Rolling Stones vs. Dean Martin: 1964

FRIDAY, 16 MARCH 2012 17:10 WRITTEN BY RICH KIENZLE

Today the Rolling Stones are still Rock and Roll and pop culture icons, even as they battle over when (if ever) to do a 50th Anniversary Tour. Scott Mervis posted a very astute Pop Noise blog entry regarding Bruce Springsteen's recollections of the legendary TAMI Show movie, James Brown's explosive appearance in that film and the Rolling Stones' unenviable task of following the Godfather of Soul.

It's also worth noting that nearly 50 years later, it's easy to forget how revolutionary the Stones were in, say, 1964. But here's an example that just about anyone can relate to. It was still the Mad Men era in those days, Beatle haircuts got kids thrown out of school and music that could (and is) played in churches nowadays was considered subversive and sick.

Their music, both the hardcore blues aspects, and the blues-based rock, was too authentically black-sounding for white picket fence, white bread Mainstream America. Hell, parents were only beginning to cope with the less threatening Beatles.

Enter the Stones, appearing on ABC's Ed Sullivan-like Saturday night variety show The Hollywood Palace on June 3, 1964. The show had guest hosts and this week's was Dean Martin, then in his prime and creating the legend that's honored today with Dino and imitators around the country, mostly as part of Rat Pack shows.

The Palace, taped in an LA theater, was produced by old-school showbiz types who had little truck with this whole youth movement, prefering instead to present the old farts of showbiz (Bing Crosby, Bob Hope, etc.) and the young farts who followed in their footsteps. The Stones, no less controversial in England than they were here, were anathema to all that.

Ironically, Dino's kids came to the rehearsals for the telecast to get the Stones' autographs, according to then-bassist Bill Wyman. In his memoir Stone Alone: The Diary of a Rock and Roll Band, Wyman wrote in vivid detail about the tensions that ensued when the band played on the show. The show's jackass producers tried to give them money to buy band uniforms (which they hadn't worn except for a brief period early in their careers). A backstage dust-up with Dino nearly led Keith Richards to as Wyman put it, "pop (Dean) one with his guitar."

Here's that notorious performance, complete with Martin's snarky intro, homophobic eye-rolling and post-performance mockery. The song: Willie Dixon's "I Just Want to Make Love to You," a souped-up arrangement of Muddy Waters' much slower version. Note that by today's standards, their stage attire would be appropriate at a formal dinner today.





Scott is right. The Stones had it in that day. I'm a bit older than he is, so I remember this time in a bit more detail. And I love Dean Martin as well (per my blog on his country side and this followup). But this particular day, he was playing to his crowd, and being a consummate a-hole in the process.

Of course not long after, Martin's son Dino, Desi Arnaz, Jr. and Billy Hinsche (a future Beach Boy) put together a rock band titled "Dino, Desi and Billy." Dean did not treat them the same way.

[communityvoices.sites.post-gazette.com]

[gozie.com]



Dino,Desi, and Billy had one hit called I'm a Fool that was just a rip off of Louie Louie, without the great vocal of the Kingsmen.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-17 02:26 by mitchflorida1.

Dean Martin was drunk while he emceed Hollywood Palace and he viewed the Stones as a disheveled Beatles copy-cat group. Truth is the Stones weren't really great performers when they played the Palace. The only reason the Stones were even on that show was because Ed Sullivan refused to have him on his show during that tour.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-17 02:33 by mitchflorida1.

I think Dino was honest. I don't think he cared much about the Stones or, probably, any other pop or rock group. Remember, he was an old school crooner. And I don't think the Stones had any high regards for crooners either...

Just a hunch, but I would bet that Dino admired the Beatles. I am sure he must have covered quite a few of their songs.

[www.yourememberthat.com]


Maybe not. "I hate the Beatles" song. Tacky.

Quote
Stoneage
I think Dino was honest. I don't think he cared much about the Stones or, probably, any other pop or rock group. Remember, he was an old school crooner. And I don't think the Stones had any high regards for crooners either...

I've think you've hit the nail on the head there...mutual disrespect.

Frank Sinatra felt the same about Elvis Presley at the beginning and I believe was negative in the press about him in the 50s.

By the beginning of the 60s though, he aired his famous "Welcome Home Elvis" special and duetted with him. I don't think Dino every duetted with the Stones though.

That would have been something though, tf: A Dino and Mick duet! Imagine that. I wonder if they would have choosed "That´s Amore" or "Satisfaction"?

I think that appearing drunk was just part of Dean Martin's "act".

But his ignorant and pandering attitude wasn't so much a result of being sober or drunk... a**hole was probably just hoping to get a few desperate laughs.

Martin certainly didn't write most of that, if not all of it. He's just reading off of cards written by some hack writer. Plus, he's just doing his Dean Martin act, which is all it is, an act. Keep in mind, that was show business back then. I remember some guy telling me regarding this clip and others that "they didn't respect the movement." The movement? It's show business.

wtf?! "weren't really great performers"?! Yeah, OK...

Either Keith's got his eye on somebody in the audience or he's watching himself in the monitor.

Love that clip. The article is great and spot on except for the part on the ' homosexual' eye rolling. I just don't see that. Keith's playing is great foreshadowing of the riffage to come!

I like Dean's version of Sway.
Quien Sera

The thing is I happen to like both.

Dean made some great songs in his day, as did The Stones.

There probably never been a larger gap in the show business concepts than then between Dean Martin/The Hollywood Palace show and The Rolling Stones of 1964. Two worlds of 'entertainment' in total conflict to each other (and Dean Martin and The Stones representing almost extreme examples of the contrasting worlds). It also reflected the generation gap that probably never would been such huge as it was during the 60's. For example, whatever Johnny Rotten and The Sex Pistols did twelve years later was a chicken shit compared to to the effect The Stones had in 1964.

Anyway, that was then, now is now. The Stones of late yaers is a Frank Sinatra or Dean Martin of today's world of entertainment. Especially Keith Richards with his manners and speaks - a drink in hand, posing drunk,and badmothing the acts he doesn't grasp - resembles funnily much more Dean Martin of The Hollywood Palace Show" than "old blues man" a'la Muddy Waters. What goes around, comes around, etc....

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-17 13:47 by Doxa.

.... mmmmmmmm and imagine Jamaica when U-Roy hit ......



ROCKMAN

Quote
Doxa

Anyway, that was then, now is now. The Stones of late yaers is a Frank Sinatra or Dean Martin of today's world of entertainment. Especially Keith Richards with his manners and speaks - a drink in hand, posing drunk,and badmothing the acts he doesn't grasp - resembles funnily much more Dean Martin of The Hollywood Palace Show" than "old blues man" a'la Muddy Waters. What goes around, comes around, etc....

- Doxa

Right you are, Doxa. Ironic, isn't it?

ROCKMAN

Quote
proudmary

Quote
Doxa

Anyway, that was then, now is now. The Stones of late yaers is a Frank Sinatra or Dean Martin of today's world of entertainment. Especially Keith Richards with his manners and speaks - a drink in hand, posing drunk,and badmothing the acts he doesn't grasp - resembles funnily much more Dean Martin of The Hollywood Palace Show" than "old blues man" a'la Muddy Waters. What goes around, comes around, etc....

- Doxa

Right you are, Doxa. Ironic, isn't it?

It is. But true as well. I always found a bit hypocratic Keith's romantic analogies to great old blues men into whom he wants to project himself. The fact that he was once inspired of blues music, and made a pop career and a damn big name of himself in show business to an extent out of it, wouldn't make him any real blues player. I find it funny that judging from the base of Sumlin gig he is now an "old blues man" he always wanted to be. Bullocks. He is as far from Muddy Waters or Howlin Wolf today than he was in 1964. I liked Keith's idiosyncratic take on blues in Sumlin gig, but that was great because it was Keith Richards - that is: taking his history, experience as a Rolling Stone, rock and roll legend - doing it, sounding so vulnerable, skills reduced, broken, down to earth, heartful, a man way past his prime. But it wasn't anything spectacular in any terms of blues. He is a "real blues man" only in his talks and the fantasy of some Rolling Stones fans. Playing a few blues tunes - and seemingly having lost your skills - doesn't make you a blues man, nor playing few reggae songs and smoking damn many joints with the rastamen, a reggae man, no matter how much you admire "authenticity". But outside the music, as far as his public role as a celebrate goes - as his actual place in the show business - is actually very close to people like Dean Martin than ever to people like Muddy Waters. In this way I appraciate much more Mick Jagger for never trying to pretend being something he obviously is not.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-17 14:45 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
proudmary

Quote
Doxa

Anyway, that was then, now is now. The Stones of late yaers is a Frank Sinatra or Dean Martin of today's world of entertainment. Especially Keith Richards with his manners and speaks - a drink in hand, posing drunk,and badmothing the acts he doesn't grasp - resembles funnily much more Dean Martin of The Hollywood Palace Show" than "old blues man" a'la Muddy Waters. What goes around, comes around, etc....

- Doxa

Right you are, Doxa. Ironic, isn't it?

It is. But true as well. I always found a bit hypocratic Keith's romantic analogies to great old blues men into whom he wants to project himself. The fact that he was once inspired of blues music, and made a pop career and a damn big name of himself in show business to an extent out of it, wouldn't make him any real blues player. I find it funny that judging from the base of Sumlin gig he is now an "old blues man" he always wanted to be. Bullocks. He is as far from Muddy Waters or Howlin Wolf today than he was in 1964. I liked Keith's idiosyncratic take on blues in Sumlin gig, but that was great because it was Keith Richards - that is: taking his history, experience as a Rolling Stone, rock and roll legend - doing it, sounding so vulnerable, skills reduced, broken, down to earth, heartful, a man way past his prime. But it wasn't anything spectacular in any terms of blues. He is a "real blues man" only in his talks and the fantasy of some Rolling Stones fans. Playing a few blues tunes - and seemingly having lost your skills - doesn't make you a blues man, nor playing few reggae songs and smoking damn many joints with the rastamen, a reggae man, no matter how much you admire "authenticity". But outside the music, as far as his public role as a celebrate goes - as his actual place in the show business - is actually very close to people like Dean Martin than ever to people like Muddy Waters. In this way I appraciate much more Mick Jagger for never trying to pretend being something he obviously is not.

- Doxa

And cut. Thank you for a spot on post again. +1

The band actually played two songs in their set during that appearance, but "Not Fade Away" was held back for later broadcast. Here's a clip with both performances (sans Dino's patronizing BS)...







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-17 20:11 by GetRhythmicProductions.

Quote
Stoneage
That would have been something though, tf: A Dino and Mick duet! Imagine that. I wonder if they would have choosed "That´s Amore" or "Satisfaction"?

Italian version of As Tears Go By would be the obvious choice!

Quote
Doxa

Quote
proudmary

Quote
Doxa

Anyway, that was then, now is now. The Stones of late yaers is a Frank Sinatra or Dean Martin of today's world of entertainment. Especially Keith Richards with his manners and speaks - a drink in hand, posing drunk,and badmothing the acts he doesn't grasp - resembles funnily much more Dean Martin of The Hollywood Palace Show" than "old blues man" a'la Muddy Waters. What goes around, comes around, etc....

- Doxa

Right you are, Doxa. Ironic, isn't it?

It is. But true as well. I always found a bit hypocratic Keith's romantic analogies to great old blues men into whom he wants to project himself. The fact that he was once inspired of blues music, and made a pop career and a damn big name of himself in show business to an extent out of it, wouldn't make him any real blues player. I find it funny that judging from the base of Sumlin gig he is now an "old blues man" he always wanted to be. Bullocks. He is as far from Muddy Waters or Howlin Wolf today than he was in 1964. I liked Keith's idiosyncratic take on blues in Sumlin gig, but that was great because it was Keith Richards - that is: taking his history, experience as a Rolling Stone, rock and roll legend - doing it, sounding so vulnerable, skills reduced, broken, down to earth, heartful, a man way past his prime. But it wasn't anything spectacular in any terms of blues. He is a "real blues man" only in his talks and the fantasy of some Rolling Stones fans. Playing a few blues tunes - and seemingly having lost your skills - doesn't make you a blues man, nor playing few reggae songs and smoking damn many joints with the rastamen, a reggae man, no matter how much you admire "authenticity". But outside the music, as far as his public role as a celebrate goes - as his actual place in the show business - is actually very close to people like Dean Martin than ever to people like Muddy Waters. In this way I appraciate much more Mick Jagger for never trying to pretend being something he obviously is not.

- Doxa

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-18 00:09 by wanderingspirit66.

What a smart arse....Little did he know that 48 years later the Stones would still be inspiring kids to grow their hair and start a band.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
proudmary

Quote
Doxa

Anyway, that was then, now is now. The Stones of late yaers is a Frank Sinatra or Dean Martin of today's world of entertainment. Especially Keith Richards with his manners and speaks - a drink in hand, posing drunk,and badmothing the acts he doesn't grasp - resembles funnily much more Dean Martin of The Hollywood Palace Show" than "old blues man" a'la Muddy Waters. What goes around, comes around, etc....

- Doxa

Right you are, Doxa. Ironic, isn't it?

It is. But true as well. I always found a bit hypocratic Keith's romantic analogies to great old blues men into whom he wants to project himself. The fact that he was once inspired of blues music, and made a pop career and a damn big name of himself in show business to an extent out of it, wouldn't make him any real blues player. I find it funny that judging from the base of Sumlin gig he is now an "old blues man" he always wanted to be. Bullocks. He is as far from Muddy Waters or Howlin Wolf today than he was in 1964. I liked Keith's idiosyncratic take on blues in Sumlin gig, but that was great because it was Keith Richards - that is: taking his history, experience as a Rolling Stone, rock and roll legend - doing it, sounding so vulnerable, skills reduced, broken, down to earth, heartful, a man way past his prime. But it wasn't anything spectacular in any terms of blues. He is a "real blues man" only in his talks and the fantasy of some Rolling Stones fans. Playing a few blues tunes - and seemingly having lost your skills - doesn't make you a blues man, nor playing few reggae songs and smoking damn many joints with the rastamen, a reggae man, no matter how much you admire "authenticity". But outside the music, as far as his public role as a celebrate goes - as his actual place in the show business - is actually very close to people like Dean Martin than ever to people like Muddy Waters. In this way I appraciate much more Mick Jagger for never trying to pretend being something he obviously is not.

- Doxa

Doxa- your views and analogies are so crystal clear and spot on. Others have suggested this before - but given the amount of time you must spend thinking and writing snippets of your impressions of the Stones, I think you should really consider writing a book. Why not just gather your thoughts, organize them and put it together? It would be almost certainly better than any of the "lovely things" that Jagger has in store for the 50th anniversary. Just call it 50 years "notes from a fan" or something. It will be my only Stones related book purchase to mark the 50th. An additional incentive to buy would be the absence of a HUGE tongue on the cover

Dean Martin had his first big hit since 1958 with Evrrybody Loves Somebody Sometime. He bragged to his friends that he pushed the Beatles' Hard Days Night out of the number one spot in 1964.


Dino was at the top of his popularity and he little use for the scruffy London rock and roll group, the Rolling Stones. During the show, Dino even spread the rumor that the Stones had challenged the Beatles to a hair-pulling contest. I don't know if it was true, but that was what Dean Martin claimed.
Interestingly , Everybody Loves Somebody Sometime had been written 17 years earlier, had been recorded by many top singers including Sinatra, but only Dino made a big hit our of it.









Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-03-18 01:35 by mitchflorida1.

Quote
mitchflorida1
During the show, Dino even spread the rumor that the Stones had challenged the Beatles to a hair-pulling contest. I don't know if it was true, but that was what Dean Martin claimed.

It's in the video, dude, and it's pretty obvious that Dean was talking shit.

"You wouldn't leave me alone with the Rolling Stones now would ya?"

Dean Martin was good pop vocalist. He wasn't in it for the art. I'm not sure he ever wrote a song. Frank was the artist. Dean, contary to this clip, was funny. And when he got out from the shadow of the frantic Jerry Lewis, everybody saw that and Dean's stardom continued to climb while Jerry's faltered. Dean was a man's man, growing up as a croupier in a mob gambling join in Steubenville, Ohio. The Stones were probably bewildering to him.

But don't take the Stones out of historical context. They came in on the crest of the British Invasion, where a lot of groups had turned to gimmicks, Freddie & The Dreamers, The Dave Clark Five all dressed alike. And the music they made was bright pop. Girls may have screamed at the Stones, like they did at all the bands, but who understood what kind of music they Stones were playing? Americans, the vast White America, had never heard these blues songs, even though were as American as it got. I'm sure the Stones bewildered a lot of people in 1964. By the time of the T.A.M.I. show in late '64 their sound became more pop, with 'Off The Hook', more accessible to teen ears.

At any rate, neither Dean, or the Stones, were hurt by this dustup. Dean's greatest achievement, his long running smash TV variety show, was still a year or two away. Now, Bing and Bowie was a different story. Although we think of Bing as the old buh-buh-buh-boo guy, in his youth he was quite a musical artist, recording with the likes of Bix Beiderbecke. He was probably a little more tolerant of the youngsters.