Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Vol. 38 No. 22. September 11, 1975
Metamorphosis — The Rolling Stones Decca
Metamorphosis — The Rolling Stones Decca
Sir,
Your rock reviewer, turned Rolling Stones' weberman, Gordon Campbell, must be kidding about that 1973 tour bootleg. In fact I suspect that he had only had his review copy of 'Metamorphosis" for about 8 days before submitting his copy. Besides that he has certainly made enough blunders (factual ones, too) in the last nine months to have filled a waste paper basket with great scads of half-completed white paper.
Ho! Ho!
The mistakes this gentleman has prepetrated in the last few months include:
One. Using an album that had been released in this country (at that time) for about 18 months, and the best part of three years overseas, "The Haider they Come" to justify a pathetic 400-word potted history of such an obscure section of modem rock as Reggae, and the cultural ethos surrounding it. 400 words, to justify such an astonishingly convoluted milieu.
Two. He then had the audactiy (or so he presumes) to follow this up with another 400-word piece on the Waiters' "Natty Dread" a specimen of the above general mode (a pretty good assumption, that, since the Editor of Auckland's Hot Lick's, Roger Jarret, had named one of their earlier albums the one for 1974). And then he goes on to say that it was, at that stage, enjoying great popular success in this country, which is funny, because it wasn't even released in New Zealand until after that review appeared. But, you know, a lot happens in 18 months prime ministers die, governments rise and fall, the hunter building is saved only to be dealt a second, crueler death and typists go mad typesetting rock reviews.
Three. Then here is Emmy Lou Harris — O.K., by anybodies' standards that was one of the 10 this year. And then what does he do, combine it with another 18-month old antiquity: Gram Parsons: Grevious Angel" — again, possibly justified (simply because of the timeless quality of the music) after all, wasn't he the guy that was asked to replace Brian Jones. And wasn't the Stones own "Wild Horses" written for and about him.
Four, While we're on the subject of the Stones', might I say here that even though I think that Metamorphosis" is not vintage Stones it would probably shred (barring most of 'Exile on Main Street" and patches of "Sticky Fingers") the great majority of the tongue label material. And also while we're on the subject of the Stones doesn't it strike you as peculiar that in Mr Campbell's own personal selection of the 10 best ever, he plumped for "Exile" — understandably, in view of the subjective connotations associated with the title — in preference to "Let it Bleed or 'Beggars Banquet" (about which lime most of the "Metamorphosis" material was taken). Again, despite any subjective qualifications because of the latter of that pair's title, both it and its successor work perfectly well as seminal rock pieces, more so than "Main Street".
So, if he hasn't got all his factual data straight, pray, tell me. Editor Sir, could his audience also be made to think he might not have got "Metamorphosis" in the spirit in which it was intended, either. To say nothing of what this has to say about some of your other writers and reviewers as well. I mean, how the hell can you draw an objective inference from data that's off-base for starters.
Yours sincerely,
Boomer Castleman