47

Jones was a monster, but I definitely prefer the "post" Stones. The last albums fully orchestrated by Jones, just to remind you, are "Her Satanic Majesties Request" and "Between the Buttons," along with something from "Beggars Banquet." He was an incredibly important figure, giving the other two a massive awareness, but it’s no coincidence that the best albums were made by stylistically returning to their roots, to the blues, to the black music "from when they used to cover Chuck Berry in pubs."

I believe it is very uncouth to confine and limit someone to certain gestures or fields that allow us to look down from a pedestal. It’s the issue of discussing so-called "public figures" based on statements that might be taken out of context or based on their appearance or lack thereof on MTV or at Sanremo, reducing everything to the simplistic division between red and black—comforting schematization that allows just about anyone to flaunt their own pretentious knowledge. This is why the alleged "inconsistency" breaks down all these useless barriers—because it becomes unclear how to exercise one’s judgment and in which box to place that particular person.

her own without and.

Well, I believe that by making him the spokesperson for the entire underground scene, we're giving him responsibilities that he truly doesn’t have; as he himself says multiple times, he is a musician by vocation and a musician above all else. The future of rock in Italy does not rest on his shoulders, and he simply speaks for himself. I also agree with Pablo; Capovilla sends messages in multiple directions about the degradation that our music scene is a product of, about the stifled culture, about the society of the healthy, based on his own reflections. Let's hold onto him tightly, yes.

Since those who know and appreciate them consider them mediocre, I wonder why there's always so much talk around these people.

Yeah, more or less :) I really like sticky, I think I can't live without it. Ah, I didn't start with the stones.. :D

@larrok: I disagree, but for a nuance. To me, their way of interpreting the blues was innovative because that approach you mention is not an "external" factor; it is massively present in their music. That's why I see them as quite distant from the Allman Brothers and Creedence. (Still, great bands.)

Haha the Rolling Stones... Let's be careful with the term "conservative," though. While their music might just be r'n'b, it must be said that their approach to it is quite different from their predecessors: they were (more) ugly, (more) dirty, and savage, and their music forms the backbone from which things like VU (acknowledged by Lou Reed himself, who effectively radicalized their lesson by merging it with Cale's avant-garde) and the Stooges emerged. The country and rock of the Stones is no more "valid" than that of others; however, it is disheveled, perverse/luciferian, politicized, shaped by the social and sexual revolutions of the time, and their visibility (famous artists massifying their lesson) has influenced a good part of rock as we know it today. Plus, the quadrilogy from '68 to '72 includes undeniably impressive albums.

I don’t know, I prefer vegetarian progressive grindcore, or consumerist death reggae.

The review is well written, but I practically disagree with everything. In my opinion, the depressed and melancholic atmospheres they create are nothing more than a distraction from the fact that the musical content of what they do is less than zero. In the face of certain fans who compare them to Radiohead...