Key To Music Grades

A - You will never be whole without it
B - Highly recommended
C - Flawed, but still pretty good
D - It's your money, not mine
F - Why couldn't this have been burned in Fahrenheit 451?

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Rolling Stones - Beggar's Banquet (1968)












I realize that despite having some fondness for certain songs by these antichrists of Altamont, their albums are like filibusters designed to kill what precious few good ideas they do come up with. In this instance, "Sympathy For The Devil" and "Street Fightin' Man" are such examples. But it's funny that the first target of my ire, "No Expectations," does exactly by its title. Love boring bluesy piano ballads? Check it out. If bluesy harmonica-laden mid-tempo music is your thing, perhaps check out "Dear Doctor." Oh, you're a bluesy romper kind of person?; check out "Parachute Woman" -- it even has some little harmonica flourishes for good measure. "Jig-Saw Puzzle" couldn't be put together if the band helped me. This album is simply too boring to be a mess, and I really don't think there's much of a difference between it and Goat's Head Soup, another album I trashed, or any other Stones albums, for that matter. It seems to me, in my own revisionist musical history, that the more I listen to the Stones, the more they seem like the bastard son of bad blues music. If they are to be hoisted on some grand pedestal, it's still obviously low enough that I can shit on it, no matter how ornate it may appear. I mean, I still love Keef when he's brilliant, and I don't think anyone can do swagger like Mick can, but enough is enough. Also, for those easily disgusted/offended and with nothing more than sitcoms as the basis of their exposure to comedy, I suggest you not check out Master Cianan's hilarious and completely aristocratic review on this same album. Otherwise, for once, I may actually be seen as a kinder, gentler hatter. D+

5 comments:

Starrlight said...

You are on the money in that I think most Stones albums are hit and miss. If I had to pick one I'd go Let It Bleed. Or the many compilations for instant gratification without the WTF moments.

Jeff said...

The Stones suck! To me they are one of the most overrated bands in rock. For the few good songs they release, they release three times more crap. Their best songs are great, but the majority of their catalog is garbage. A good question would be, who is more overrated, Eric Clapton or the Rolling Stones?

taotechuck said...

I'm disappointed that you didn't write "swagger like Jagger." Man, that was a missed opportunity.

I was listening to "Gimmie Shelter" the other day, and I realized for the first time in my life that I can't understand a damned word that Mick is singing. I mean, I have no clue what the song is about. So I read the lyrics, and they're not bad, and... well, I don't really have a point to this story. That's all.

The Mad Hatter said...

Starr,

I don't think they have any strong albums. Lots of songs scattered about, but nothing great.

Jeff,

Eric Clapton is the most overrated hack to set his fingers to anything resembling carved wood or metal strings. Not the Stones, nor the Beatles, nor anyone else lambasted past, present or future will be as bad as that man.

Chuck,

I'm sorry. I was writing these in a mad hurry. Now that I have fairly reasonable access to internet (unless it crashes, which it likes to do), I guess I can chill for two months without having to write a review. War, children, it's just a shot away. Everything else I haven't a clue about, either. Funny, sometimes all I get is the chorus for a song; everything else is slurred vocal renderings.

Master Cianan said...

Dude, Jeff, Clapton is way more overrated than the stones. The stones are at least great entertainers, despite the plentitude of shitty songs they've written.