I haven't noticed that this book has been discussed. Has anybody read it?

[www.amazon.co.uk]

Product Description
From their commanding role in the so-called British Invasion of the early 1960s to their status as the elder statesmen (and British Knight) of rock and roll, the Stones have become more than an evanescent phenomenon in pop culture. They have become a touchstone not only for the history of our times--their performance at the Altamont Raceway marked the "end of the sixties," while their 1990 concert in Prague helped Czechoslovakia and other eastern bloc nations celebrate their newfound freedom (and satisfaction) out from under Moscow's thumb. Because of their longevity, the music and career of the Stones--much more than The Beatles--stand as touchstones in the personal lives of even casual Stones fans. Everyone of a certain age remembers the Stones on Ed Sullivan, the death of founder Brian Jones, their favorite songs, concerts, or videos, and their stance in the classic "Beatles versus Stones" debates. In the wake of Keith Richards's bestselling autobiography, "Life" (2010), many are now reliving these events and decades from the viewpoint of the band's endearing and seemingly death-defying guitarist.
The chapters in "The Rolling Stones and Philosophy" celebrate the Stones' place in our lives by digging into the controversies, the symbols, and meanings the band and its songs have for so many. What might you mean (and what did Mick mean) by "sympathy for the Devil"? Did the Stones share any of the blame for the deaths at Altamont, as critic Lester Bangs charged they did in "Rolling Stone" magazine? What theories of ethics and personality lay behind the good-boy image of the Beatles and the bad-boy reputation the Stones acquired? If Keith Richards really had his blood replaced four separate times, does that make him a zombie? How do the Glimmer Twins help us refine our understanding of friendship? Written by a dozen philosophers and scholars who adore the Rolling Stones not only for their music, this book will become required reading for anyone seeking maximum satisfaction from "the world's greatest rock and roll band."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-07 15:35 by GetYerAngie.

Stones are a way of life so I guess the book would work.

I'd like to read the back or inner sleeve.

It's only philosophy but we like it / George A. Reisch --
The glimmer twins / Randall E. Auxier --
My dinner with Mick / Jere Surber --
The beggars' genius / Keegan Goodman --
You probably think this chapter's about you / Charles Taliaferro and Therese Cotter --
The head and groin of rock / John Huss --
Paint the flowers black / Rick Mayock --
Zen and the art of being a Stones fan / Philip Merklinger --
Epicurean satisfaction / Ruth Tallman --
From Main Street to Guyville / George A. Reisch --
When the whip comes down / Randall E. Auxier --
The stones in Pepperland / Bill Martin --
Beatles versus Stones : the last word / Crispin Sartwell --
You can't always get what you want / Luke Dick --
Riding the devil's tank and complicit in his mayhem / James Rocha --
The most dangerous rock 'n' roll band in the world / Seth Vannatta --
How come you're so wrong, my sweet neo con? / Joseph J. Foy --
Keef for president / Luke Dick --
Sympathy for the Stones / Michael Barilli and Stephanie St. Martin --
How Mick learned to love the devil / Richard Berger --
A devil's trick of opposites? / Gary Ciocco --
Lucifer rising and falling / Dan Dinello --
Frenzy / Randal E. Auxier.

holy shit.

Quote
steel driving hammer
I'd like to read the back or inner sleeve.

if you click on the "look inside" gizmo on the amazon page you can read pages and pages of the book. weird

A costumer reviewed the book on amazon.com. He was not impressed it seems:

0 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars NO Sympathy From THIS Devil, `cuz He Didn't Get Much Philosophical Sat-Is-FAC-TION! Woo hoo! Woo hoo! WOOO HOOO!, 24 Jan 2012
By John V. Karavitis - Published on Amazon.com
This review is from: The Rolling Stones and Philosophy: it's Just a Thought Away (Popular Culture and Philosophy) (Paperback)

Hey there everybody! Please allow me to introduce myself! I'm a man of literary taste, who's "been around" for far too many long years. I was around when Socrates drank his last, said the draught would be for naught. But I made sure it all went down, and then washed BOTH my hands AND the cup.

Now I'm around as pop culture crashes into philosophy, it gives me moments of going insane! I read all these essays, and wonder how I can handle all the terrible terrible pain! Oooooohhhhh yeah!

Seriously! Pleased to meet you! By now you've guessed my name, yeah? Ahhh, I'm a-puzz-a-ling you! But that's just how I plays mah game, ooohhhhh YEAH! Come on, baby! What's mah name?

(The Rolling Stones' "Sympathy for the Devil" is on loop as I write this. Take that into consideration. No, I didn't forget to take my meds. Yummy yummy meds! But thanks for asking! )

I wondered how one would find philosophical issues in a subject like The Stones. So with some trepidation, I approached this collection of essays. I should have known better. This entry in Open Court's "Popular Culture and Philosophy" series stays true to form: it is severely deficient in philosophy, pregnant with political and social commentary and weak, meandering, rambling, ponderous and unimaginative prose. The attention and affection and adulation lavished on The Stones in many of these essays borders on the pornographic. Many of the essays tried to be hip and cool, most annoyingly when they included lines from The Stones' songs in the prose. Also disappointing was the use of foul language and severe sexual innuendo, more than likely, again, in an attempt to be hip and cool. A handful of the essays toward the end (chps. 18 - 21) focus on applying the same philosopher (St. Augustine of Hippo) to The Rolling Stones. Why include all of them? To add insult to injury, typographical errors abound. I mean, seriously, with all the college graduates with English degrees un-and-underemployed, working as baristas at Starbucks, can you not afford to hire ONE of them as a proofreader? I used to keep track of the typos, I don't bother anymore.

Co-editor George A. Reisch begins with a preface that positively GUSHES about The Stones. His first essay, "From Main Street to Guyville", tries to apply hermeneutics to Liz Phair's (?!?) album "Exile in Guyville", comparing it to The Stones' album "Exile To Main Street". The essay was extremely long, overly-detailed, boring and more focused on Liz Phair than on The Stones.

Co-editor Luke Dick's first essay, "You Can't Get What You Want", was horrifically bad. His second essay, though, "Keef for President", was surprisingly creative. It wove Plato's "Republic" into the hypothetical of Keith Richards running for President. This essay had "soul", and stuck to the mandate of "popular culture AND PHILOSOPHY". Not a great essay, but creative and a good effort.

The very first essay, by Randall E. Auxier, "The Glimmer Twins", displays a level of adulation and self-flagellation over The Stones as to be jaw-dropping. In addition, I do not feel that the use of foul language is needed. Mr. Auxier's second essay, "When the Whip Comes Down", was a catastrophic attempt at being hip and cool, for far far too many pages. Also, the use of sexual innuendo fell flat. As in: IT FAILED. His THIRD (?!?) essay, "Frenzy", was a frenzied attempt at throwing everything , including the kitchen sink, into yet another essay that went nowhere.

In my opinion, the following chapters were, for reasons stated here and before, not worthy: 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22. And there are 22 essays in all. Do the math.

Were any of the essays good? Actually the rest were either quite good or even excellent. Ruth Tallman's "Epicurean Satisfaction" identified the theme of what kind of morality The Stones have. That is, are The Stones moral, immoral, or amoral? Tallman focuses on two schools of hedonism, and deftly weaves the philosophy with the identified theme. It made me THINK about what The Stones were all about. It's always a pleasure to read an essay by Ruth Tallman. This woman can WRITE. Richard Berger's "How Mick Learned to Love the Devil" was also excellent, actually, almost "tallmanesque" in its adroit weaving of theme with philosophy. Berger focuses on the issues of evil, freedom, and responsibility, and takes us on a journey all the way from St. Augustine of Hippo to Russian author Mikhail Bulgakov to Mick Jagger. Berger makes it work, and the journey was fun.

And there you have it. So if you've read all this, have some courtesy, have some sympathy, take some time, use all your common sense, this book's laid my soul to waste. Pleased to meet you! You DID guess my name, did you not? I'm not still a-puzz-ling you, am I? Woo hoo! Woo hoo! John V. Karavitis

LoFL - great review! thanks for posting that :E

Hi. I wrote that review on Amazon. I tried to be as truthful and accurate as possible. Please note that I did find some essays to be quite good. If you found it to be useful in any way, I'm glad to have been of service. Rock on! John Karavitis

Hi JohnVKaravitis!

Your review is wonderful, and - without yet reading the book - I think spot on. It pretty much give support to my own prejudices. That kind of "x and philosophy" (x = Stones, or whatever 'sexy' subject) has generally the problem you describe: what exactly is the 'philosophical issue' there. The result is typically a lot of words, exercise in scholar writing with artificial or weak connection to certain philosophical problems, traditions, doctrines, names, etc. That tends to sound cheap for 'pro' people. I don't know how tongue in cheek this book is written by the scholars. I hope very. The best thing is if it is basically just a love letter by the Rolling Stones fans.

Still, I am going to read the book, and probably review it too somewhere. Since I love The Stones, and also happen to work on the field of philosophy, I suppose it is my duty to do that...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-26 11:42 by Doxa.

I've got this now, and I'll post a longer review sometime. Judging by the number of references to "Life", all or most of the essays are recent. Like John V Karavitis I'm finding it a very mixed bag - some of the essays are just an excuse for talking about something else dressed up in a lot of Stones references: some make you sit up and say "yes, that's RIGHT" and some make you say "Good grief, what a load of pretentious TWADDLE!". If you're into this sort of thing, I think it's interesting enough to be worth getting - like an album with some great tracks but quite a few clunkers.

thanks, Green Lady - i think i'll wait until i can borrow it!

Quote
JohnVKaravitis
Hi. I wrote that review on Amazon. I tried to be as truthful and accurate as possible. Please note that I did find some essays to be quite good. If you found it to be useful in any way, I'm glad to have been of service. Rock on! John Karavitis

Wonderfully written review. I'm looking forward to reading some of the book (using your review as a guidepost).
A little OT - I read some of your other reviews. You're a gifted critic. I especially enjoyed your thoughts on the Derrida book and the Hunger Games. Thank you for providing some objective insight.
Cheers...WRITE ON.

Thanks to JohnV for saving us the time of wading through it.

Great title!

Quote
Green Lady
I've got this now, and I'll post a longer review sometime. Judging by the number of references to "Life", all or most of the essays are recent. Like John V Karavitis I'm finding it a very mixed bag - some of the essays are just an excuse for talking about something else dressed up in a lot of Stones references: some make you sit up and say "yes, that's RIGHT" and some make you say "Good grief, what a load of pretentious TWADDLE!". If you're into this sort of thing, I think it's interesting enough to be worth getting - like an album with some great tracks but quite a few clunkers.

I read it. As was said, some of the essays are kinda interesting. It is *very* dependent on Life, too much so, imo.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Love is strong..."


byTeafoe

I certainly want to read "From Main Street to Guyville".