|
Rock Around The World • November 1977 |
... douses flames .
and gives himself up.
`Aro Elvis,
Beatles,
or The Rolling Stones
in 1977"
The Clash
Love live at Toronto's El Macombo
... turns up heat ...
the mainstream rock journals have rushed to salute it as a confirmation of the Stones' prowess on their natural turf, the concert stage. I can only speculate that the expression of those sentiments represent a desire on the part of the writers involved to justify the music that helped shape their lives because the fact of the matter is that Love You Live simply isn't a very good record to these ears and certainly not in the class of Ya-Yai.
And the primary areas where it falls short of the mark are precisely those where the new wavers make their stand--energy and commitment. The danger signals rise ominously on the opening "Honky Tonk Woman," one of the Stones' all-time classics but here given a very perfunctory and surprisingly subdued treatment. Whether due to a bad mix or a less than spectacular night, the band seems to be composed of six or seven individual parts in search of a central core to latch on to rather than the fully integrated powerhouse on Ya-Ya's. They hit their stride more frequently on up-tempo numbers-"Happy," "Star, Star," "Round And Round" and most of the fourth side-but the other tunes often seem to be on the verge of falling apart and not in the positive sense of being on the brink that often produces the best rock and roll.
The main culprit throughout the proceedings is Jagger, who sounds like he's merely going through the motions on the three sides recorded in Paris last year. He virtually throws away the lyrics to "Jumping Jack Flash," and "Sympathy" only takes off when Keith kicks into his solo. In contrast, "Happy" succeeds despite a horrendously off-key vocal from Keith simply because he sings like the song matters to him. Mick is in better form in the intimate confines of the El Mocambo Club, singing with greater intensity and ripping off a few good one-liners between songs. The much vaunted El Mocambo side-the Stones' first club gig in close to 15 years- is interesting more for historical reasons than musical, save for the always excellent boogie piano work of Ian Stewart. The reggae treatment of Bo Diddley's "Crackin' Up" is one of the best tracks on the album, but the two vintage blues covers sound pretty dated.
The uninspiring blues material points to another crucial factor relating to the current condition of the Stones-ironically enough, Mick Taylor is looming larger and larger as an integral element of their later success. Though image-wise the least likely Stone ever, his fluid soloing was a perfect foil for Richard's*driving rhythm work. When I caught the Stones' '72
tour in New York, they struggled through the opening two songs and were in the process of butchering "Gimme Shelter" when Tayler ripped out a superb solo and the entire band caught fire and just burned from that point on. Ron Wood's happy-go-lucky personality may fit perfectly into the band, but his stint with the Faces showed him to be a fine rhythm player but no great shakes as a lead guitarist as his extended solo on "You Can't Always Get What You Want" here demonstrates. He definitely doesn't have the blues chops Taylor developed during his Bluesbreakers days and a song like "You Got To Move" is boring whereas Taylor and Richard might have turned it into something exciting and vital.
At any rate Love You Live isn't the sheer triumph many hoped for and simply can't stand on its musical merits like Ya-Ya's did. Presently their future as a band hinges largely on the outcome of Keith's trial for heroin trafficking in Toronto. Jagger may cop the headlines and make the high society gossip columns but Keith is the musical core of the band. When he's on, the Stones are a hot band. They've recently made some noises about touring without him if he's convicted, but it's doubtful they would pack the same impact and I would hate being the guitarist
who would try to fill Richard's rock and roll shoes,
With Keith, their future is pretty well assured for as long as they want to carry on. The best comparison, and one that's already been made, is the Stones as the Muhammad Ali of rock and roll-the reigning champs not at the peak of their power recently but still capable of mustering enough of the old flash to retain their crown. As certified rock and roll legends, they can release whatever they like these days and be confident it will sell on the strength of their name alone. But they haven't made a truly satisfying album in five years now and it's usually proven to be very difficult for a band to regain their musical momentum once they've lost it.
Yet there are indications that the Stones are becoming irritated by the new wavers' constant criticism of them as boring old farts and perhaps that challenge will provide the impetus for them to regain their intensity and begin creating memorable music again. The alternative is a situation that can only fill the hearts of those who've lived and died with the band with fear and loathing--the fact that, in 1977 and beyond, the Rolling Stones just might not matter any more.
photos by Neil Preston, Neil Ziozower/Mirage

