Thursday, December 1, 2011

The Harvey Korman of Rock

With apologies to my musical partner Bill McC., today’s post will briefly discuss why I

can’t abide the Rolling Stones.

I’ve been spending a lot of time on this lately – the recent release of an extended Some Girls boxed set with outtakes, extras, blah blah blah has led my pal the JuvJestSharplerofoon to pass around some tunes, and to relive with friends his admiration for that record.

Although that record sealed the deal for my turn against the Stones, and is an excellent exhibit in my case against the transgressor in the bunch, it certainly wasn’t the start of what turns me off.

Mick Jagger is what turns me off.

Oooooh, Bay-Bee. . . .


And as I’ve listened, I can be more specific: the absence of any genuine, sincere emotional delivery, and the constant presence of obvious, exaggerated affectation is what doesn’t work for me.

YMMV etc.

Whether it’s the overblown, garish, caricatured US Southern accents, the faux-bluesman inflections, or the exaggerated “Mick-isms,” they all turn me off. And that’s my big gripe with the band.

It isn’t just that things are exaggerated – that’s not necessarily a crime. But I hear the exaggeration as being in lieu of real emotion or even feigned sincerity. I can never be sure when a singer is sincere, but I can be sure when there’s no demonstrable emotion or sincerity. And that’s Jagger.

This is a constant in my aesthetic judgments: I like actors giving me an Uta-Hagen-like presentational performance (and I know that Hagen reverses those terms from Stanislavski and some of her peers in the teaching profession. “Realistic” v. “Formalistic” might be more useful. So: think Gene Hackman in Unforgiven as Presentational [Good!], and Carol Burnett show skits as Representational [are you kidding me?]), and I like singers doing the same thing.

Mick Jagger: The Harvey Korman of Rock.

Vocal tics and quirks are also not disqualifiers from Mule-Appreciation. But they have to be something in search of sincerity and emotion, and not substituting for it.

I listen to the Stones in Brussels on a live album [The Brussels Affair] that they cleaned up for release, but did not release. Somehow, Google music got the rights to release it temporarily, and I snagged it.

Jagger runs roughshod over an otherwise, tight, cranked-up band. He gives “style” a bad name.

I hate that fucking fucker.

I sense a theme this week. . . .


*PS   Yes, I know it's unfair to run a clip from "Blazing Saddles" and decry somebody's realism in performance.  But I found this scene to be the closest Korman ever came to being "in the moment" and meaning what he said.

And yes, I kinda like Korman.  Whereas I'd string Jagger up if I could.

anyway

14 comments:

Little Johnny Jewel said...

MMDV, as it goes.

Whodathunkit, etc.

mister muleboy said...

So Jagger bothers thee not?


Pray tell what offenses attend thy listening displeasures?

mister muleboy said...

c

Fred C. Dobbs said...

That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.



You're completely wrong, of course.



Mick Jagger is one of the greatest rock vocalists of all times.

mister muleboy said...





You're completely wrong, of course.



Mick Jagger is one of the greatest rock vocalists of all times.


Keep thinking that, Sunshine.

Mick Jagger is the Clownburst of rock vocalists. . . .

Mister Parker said...

I am amused by your objection to Jagger's tendency to put on outrageous (vocal) personas considering the very essence of the Mouth o' the Mule is the putting on of outrageous (intellectual) personas ...

Reminds me of my youth, when my volatile little brother was a great fan of tennis player Bjorn Borg, who was known for his icy calm, whilst I, the ultimate quiet kid, was a fan of the screaming and ranting John McEnroe. I think we often most admire what is missing in ourselves and condemn most severely what we see in the mirror.

Possibly.

Sgt. Cockring said...

Yeah, the Stone suck. This is great. Can't wait for the dissertation on why the Who and the Kinks are no good....

mister muleboy said...

I can't write anything like that about the Who or the kinks because they don't suck. The Rolling Stones definitely do suck that's why it was easy

I like dictating my comments; everything's flat

mister muleboy said...

If you need any proof that Mick Jagger sucks just listen to Keith Richards on Happy


At least Keith isn't contemptuous of us

I hate that fucker Jagger. . . .

Douche

Lupner said...

I enjoy quite a bit of Rolling Stones music, but have to say I get your argument about Mick Jagger. Not sure I would ever have been able to pinpoint it that way, but I can't say that sincere emoting has ever been something that came across to me in terms of his vocals. Definitely more of a 'performer' than -- dunno what the proper term would be -- interpreter? I don't necessarily dislike that since I don't always look for it in a song and find the performance entertaining, but the Stones would not be the band I'd go to for a sense of raw emotional outlet.

Lupner said...

p.s. You can, however, find some sincere emoting 'in the moment' from Harvey Korman in skits involving Tim Conway ...

Lupner said...

One more rambling thought -- though I enjoy being entertained by Stones music and Jagger's performing, am wondering if that doesn't have much to do with why I have never been the kind of fan of theirs that I am of the Beatles, the Kinks, the Who ... though I've always attributed it more to their lack of range compared to the other three bands.

Lupner said...

Meaning the lack of sense of true emotion compared to the other three, that is.

mister muleboy said...

I am amused by your objection to Jagger's tendency to put on outrageous (vocal) personas considering the very essence of the Mouth o' the Mule is the putting on of outrageous (intellectual) personas. * * * I think we often most admire what is missing in ourselves and condemn most severely what we see in the mirror..

I'll address this, because I think it goes to my point, and expands it.

As many of our readers know, I am a mild-mannered analyst for an East-Coast think tank. I do put on a variety of personas on thishyear blog, and say extreme things.

99% of the time, I'm sincere and committed in that moment.

I really feel it, or give my best to make the argument or present the belief of the persona I've adopted.
I may try to be outrageous, but I'm usually saying an amped up thing I can get my head and heart around.

Similarly, some singers I admire may be expressing sentiments --sometimes exaggerated--that they're not really feeling or forced to feel in life.

But they're *presenting* a sincere emotion.

I'm not sure that John Lennon, surrounded by mics and Phil Spector, was sad about his mom at the time of a couple'a Plastic Ono Band. But he was in touch with his sadness and anger, and wanted to convey them.

Little Richard may not have actually wanted Lucille to come home, or to fuck Sue in , but damn was he feeling it.

Since about 1970, I can find two songs where Jagger wasn't distancing himself from whatever he was singing about.

That fucker

If you catch me with tongue in cheek, I'm glad. If you find me saying something outrageous or opposed to my beliefs, and I DON'T try to sell it, well
fuck me