Gimmie Shelter
| Labels: America, authenticity and labels, culture and society, Europe, food for thought, written by Rio Denali | Posted On
- Sometimes a simple question can launch the best discussions...
- by Rio Denali and a friend
- An excerpt of emails:
- Him: Rolling Stones or Led Zeppelin?
- Rio: That is a good question. Here is my opinion.
Led Zeppelin was one of the most significant musical groups of the 70s (part of the 60s as well) for a couple reasons. They defined a generation of music, tested the boundaries, and took rock music of that genre to new heights. Just as it can be said that language is alive and reflects the people who use it, genres of music are the same way. Led Zeppelin was the musical manifestation of the hippie counter-culture going on at the time in the US and throughout much of the western world. It was a reflection of the drug experimentation, the need to define a generation as separate from those that came before it, a need for rebellion perhaps..... It reflected the growth of the psyche of the young (or young at heart) I would say, and their musical progression from album to album is a journey that they both took people on, and was influenced by those sharing a similar journey at the same time.
Bottom line is that although they are not a favorite of mine (other than a couple songs, I do not actually enjoy their music), they are a defining force in 1970s rock, and rock music overall. They are a classic band of epic proportions. But, they are dated in sound and impact, meaning that they belong exclusively to one era of music. Their music, being so strongly intertwined with a generation, a genre and with the musical experimentation that was going on at the time is not something that endures and speaks to new generations except as a classic--a relic.
The Rolling Stones, on the other hand, is a band who made the shifts with musical changes. They began as a parallel with the Beatles, that sort of sound coming out of the UK at that time. And although that was considered "rock" and "hardcore" back then....they were able to transcend that and move into the true genre of "rock" as the 70s came about. (Many would argue that the Beatles stayed a step behind....they never quite made the move to the rock sound of the 70s. I know, I know....you may argue this fact, but the difference I am talking about here is this: The Beatles are appropriate on a 60s station that only plays things like the Beach Boys, while only the earliest Rolling Stones could be played on such a station and no Led Zeppelin could be played there. I Wanna Hold Your Hand could not be played on a 70s station that is known for hardcore Led Zeppelin, but much of the Rolling Stone's catalog from that era could....)
Rolling Stones went from Beatles-era rock, to the 70s rock successfully....partly because they were never a fringe band, meaning they did not go so far into the experimental realm. They moved the new direction, seemed to embrace it, and in many ways (and depending on where you lived) even defined it to some extent. Their music from that era has a timeless feel to it, and still feels relevant today, not just in the musical relic (musical history) way that Zeppelin does though.....it feels pertinent to a new time, even now 30-40 years later. - A 70s Stones song comes on the radio, and I find myself thinking, "Wow that is a really good song. I forgot what a good song that is." Then I find myself noticing how well the song "fits" with the radio lineup of the other bands from the 90s and the past decade. Although their music from that era is classic in the sense of age, I would argue that much of what they made from that time period is really timeless, and will continue to be musically relevant for decades to come. (Much of Zeppelin's catalog just isn't musically relevant to today's music and culture....it's more of a niche now, I would argue, much as the Beatles are today.)
Rolling Stones was so successful because they were able to switch genres and stay more in the middle of the road music-wise, never straying so far off into experimental directions as to mark them as fringe music. Being mainstream in this case, was a key to their longevity, I would argue. - The switch in genres was probably the most important key to their long term success. Going from the Beatles sound, to the 70s sound, and then managing to transition their music just enough with each passing decade to still be making music that is popular 40 to 50 years later is quite an accomplishment. Few artists have been able to leap genres like that: Bon Jovi is a great example, one might even argue that KISS did a good job of it as well (spanning the disco era, 70s rock, and 80s glam rock for example)...but there aren't many good examples of bands who were able to do it, and do it well .
- Him: I really like how you articulated that, I think it would make for a good blog post.
I'm on the other side of the fence, there are only a few songs that the stones have that resonate with me (play with fire, paint it black, gimmie shelter, start me up). I don't actually find their music to be very... musical when it comes down to it. They were alway about image and pr which got much more of their focus than the music ultimately did. I see them as a prototype of today's self absorbed celebrity culture, with the fans hanging on their every staged pr gimmick. I've always said of the stones; if you gave me 20 albums of time, access to any songwriter, and any guest musician, I could knock out a few hits in 40 years. ;)
That being said, the stones represent the peak of the post beatles pop culture, one that had more grit and rawness to it. Nobody can argue that "cocksucker blues" was a damn gutsy play on their part.
On the other hand, led zep is a musicians band. Each album is completely different in tone and composition. When you contrast songs like Bron-y-aur Stomp, D'yer Maker, Sick Again, Thats the Way or Ten Years Gone you will find that they explore very different aspects of song structure, sound, and instrumentation. Led zep wrote all of their music, with the exception of some blues numbers that they used as tributes to their mentors/inspiration. Jimmy Page produced the albums and retained creative control over everything.
Consider Zeppelin IV, a landmark album that is still referenced by many musicians today as a constant source of inspiration. The album was released with no press, no band name on the cover or inner sleeve, and no references to the band members. They also did very few interviews, and never released a single.
I think the differences between the two bands are very interesting because they represent completely opposing approaches to the same goal: providing the soundtrack to our lives, giving inspiration and comfort as needed.
Rio: I will say that I do agree with your points, but I interpret them differently. Led Zep was more ground breaking in their music, and a "musician's band"--on those points I definitely agree with you. That was kind of where I was going in saying that they were more experimental. They pushed the boundaries. I appreciate them for the incredible work they did in that respect.....
However, for every 10 Rolling Stones songs I hear today on the radio, I only hear 1 Zep song. Although they are a force within rock--certainly pillars of rock, a foundation that much of today's rock is built from--I don't think many of their songs transcend the generations successfully.
It is the same with many great artists if you consider it. The greatest pillars of modernist design are have not produced the houses that the masses want to live in. While the seasoned palette may salivate at the chance to live in a piece of art, the average homebuyer with small children and a dog (me included) does not relish the idea of living that extremely minimalist lifestyle. While artists may cringe at this fact, long-term commercial popularity is at least to some extent a measure of success. That is the argument I make....The Stones achieved long-term commercial viability, Zep achieved long-term artist influence.
The reason I personally do not enjoy Zep, is the experimental nature of their work. They are "fringe" in the sense of just how far they pushed the envelope. The experimentalness that made them "genius", while I do appreciate it artistically, removes the fun from the music for me, and makes it such that I don't enjoy listening to the bulk of their work while driving down the road....
Stones on the other hand, while I do not enjoy all of their work, have many lessor-known songs that I find very appealing. I like when their blues influences come out. Gimmie Shelter for example I think is one of the best blues/rock transition songs ever. That song played on the radio last night as I was drifting off to sleep (after I had written that first email to you), and upon hearing it come on the radio, I thought to myself, "That's a perfect example of how they are still commercially viable today. Gimme Shelter is a song that my kids are hearing on the radio and saying, "Man, that has a cool bluesy vibe to it." Zep just is never played....
I like the points you made though. I will say that I do agree with of what you said. I guess my only disagreement comes in the definition of success. If in 2010 Gimmie Shelter is still being played, and influencing the next generation of musicians on a daily basis..... and Bron-y-aur Stomp is not..... well, you get my point.
However, for every 10 Rolling Stones songs I hear today on the radio, I only hear 1 Zep song. Although they are a force within rock--certainly pillars of rock, a foundation that much of today's rock is built from--I don't think many of their songs transcend the generations successfully.
It is the same with many great artists if you consider it. The greatest pillars of modernist design are have not produced the houses that the masses want to live in. While the seasoned palette may salivate at the chance to live in a piece of art, the average homebuyer with small children and a dog (me included) does not relish the idea of living that extremely minimalist lifestyle. While artists may cringe at this fact, long-term commercial popularity is at least to some extent a measure of success. That is the argument I make....The Stones achieved long-term commercial viability, Zep achieved long-term artist influence.
The reason I personally do not enjoy Zep, is the experimental nature of their work. They are "fringe" in the sense of just how far they pushed the envelope. The experimentalness that made them "genius", while I do appreciate it artistically, removes the fun from the music for me, and makes it such that I don't enjoy listening to the bulk of their work while driving down the road....
Stones on the other hand, while I do not enjoy all of their work, have many lessor-known songs that I find very appealing. I like when their blues influences come out. Gimmie Shelter for example I think is one of the best blues/rock transition songs ever. That song played on the radio last night as I was drifting off to sleep (after I had written that first email to you), and upon hearing it come on the radio, I thought to myself, "That's a perfect example of how they are still commercially viable today. Gimme Shelter is a song that my kids are hearing on the radio and saying, "Man, that has a cool bluesy vibe to it." Zep just is never played....
I like the points you made though. I will say that I do agree with of what you said. I guess my only disagreement comes in the definition of success. If in 2010 Gimmie Shelter is still being played, and influencing the next generation of musicians on a daily basis..... and Bron-y-aur Stomp is not..... well, you get my point.
Gimmie Shelter was recorded in 1969--before I was born. My father listened to the song, as did my grandfather. Now I love it--and my kids do too. That is 4 generations of my family. To me, that is the perfect example of success.
- Want to reprint this article?
- Please be our guest as long as you include this complete blurb with it:
- This article was originally featured on RioDancesOnTheSand.com, a blog for the thinking person... Written by Rio Denali, a 30-something with peculiar curiosities, who makes the observations that many of us avoid. Full of useful links and entertaining articles, it is a fun favorite for the intelligent reader. For more great articles like this, please visit RioDancesOnTheSand.com.
