Rock and Roll Circus
I'm not particularly a fan of the Rolling Stones, I have to say. I like a number of their songs, particularly from say pre-1974 or so. But I don't own any of their albums or can say that I've listened to many of them all the way through. But "Gimme Shelter"? Genius. Same with "Sympathy for the Devil" and "You Can't Always Get What You Want". "Start Me Up"? Lameness personified.
But ROCK AND ROLL CIRCUS just might convince me to become a fan. Originally envisioned as a television special in 1968, ROCK AND ROLL CIRCUS is an amazing slice of the English rock pie of the time. Jethro Tull, The Who, Marianne Faithful and John Lennon (with Eric Clapton and Mitch Mitchell backing him up) perform, along with the Stones and Taj Majal (a well-regarded but mostly overlooked American bluesman of the time). But see, they're not just performing, they're all at the Rock and Roll Circus which is this sort of ramshackle Eastern Continental feeling kind of affair with performers who are a little too old and clothing that's a little too gaudy. Those vignettes are few.
But what you get instead of an actual circus is some really great performances. You watch stuff like this and you really understand at a fundamental level what bult the audiences for these bands before they became big and bloated (or big and emaciated in the case of Mick Jagger) rock dinosaurs. Here's bands arguably at the peak of their powers performing for tiny, miniscule audiences that wouldn't fill up the stage of the coliseums that these bands would go on to fill. There's a lot of power at play, and while Mick's onstage antics might get laughed at by the jaded kids of today (once they've seen GG Allin, how you gonna keep 'em down on the farm?), but I guarantee in 1968, there'd have been nationwide cases of the vapors had this actually been televised.
The really miraculous thing about ROCK AND ROLL CIRCUS? It's something that can't be duplicated. Not just because Keith Moon and Brian Jones are dead, not just because the lightning has long escaped its various bottles, but because the lawyer and label-driven acts of today would never allow such a thing to happen. Not in a stripped-down and earnest manner as is the case here. Egos would never be put aside to combine into something a little more magical.
And really, the rendition of "Sympathy for the Devil" is worth the price of admission alone. Well that and Marianne Faithful's radiant and too-brief presence.
Comments
Man, I love the Stones and still haven't seen this. The album at this time, Beggar's Banquet, is one of my favorites and really the beginning of the best period of the Stones (and the beginning of the end for ol' Jonsey).
It's funny you talk about egos not being able to be put aside becuase it's certainly not like Jagger, Richards, Lennon and Townsend don't have egos. But perhaps since all these bands were doing such great work the desire to combine their might was more powerful than keeping one's "brand" strong.
I've been thinking about the subject for a while and want to write a post on it. I've noticed how bands back then don't suffer from as much neuroses as people creating music today do. The Stones didn't fret about being white English boys playing blues and R&B. They just did it. Townsend didn't worry about how pretentious the idea of creating a rock opera might sound. He just went out and did it.
Now there are too many anxieties about what has come before and how your sound is going to be heard by others. I want to recapture that spirit of just creating something, damn the consequences.
Posted by: Ian Brill
| October 17, 2007 09:48 PM
Sure there were egos at play, nowhere more evident than the interview of John Lennon by Mick Jagger, but the egos weren't front and center. Maybe because they were all behind the conceit of the Rock and Roll Circus (of which the Rolling Stones were the ringmasters, make no mistake.)
You're on to something when you bring up the un-self-consciousness of the performers then. Well not self-consciousness per se, since there was a great deal of that, but maybe a lack of meta-consciousness (or fake meta-consciousness). Not a bad thing, really.
Posted by: Matt Maxwell
| October 18, 2007 03:04 AM