Thursday, January 13, 2011

Why Can't Jake Dislike the Rolling Stones?

The Hardline ganged up on Jake Kemp yesterday for not liking the Rolling Stones.

When it was all over, my feeling was that The Hardline may have lost that argument.

It wasn't that Jake seemed too young and callow; it was that The Hardline seemed too old and out of touch.  (On this single topic, that is.  The C-Nation is aware that Your Plainsman strongly favors The Hard Ones in general.)  Oddly enough, the oldest soul present seemed to be Corby.



The Stones are in my wheelhouse, and they're far from my favorite group.  Some wonderful songwriting, but to young ears the recordings are a cliche.  White guy trying to sound black and look andro.  Druggy, gutbucket guitar.  Music has indeed moved on, for better or worse.  I like the Stones just fine, but it actually surprises me how popular some of the Sixties/Seventies acts remain to the current music-buying generation.  That attests to the strength of the music, but it's unsurprising that a guy in his twenties finds it entirely passe. 

Consider:  When was the last time the generation raised on the Beatles, Zep, and Stones put on a Little Richard or Chuck Berry record?  Those records sound tinny, the instrumentation is thin and undistinguished.  It's great, historical, spectacular music, but it's now been done to death and not much fun to listen to other than as a curiosity.

So by all means, try to educate Jake on the greatness of the Stones (and I acknowledge their greatness).  But if he's not convinced, it's not his problem.

32 comments:

Douglas Sutherland said...

Normally I'm on board with the musical tastes of The Hardline. Jackson Browne, Dylan, Steely Dan, Beatles, some Petty, etc.

I hate The Rolling Stones, and I hate The Doors. And it's not because I haven't taken the time to listen to them. It's because I genuinely don't like them. (Quick aside: the normal defense (as stated on The HL) is 'well you just haven't listened to enough.' Does that defense go both ways? If you listen to 30 seconds of Pink and draw a conclusion on her entire discography, wouldn't that same argument be valid?) Both bands in my opinion are super over rated, but whenever I express my opinions, people just assume that it's because I'm young and don't appreciate past music (which was The Hardline's perception on why Jake didn't like The 'Stones). Isn't that just as discriminitory? To assume young music lovers are just too arrogant and space-is-super-gay to have an educated opinion on past music?

Sure, there are a good amount of 20-somethings that have pre-conceived notions on music their parents used to like, but isn't that always how it goes? When 50-somethings were younger, didn't they tend to like their own music and not their parents' Sinatra, Dean Martin, Patsy Cline, etc.?

That's the way it goes. I think thanks to iTunes, and the 24 hour access to music, today's young generation has more appreciate for yesteryear's music than ever before.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
cancer monkey said...

One other difference between kids today (get off my lawn!) and us olds (I'm a man. I'm 40.) is that iTunes, Pandora, and the like have changed music listeners into single listeners as opposed to album listeners. Most kids can't understand the concept of buying a complete album for $13.99 on iTunes when you can get the 1 song you like for $.99. It doesn't matter that you haven't heard the other songs because they're not played on the radio, they know they like that 1 song and they'll buy just that 1 song. The result is that the "deep cuts" are lost and the relationship between the songs is lost for those bands that try to paint a picture with an entire album. The Stones, The Doors, Led Zeppelin, etc., are all the kinds of bands where you can either choose to go the single route and get the top layer of their experience or you can listen to an entire album (stoned and eating Cheetos, as god intended) and get the whole picture.

That said, I've never liked the Stones. I think they have some moments of genius, but overall, I can do without them. Oddly enough, the same thing goes for Dylan, Springsteen and Petty. I've never understood the appeal of any of those.

Jake said...

I can honestly say, this is not an issue I expected to receive ANY support on in this forum. I am open to listening to more of their stuff, I just don't like what I've heard. I may have expressed my distaste in a more attitudinal manner than necessary, but hey, all in good fun. And there is no doubt methods of distribution/consumption have changed the way my generation values and assesses music. But I'm not 'space-is-super-gay' on all older music. At all.

I appreciate and am fascinated that this site exists. I am very aware that my bit does not play well with many older listeners; that's just part of it. I still feel like I am just a listener rather than an employee, so I am always interested to read what you all think about various topics. If you haven't, give It's Just Banter a try. We are unpolished, for sure, but I think we have something interesting every week. Good talk, see ya out there.

The Plainsman said...

So, Grumpy Anonymous . . . you agree that they're a cliche? Or would sound that way to young ears?

Nobody here but us derps.

======

Jake, thanks for stopping by. My sense is that the Confessor Nation is intrigued by your emerging profile. I'm sure we'll be exploring that in timeless essays to come. Best, Plainsman

The Plainsman said...

Does Grumpy Anonymous remind anyone of Dylan, the Argumentative Teen?

Anonymous said...

Jake,

Thanks for stopping by. Just wanted to say, as an older P1 (40-ish), and someone who did some time in the radio business, I think your radio skills are very good for such a tender age. You picked up the Top 10 without barely missing a beat, and that can't be an easy job, doing everything by yourself.

Your "IJB" persona is sometimes super gay, but I realize in this line of work you worry about being interesting/compelling first and foremost. The way people are in real life is rarely the same as their on-air persona.

Keep up the good work. You may be cocky and somewhat ignorant, but you're a good broadcaster. The cockiness and ignorance will (likely) tone down with time, but you can't teach good radio skills.

-Anonymous B

P.S. Since we're talking about The Stones; I don't expect you to like them. I just kinda-sorta do myself. But hopefully you understand that it was a very different era, and social norms and recording tech was vastly different.

The only thing you aid that had be punching my dashboard was the comment about not writing their own songs early on. You have to understand, no one did until The Beatles broke out with Hard Day's Night. Until then, performers were performers and writers were writers (I'm talking popular music, not jazz and folk scenes, so Dylan doesn't really count here). EVERY band did it this way up until about 1966. There's a lot wrong with The Rolling Stones in every era of their history, but the fact they didn't write their own material early on is not to be counted against them.

Anonymous said...

I don't expect younger people to like the Stones (et al) but I do think they should respect them.

I didn't hear this aprticular segment in question, but I've heard similar, and when you hear the "Meh, not that great" line, I go crazy.

Okay, you don't have to LIKE the Stones, or the Beatles, or Hendrix, or Zepplin, or whoever, but realize that they changed the face of rock and roll music. For the better.

Respect them at the least...

Douglas Sutherland said...

Question to those of you who are closer to the 'Stones demographic than I: I've always grouped The Beatles and The 'Stones together as far as time period goes: got their start early-mid 60's. Is that right? Were they formed around the same time, and if so how does that relate to the start of Dylan (which I believe was around '63) and The Who?

And another question regarding TRS and Beatles:
I've always been under the assumption that TRS created Ultamont to combat the fact they weren't invited to Woodstock. Is that true? Also, why weren't the Beatles invited? Different genre? Slightly different generation? Too mainstream?

Douglas Sutherland said...

Altamont*

Anonymous said...

"Both bands in my opinion are super over rated, but whenever I express my opinions, people just assume that it's because I'm young and don't appreciate past music (which was The Hardline's perception on why Jake didn't like The 'Stones). Isn't that just as discriminitory?"

This is not a form of discrimination. It is a matter of aesthetics and taste. Jake isn't told that he can no longer broadcast or be a part of the Ticket because of his dislike of the Stones. If that were the case, then yes, it would be a form of discrimination. Far too often we cheapen the meaning of words.

Anonymous said...

"I've always grouped The Beatles and The 'Stones together as far as time period goes: got their start early-mid 60's. Is that right? Were they formed around the same time, and if so how does that relate to the start of Dylan (which I believe was around '63) and The Who? "

Sorta. The Beatles predated The Stones, Kinks, Who, etc. Basically they started the tidal wave. The Beatles had their roots going back to 1957 and started becoming known in 1961. The Stones started a bit later, but didn't hit their stride until the late 60s/early 70s when The Beatles were basically done.

Dylan started in the late 50s, but didn't really go anywhere until 1960, and at that point he did strictly folk acoustic music. He "went electric" in the mid 60s. The Beatles were great admirers of Dylan.

"I've always been under the assumption that TRS created Ultamont to combat the fact they weren't invited to Woodstock. Is that true? Also, why weren't the Beatles invited? Different genre? Slightly different generation? Too mainstream?"

Never heard that before, and I kinda doubt it. I believe The Beatles were invited to Woodstock, but they hadn't toured for years, and were barely functioning if not disbanded at that point. I'm sure they laughed off whatever invite they got. I hardly think it was because they were "too mainstream," though. Woodstock was not planned as a counter-culture event - it became that later. There were lots of "mainstream" artists that performed there; they're just not talked about much.

P.S. This is all easily Google-able

ap said...

@Jake-Z -- your presence is requested on Twitter. Some of us have a running bet on how long it'll take you to surpass TC's number of followers.

Nice work on E-News/CQH during dry-dock, btw. I especially enjoyed Cock-Talk with Rhads.

Ian said...

If Jake actually had something in his bag, maybe we'd care to respect his opinions more. until that happens Jake is an instant station changer for me.

The Plainsman said...

Question: Several commenters, including most recently Ian, say that if one thing or another pops up on the station, they "punch out" or it's a "station changer."

My question is: What stations do Confessors who punch out on The Ticket punch in?

I'm not asking this to contrast any lousy station with the greatness of The Ticket. My goal here is to find out if the Confessor Nation has a consensus second choice. Is it The Fan? ESPN? Music? NPR? Satellite? Nothing? I'm truly curious.

Ian: Welcome, I don't recall seeing your moniker come up before. Let us hear from you again, and Thank You for Shopping at My Ticket Confession.

Anonymous said...

Plainsman,

When I punch out I turn the dial to either 101.1 or 88.5.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure what all the hub-bub is about regarding Jake's dislike of the Rolling Stones. Who cares(?). Georgio likes Miley Cyrus; hell, he even sang one of her songs. In the "game" of what's "acceptable" is Georgio's fondness for current pop-music any worse than not liking the Rolling Stones? By the way, the Beatles did not like the Stones. But they did like Herman's Hermits.

cancer monkey said...

When I punch out, I flip over to NPR, KTX or my iPod. Lately, it's usually my iPod. During lunch, I'll see what Josh Lewin has going on, and on the rare late morning when I'm still in the car, I'll see what Ben & Skin are up to, but I never ever ever flip over to the Fan or ESPN other than to hear Josh or Ben & Skin.

cancer monkey said...

As for Jake, I like him a lot better as Jake Kemp than "I don't know, man" Jake Z. I feel very strongly that there's a place for him (and Cash and Mike Sirloin, and all the other so-called B-teamers) in the little Ticket's lineup. The young 'uns bring a different voice and different viewpoint and they'll never be able to grow and develop something in their bag if they're stuck filling in during dry dock once a year, with the occasional weekend cover shift.

The Plainsman said...

Jake, I've heard enough good things about "It's Just Banter" that I'll definitely be checking it out.

Hey, how about a plug for My Ticket Confession on IJB?

Anonymous said...

Hey, I found Alexis Smith! http://www.facebook.com/alexis933?ref=pymk

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

"Please people, Google before you say something dumb."

Go read Keith Richards' new autobiography before you say something dumb. Live by Google, die by Google.

cancer monkey said...

Also, are we sure that's not Gribble in that picture?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Plainsman,

Not sure what's going on here, but one of the reasons I like this blog is its civil discourse - whether there's agreement or not. The recent ad hominem attacks (e.g., "idiot" and "dumb") seem to go against the spirit of your fine blog.

The Plainsman said...

Agreed. Just found this string. We have a Grumpy Anonymous that I've been considering bouncing for gross incivility infractions, and, as you can see, that consideration has concluded.

GrumpAnon, if this is indeed you (again) you know some stuff and we love to have your info, but your puerile name-calling has now officially rendered you persona au gratin.

Stop by again if you can do so without the gratuitous insults.

Anonymous said...

"Don't be an idiot. Keith Richards is not the Rolling Stones."

Keith Richards IS a Rolling Stone. Which means his opinion has more weight than yours on this subject. It's obvious you haven't read the book, because if you did, you'd know that he wasn't speaking for himself, but for the band. If you'd read the book before spouting off, you'd also know the reason why the Stones CAME TO DISLIKE the Beatles.

Stop trolling. Learn how to critically think. And go peddle your defective wares somewhere else.

P1 Steven said...

Concerning IJB... TC's voice doesnt sound nearly as awkward as it does when it is live on 1310. Im sure they are messing around with some stuff that I dont understand.

Anonymous said...

Keith Richards is A Rolling stone - as in ONE. One of Five.

Oh, and BTW, guess who was at Paul McCartney's recent concert in New York? Mick Jagger.

Anonymous said...

Also, I don't think it's too much to ask that someone do a little research before posting something they know nothing about. Some may dislike nasty words like "dumb" (sorry, I didn't realize I was dealing with a sensitive child), but I dislike reading foolishness even more.

Delete this comment if you want, but you know it's true. Funny how you can gay-bash on this blog, but not call someone "dumb" when they say something dumb.

cancer monkey said...

Wow, "gay bashing"? Really? Not to speak for the Plainsman, but I think he's just wanting people to adhere to Wheaton's Law: "Don't Be A Dick"