A few years back Rolling Stone mag ran a cartoon which
showed a bearded man in the desert in front of an ancient statue
which rather resembled the Rolling Stones band. The bearded man
was saying, or rather wailing, that "I've come to the oracle for
twenty years and it hasn't said a thing". This pretty much summed
up the band's recent output which was self-congratulatory arena
fodder that was actually pretty well suited to their post Altamont
audience of people who didn't quite get it. Well, not all of them
of course ... but what were they doing there?
Anyway, the Stones have a pretty impeccable rock 'n' roll
history. The point of the thing was, after all, questioning
and rebellion. What quite a lot of feckless fans did with the
message they received from all that gave great heart to those who
would censor and control us in the name of ... well, you know
what spurious names they use. And how ridiculous has that got?
Regularly, in different countries, you can see examples of
censorship ratings systems where pulling someone's spine out
causes a small rap on the knuckles but where there's the slighest
suggestion of something that is quite legal and most of us do ...
sex ... it gets a ban or a very high rating. Is that sick or
what?
Back to the Stones: Is the oracle still silent? Does anyone
give a shit? Is their pension plan topped up enough yet?
First of all, you'd have to say that some attempts have been made
in this album to at least dust the oracle off a bit. There is
some of the old grittiness and the neo-cons from the USA get a
bit of a dusting as well. This will not scare the neo-cons or
mobilise anyone or give anyone else a message they hadn't received
yet unless they were terminally backward (and this is being written
just after Hurricane Katrina). It is a demonstration, however, that
the very rich can sometimes be connected to the planet. The song
isn't bad at all. It's just a little bit like the dumb kid in
class who's the last to get anything.
This kind of leads on to the next answer -- to the question of whether
anyone gives a shit. They do, they do! The opening concert in Boston
at a 30,000 seater was sold out. People like Arnold Schwarzenegger and
the critic for The Times of London (A Murdoch paper) were there.
Let me quote briefly from the latter ...
'And although Keith Richards played with customary swashbuckling zeal,
the energy level dropped through the floor when he supplied his hopelessly
slovenly lead vocals for The Worst and another new song, Infamy.'
(entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,14936-1746420,00.html)
Well, big surprise there, the Times critic doesn't get it. Arnie
might well get it, I don't know. The point is that the Rolling Stones
are now an event that has mostly to do with their being there rather
than saying anything. To most of their crowd, the words are irrelevant:
what matters is a tight, professional show, with Sir Mick doing
the requisite amount of prancing and acting. It's show biz.
So, is this album a complete waste of time? No, it's not.
Is it important? No, it's not.
(thunderfinger)
Mstation Pop etc Commentary, Reviews
pre Dec 04 reviews are here
Sat, 01 Oct 2005
Rolling Stones, A Bigger Bang
LP, Virgin
