Despite the great reaction to the Dead Kennedys comic (see HERE), MRML isn't becoming a 'scan blog'. However, thanks to Big Scott we've received an avalanche of rock n' roll comics, including one on The Rolling Stones.
Deep in my classic rock phase (circa 1980), my elder brother and I would argue incessantly (and occasionally homophobically) about the alleged superiority of The Doors or the Rolling Stones. I was The Doors defender, my brother the Stones supporter. While my appreciation for Mr. Mojo Risin' and his doors of perception has fallen over the years, my feeling for the Stones have stayed exactly the same. Good band. I like a lot, if not all, of the hits but I've never owned a proper Rolling Stones album (though I kept a vinyl copy of Exile on Main St. that someone gave me for a few weeks). I don't mean to besmirch the band on their golden anniversary. After all, the band's longevity is mind-boggling, their influence boundless and they always make great copy (e.g. Mick Jagger once claimed his wrinkles were merely 'laugh lines' to which British jazz codger George Melly replied, "nothing's that funny").
In this issue, from Revolutionary Comics, we get the Stones story from the meeting of Mick and Keef till the multimillion dollar Steel Wheels tour (plus three bonus features), told in simple black and white images with forty-six numbered historical reference points!
Readers:
1) What's your view on the Rolling Stones?
2) Do you wanna see more rock n' roll comics?
The COMMENTS section is now open for business!
.png)
1). Never understood their appeal.
ReplyDeleteSatisfaction, Sympathy, and Memo from Turner, were the only songs they wrote that I ever liked... ...And I know one isn't a Stones song.
2). Not really.
Only if I'm interested in the band or their story (There was way too much hair-metal coverage in those comics).
That said, if there was one for Motörhead, I'd say absolutely!
1) That's harsh but I've always understood that the Stones inspire strong reactions!
Delete2) A Motorhead comic would be excellent!
I used to steal Rock N' Roll comics from the local bookstore when I was 13 in the early 90s. My favorites were the Dio and Black Sabbath and Ozzy comics. Ridiculous, obviously.
ReplyDeleteMetal!
Deletehttps://rapidshare.com/#!download|16p1|2035461263|RnR%20Cmcs%2006%20%20-%20Rg%20Stns%2089.rar|11798|0|0
ReplyDeletethanks
ReplyDeleteI am not big on 'em but i love Bridges To Babylon. I found the Keef solo stuff to be very interesting - i even purchased his stuff because songs like Wicked As It Seems have a certain feel to it. And Rock'n'Roll history is maybe the only good history so I of all like to read more of them comics.
ReplyDeleteDD
I've never listened to B2B - maybe I will one day.
DeleteMore rock comics to come!
A self compiled singles compilation is all I've ever owned of the Stones, that's plenty for me... Give me the Pretty Things any day.
ReplyDeleteAren't comics for children and nerds? (Both of which describe me, by the way).
Yeah I think all I have right now is a self-compiled cassette.
DeleteYes, this series is uniting two different schools of nerds!
It's cool to hate the stones because in this humble narrator's opinion anyway, they have not made a great record in about 30 years. Last time I saw them (2005) I was bored to death, and I'm a fan!
ReplyDeleteAt any rate, thanks for the comic and all the other great stuff. Keep it up!
Yeah 'Stones-hate" goes in and out of style, right now thanks to Keef's book they seem to be back in a lot of people's good graces.
DeleteLOVE it!! can hardly wait for the pistols and ramones! thanks very much for these, they are DEFINATELY helping to ruin MY life!!!
ReplyDeletePistols is still coming!
DeleteNO ELVIS BEATLES OR ROLLING STONES!PUNK ROCK RULES ALWAYS HAS ALWAYS WILL...comics are quite good anyway,so I expect some punk this time
ReplyDeleteCheers
We'll have some good punk ones but this series is a chance to yak about bands I'm unlikely to post music by.
DeleteTo not be able to get the appeal of the Rolling Stones and be proud of it is beyond me. I'm not going to make negative comments about people's taste in music but I wonder if any real attempt to listen was made - it often takes more than a needle drop to absorb all that goes on in any given piece of music... I'm also always amazed that people can say that because the Stones haven't made a good record in the last 30 years that somehow that excludes them from being interested.
ReplyDeleteHow many great songs has any artist got in them? Not even close to one fifth the number the Stones can claim, I'll venture.
It's not when something was created, the date doesn't matter, it's what's in the grooves.
I was thinking the same thing, and when i got to the comment about the Pretty Things being better, I laughed out loud. Enjoy your hipster superiority, knuckleheads, I will keep playing Between the Buttons, Aftermath, Beggar's Banquet, Ya Ya's, Let It Bleed, Exiles...
DeleteYour misplaced notion of pride has nothing to do with it.
DeleteGiven that I've lived in the era where the original albums and singles all existed (and were played), then were released (and later remastered and re-released) on CD (as well as numerous "Greatest Hits" compilations), played on AM and FM (as well as satellite and internet) radio, it's pretty easy for me to state that they do nothing for me except make me want to switch over to something I like.
That has fuck all to do with pride and everything to do with taste.
Who cares how many "good songs" any band has, if "what's in the grooves" is what is expressly turning you off?
You ain't gonna waste your time sifting through a back catalogue just to say you can "like" a band, are you?
I think you should consider that before you impunge us because we don't follow some tired, clichéd, view of what passes for "good songs". (Or whatever piece of audio turd was polished up and presented to us for the upteenth time.)
When the Clash sang "No Elvis, Beatles, or Rolling Stones" in 1977, it meant so much more to me in 1987, 1997 and 2007, because it was still the same situation:
"If you've been trying for years, we already heard your song"
I don't need to hear it again.
It's that simple.
1) I grew up hearing my brother play Let It Bleed endlessly when it came out, so I have listened (and not just to that LP).
Delete2) I didn't say the Pretty Things were better, I said I preferred them. There is no such thing as better or worse, just personal taste, despite what some muso-fascists would have you believe.
Mckee
DeleteI admire your defense of the band, especially this sentence "it often takes more than a needle drop to absorb all that goes on in any given piece of music".
Glad we had people arguing pro and con on this subject.
Good Lord, I hate to see ANYONE's blog degenrate to this.....I'm 50 years old, I am NOT an ignorant 8th grader fighting with a classmate as to whether Led Zeppelin is "better than" the Clash......here is a plan: listen to what you like, everyone else do the same thing.....makin a point out of what you DON'T like makes you sound like a whining junior high schooler, in my opinion. Why do you think anyone would care what you DO'NT like? the remedy is simple, don't listen to it.....it's called respect, respect for the likes/tastes of all people. I see stuff on these blogs every day that isn't "for me".....I go one to the next one. SOMEONE likes ALL this stuff, someone somewhere, or it wouldn't exist. I just don't get what is accomplishd by whining that one "doesn't like" some damn rock band, OR for that matter, defending same when someone criticizes them and hurts your delicate feelings....go to any sports team's web-site...you'll find thousands of people, acting like 5 year olds who had their colorforms taken away, all because someone says Stew Pidass is a better corner back than Phil Attio, and if you don't hink so I'll hold my breathe until I turn blue......please lets not let ourselves degenerate to that.....if there is music that I ahve not heard that you can recommend to me, please do so.....but what is accomplished by you telling me what you DON'T like? Obviously I'm going to make the choice for myself.
ReplyDeletejust always seems so simple, but it never is.
Kind of my point exactly...
DeleteBut as for "what is accomplished by you telling me what you DON'T like?" Read the post - Jeffen asked "What's your view on the Stones?" - Does that mean only people who like them should comment? No, it doesn't. It's a free exchange of opinions. I too am 50 years old, and am happy to give my opinion on virtually anything. In fact, it's almost a vocation with me...
Hey Scott thanks for the awesome comics and a chance to talk about bands who usually get shunted aside here.
DeleteAnd that's why some readers might take this clearly-presented opportunity to vent about a band who've sucked up a lot of the spotlight ove the last FIFTY YEARS.
As I said, I love a lot of Stones stuff but I understand other' antipathy towards them and welcome their expression here.
Styreneboy
Delete"It's a free exchange of opinions. I too am 50 years old, and am happy to give my opinion on virtually anything. In fact, it's almost a vocation with me..."
Love it, thanks for always having something to say in the comments!
"It's a free exchange of opinions"....so is MINE not valid? MINE happens to be that it sounds childish and "whiny" to make a point of what you don't like, to me it's a half a step away from the "they suck, man" and name calling that permeates so much of the internet. just MY opinion I don't know what you said before and am not interested enough to look back, so if in your opinion I addressed something you had posted (and as I said, I really don't know), my most heartfelt apologies....I don't THINK I was "directly" responding to anyone in particular, but maybe I was, and I'd have to go back and look, and I don't care, and etc.....my point is that people spend WAY too much time bitching about stuff that doesn't matter in the slightest, and, yep, MY comments on the same could fall into that exact category
ReplyDeleteYou're not exactly doing yourself any favours by saying:
Delete"...I don't know what you said before and am not interested enough to look back..."
Why the fuck should *anyone* then care about your opinion, or your "my most heartfelt apologies", if you can't be even bothered to read the replies, or have had any comprehension of Jeffen's original questions?
Scott/Bio
DeleteHey we're pasionate fans here and we're all welcome to YELL about music.
Maybe I just need to be more careful in how I phrase my questions!
(Actually I enjoyed most of this debate immensely.)
Tiltingsuds
ReplyDeleteThere's long been a debate about the Pretty Things vs. The Rolling Stones (especially during the punk era, when they were seen as the band with more cred), so I don't think " hipster superiority" is at the root of having a a preference in that regard.
I didn’t really appreciate the rolling stones until I was older but they really are great. They truly personify grunge rock n roll. They played with an attitude only the anti-beatles could capture.Great post keep up the hard work. Check these out IStillGotMyGuitar.
ReplyDelete