, they had, from the very beginning, a creative approach to these covers — more
creative, in fact, than The Beatles had, which might actually be one of the
reasons why it took them so much longer to overcome their shyness and begin
writing original songs on a regular basis. They did not feel such a pressing
need to write their own songs, because they were simply very happy about how
they succeeded in reinventing others.
Take the aforementioned ʽI'm A King Beeʼ — play
it back to back with Slim Harpo and then decide, honestly, which of the two
you'd like to leave in your collection if you couldn't have both, for some
reason. First and most obvious thing you notice is the production: naturally,
the 1964 standards of Regent Studios in London make all the instruments sound
sharper and clearer than the 1957 standards in Nashville (I used to think it
was a Chicago song like all of 'em, but apparently Slim never made it to
Chicago). This, however, is but a technical advantage. Much more importantly, the
boys capitalize on the potential of the song — immanently present there from
the beginning, but never properly explored by the author. Not only does Wyman
nail the «buzzing» bass zoop of the song so that it sounds even subtler and
more menacing than the original, but in the instrumental break, after the
inciting "well, buzz awhile", he actually delivers a fun buzzing solo
(the original just went along with the zoops — same thing as the verse without
the vocals). And then, the «sting it babe!» bit — Harpo delivered, like, three miserable «stinging» notes, while
Brian Jones actually makes his guitar sound like an angry hive going wild on
your ass, in one of the most imaginative mini-solos he'd ever devised.
Okay, you'll say, but what about the vocals?
Surely an authentic bluesman from the Louisiana region will sound more
convincing and authentic than a snotty 21-year old Dartford kid who'd never
even seen the Delta, let alone spent some time there? But again, this kind of
logic is only valid if we work from the assumption that Mick Jagger wanted to
sound like Slim Harpo, and that the idea was to give a credible impression of
Afro-American sexual power as conveyed through blues music. If, however, we
work from the assumption that Afro-American blues music was simply chosen as a
starting medium for venting the suppressed sexuality of young British kids...
well, in that case I have to say that Mick Jagger is far more successful here
at accomplishing his own personal goal than Mr. Harpo was at accomplishing his
— simply because nobody in 1964's
Great Britain sounded quite like Mick Jagger. Nobody, not a single frickin' soul.
I mean, I keep running these rowdy young boys
of the time through my mind, one by one — Eric Burdon, Roger Daltrey, Paul
Jones, Keith Relf, Phil May, never mind The Beatles at all in this category —
and there's nobody who would even begin to approach Jagger in terms of a
certain «aggressive mystique» in his singing (and also harp playing, by the
way). Mick wasn't much of a burly belter — he was more of a midnight rambler,
sounding razor-sharp and sneeringly cocky at the same time, like pop music's
equivalent of some deadly, impossibly charismatic villain from some TV show or
comic series. And yes, half a century later it's all very well for us to smile
at the «dangerous» image that was so carefully assembled for him and the boys
in 1964, but the fact is, this here ʽI'm A King Beeʼ does sound utterly dangerous for the time. Never mind the promotion,
the photos, the staged «offensive behaviour»: The Rolling Stones were considered
«dangerous» in 1964 because their music
sounded dangerous, far more so than The Beatles.
Speaking of the Beatles, here's another
comparison. The self-titled UK version of this record, unlike its doctored
American counterpart, opened with the (also heavily reinvented) cover of Chuck
Berry's cover of Bobby Troup's ʽ(Get Your Kicks On) Route 66ʼ — a basic
three-chord rocker that sounds not entirely unlike the Beatles' ʽI Saw Her
Standing Thereʼ if you reduce them to bare-bones structures. Both songs serve
as kick-ass energetic openers to capture your attention and devotion from the
get-go; but the Beatles use the energy of rock'n'roll to stimulate over-the-top
joy and exuberance of a burgeoning teenager — the Stones, on the other hand,
use it as a newfangled, barely understood voodoo mechanism. The song, which
used to be a fairly innocent ode to the wonders of U.S. highway travel in the
days of Nat King Cole, and was still quite happy sounding even in its Chuck
Berry incarnation, is here transformed into a mystical romp: Jagger lists all
these unknown, enigmatic words like "Amarillo", "Gallup, New
Mexico", and "Flagstaff, Arizona" as if they were part of some
black magic incantation (surely they couldn't sound any different from the
proverbial "abracadabra" for him at the time), and even though the
druggy days were still years away from the boys at the time, the line
"would you get hip to this kindly tip, and take that California trip"
sounds positively stoned in this context.
It does not hurt, either, that in early '64,
the Stones emerged on the scene as easily the
tightest of all nascent British bands, period. Again, listen to the way they
play ʽRoute 66ʼ and ʽCarolʼ in the context of the time — nobody in 1964 played
with quite the same combination of speed, tightness, and mean, lean, focused
energy. One of the biggest mysteries that I have never managed to figure out is
how they got their rhythm section to sound that way: with Charlie Watts' predominantly
jazz-based interests and with Bill Wyman being older than most of the rest by a
good nine years (and having previously played with comparatively «tepid»
outfits), it would seem at first like a fairly suspicious match with their wild
pair of guitarists — but from the very first seconds of ʽRoute 66ʼ, it is clear
that everybody gels in perfectly, and that Bill and Charlie are only too happy
to provide Keith and Brian with the tightest, fastest, grittiest «bottom» that
was at all possible in 1964. And Mick, at the same time, proves himself to be
a master of the harmonica, refraining from technical feats or wild power-puffs
and making it, instead, into a melodic extension of his own voice (ʽI'm A King
Beeʼ and Jimmy Reed's ʽHonest I Doʼ are the best examples).
Almost everything here smells of creativity and
excitement. For ʽI Just Want To Make Love To Youʼ, it was clear that they
couldn't replicate the Olympian swagger of physical love god Muddy Waters — so,
instead, they sped the thing up to an insane tempo and subjected their
soon-to-be teenage girl fans to the lose-your-head breakneck fury of a young
and strong team of British rock studs. For ʽHonest I Doʼ, Jagger knows it is
useless to replicate the «toothless voice» of Jimmy Reed, so he is going
instead for a Don Juan-ish delivery: you know he absolutely does not mean it
when he sings "I'll never place no one above you", certainly not
after following it up with the wolf-whistle harmonica solo, but is that reason
enough to refuse a lying-'n'-cheating one night stand? It certainly isn't. For Rufus
Thomas' ʽWalking The Dogʼ, they pull out all the stops, with the sneeriest,
nastiest vocal performance possible and Keith blasting away on that solo as if
his life, freedom, and an upcoming 20-year heroin supply all depended on it. I
like all the original performances of these songs, sure enough, but they were
never as defiant as what the Stones
manage to turn them into here, and if you don't feel that quantum difference, you
will most likely be unable to grasp the essence of this band, not even after formally
swearing your allegiance to the likes of Sticky
Fingers or Exile On Main St.
Where the band does slightly fail is on the
material that they do not manage to
fully drag over to the dark side — the most notable of these failures probably
being Marvin Gaye's ʽCan I Get A Witnessʼ, an okay cover, I guess, but Jagger
is trying too hard to simply get us up on our feet and dance, without finding
himself some extra function that was not already there in Marvin's original;
and as an «R&B singer without a back thought», it is clear that the man
does not hold his own against seasoned pros. (In fact, I am far more
sympathetic towards the instrumental extention of this song — ʽNow I've Got A
Witnessʼ features top-notch harmonica solos and another masterful guitar break
from Keith). ʽYou Can Make It If You Tryʼ, originally done by Gene Allison but
probably heard by the Stones in the more recent Solomon Burke version, is
another duffer candidate, but Mick's vocal here commands more respect than it
does on ʽWitnessʼ — replacing soul with swagger, it still manages to give you
an uplifting kick.
The album contained but one original (ʽTell
Meʼ), and it has always amused me that the «evil» Stones would have a tender,
sentimental pop ballad (albeit a tragic one) as their introduction to the world
of songwriters' royalty (and royalties)
— but I'll be damned if it isn't quite a fine-written song for the ʽFrom Me To
Youʼ era, with the boys already mastering the art of build-up (tender verse,
alarmed bridge, desperate chorus) and, curiously, going well over the typical
three-minute barrier, as if they got carried away with their own success. It
also set a common standard for them: in the future, the typical Stones ballad
would be a bitter lament rather than a serenade, helping to lessen the gap
between their rocky swagger and their sentimental side. In any case, ʽTell Meʼ
is a respectable keeper, rather than forgettable fluff, and it's kind of a pity
that they buried it once and for all in their live set after 1965 (honestly,
they wrote quite a few worse clunkers in the balladry department after that).
In short, remember this, kids: there were only
two artists in 1964 to top the LP charts — the Beatles and the Stones, and if
you do not understand how the artistic creativity and imagination of A Hard Day's Night could be regarded on
the same level with the «slavish blues and rock'n'roll covers» of The Rolling Stones, you will probably
have to regard this fact as a sorrowful consequence of how Andrew Loog Oldham
and his buddies were able to dupe the British public with their
titillation-based promotional campaign. (Then again, there are also those who
think that Brian Epstein not only made the Beatles, but also was the Beatles, to a certain extent). I
have never subscribed to that conspirologist opinion, though, and as time goes
by, the awesomeness of the fresh, young, nasty, swaggery Stones only becomes
more and more obvious to me even against the ever-expanding musical horizons,
so a loyal thumbs
up here.