Stones Review Under Fire

I am truly sorry if Phil Hay took exception to that letter but the fact remains he has not answered the points that were raised.

There is a clear cut and quite obvious dichotomy running through the Stones' Black and Blue. On one hand you have their reggae rip-off epitomised in such a track as 'Hot Stuff and on the other there is the typical Stones track Hand of Fate' is an example. Neither of these trees that the Stones are barking up are highly original (and have you ever tried barking up two trees at once?).

First of all there is the steal the Stones have done from Bob Marley. Phil Hay defends the Stones and at the same time credits them with great skill, brilliance even. Anyone can copy another artist but to be given false credit by another is musical dishonesty. The reggae tracks on Black and Blue are blatant and poorly disguised Bob Marley. Phil Hay has not defended his opinion that this reggae of the Stones is so innovative - everyone can see where they get it from. It is acceptable the Stones copy other artists but to give them high praise is inexcusable.

(need I go on) I think it can be safely stated there is a high degree of sameness in the Stones music My second argument is that this LP only enhances the level of sameness. Thirdly, there is no 'skillful fusion" of the two elements of reggae or rock. The tracks on the LP are either or t'other. This is perceptible to even the most unpracticed car The lyrics are not inspiring either. There is nothing subtle' about Jagger droning 'Hot stuff hot stuff, hot stuff....' or else 'Daddy you're a fool to cry, daddy you're a fool to cry. . .' The lyrics are not worthy of praise to the ecstatic heights that Phil Hays elevated them.

Those are the points that were made. Phil Hay did not reply to the contentions in last weeks Salient and the praise he bestowed upon the LP was sadly unsubstantiated. Blind allegiance to the Stones (much like my nine year old sister who follows the Bay City Rollers) seemed to impede his capability of an objective review.

To be truthful I quite like the LP but I can see its faults and the criticism levelled at it (that Phil finds so very hard to understand) is justified and what is better it is substantiated criticism. Jagger et al so glorious on Exile on Main Street are growing old. Their aggression seems to be involuntarily restrained - you can almost feel the group straining to break through the barriers their music has developed

Answer these charges Phil. They are widely held opinions entirely at odds with your own Do not think, either, that I have got anything against the Stones. It is just that your review Mr Hays showed a dearth of qualifications and substantiations and a plentitude of praise that most listeners would be at a loss to understand. The Stones do not stand on their own; they are a part of the rock n' roll trend that began in the '50s. Maybe they know they are in a rusted rut maybe this LP is an attempt to get out of it. Better still it is a case of trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Jagger does not take the cake but you do Phil. It's just another LP.