I recently finished reading Stanley Booth's book "The True Adventures Of The Rolling Stones". I had been aware of this tome for some time, and had the opportunity to experience it after being given a copy by a relative.
The book was first published in the mid-1980s, although the settings and the actual subject matter rarely go beyond the early Seventies. The chapters alternate between the author's recollections of the Stones' 1969 American tour and more general "biographical" material and interviews. We also gain some insight into Booth's own travails and struggles in getting his project off the ground.
There is a fly-on-the-wall flavour to the chronicle of the 1969 tour, and this helps to create a warts-and-all idea of the chaos which apparently prevailed within the Stones' organisation around that time. The numerous colourful tales and anecdotes are given a higher sharpness because of the author's poetic and idiosyncratic writing style.
The "counter-cultural" outpourings of all concerned seem hopelessly dated to 21st century sensibilities, but this does ensure that the work serves as a rich time-capsule. This was what 1969 was like for the in-crowd, if not necessarily for ordinary people. I would like to think that the participants in the drama of the tour have grown up and learned something from how the sojourn ended.
Not surprisingly, Charlie Watts and Bill Wyman come across as the most grounded and likeable of the Stones, with the then new boy Mick Taylor barely visible for the most part.
The biographical-historical sections of "The True Adventures....." contain some interesting points and revelations, especially concerning the role and attitudes of Brian Jones. These observations are given added weight because they arise from quotes by members of the Stones circle (Wyman, Keith, Ian Stewart etc.). My interpretation is that Brian became estranged and "difficult", in a meaningful way, at quite an early stage.
For me it is difficult to escape the suspicion that Jagger and Richards, even in the late 1960s, were playing up to a role and an identity which was expected of them, although Mick in those days appears to have been rather difficult to pin down or appraise. Wyman and Watts often had more interesting and insightful (and honest) things to say about their lives and the band's status and progress. Bill and Charlie appear to have had a detached relationship to the rest of the group, and to have enjoyed a measure of autonomy.
Booth's accounts of life in Los Angeles just prior to the '69 tour are entertaining and quite evocative. The comings-and-goings of the various participants, hangers-on, journalists, roadies and so forth are depicted in a highly absorbing manner. It is striking just how haphazard, even amateurish, concert tours still were at that point in history. The ultra-professional, buttoned-down methods which we know today were still quite a distant prospect.
Mick Taylor, as ever, emerges as an enigmatic figure, and as alluded to previously, gets comparatively little attention, even as the highly talented new addition to the line-up. Looking back, it should not really surprise us that he rarely looked as though he "belonged". I think he came out of it with honour and dignity. I don't blame him if he felt uncomfortable, and even embarrassed, by some of the things going on around him. His legacy remains in the elegant and tasteful contributions which helped to elevate the Stones' recordings, especially in the early 1970s.
Despite some early misgivings, I increasingly warmed to this book and its atmosphere and tone, coming to realize that the author was not as opinionated or as naive as I had first assumed. Booth seems as disorientated and confused as anyone else close to the Stones at that time. Ultimately I feel that his perspective is one of realism, resignation even.
Towards the close of the work there is a vivid and quite chilling account of the disastrous free concert at Altamont. The writer wisely refrained from indulging in any prolonged agonizing or philosophizing about the debacle; the description spoke for itself.
The over-riding achievement of this book is in capturing what the Rolling Stones were all about at the time when they were at their most visceral, "dangerous" and relevant. It is a very worthwhile read.
I like your analysis of Mick Taylor as an '"enigmatic figure". Although I haven't read Booth's book, that characterization of the reluctant Rolling Stone sounds just about right.
ReplyDelete