Part 3 (1/2)

I guess what I' is that very early on, the Stones-more than the Beatles,akin to social outlaws One e was the way in which the Stones were seen as adherents of illicit drugs

Aldous Huxley and Timothy Leary were the real proselytizers of that I don't recall ever being a proselytizer , ”This is what I do, and you should do it, too” I' I didn't privately think it, but I never was one ent out and actively said anything about it Actually, you kind of kept quiet about it, because it was like hip peer-group behavior that ed in for decades It wasn't so that you wanted to spread outside Just the opposite, because it was your little thing, and your little group of people did it That hat roup different, really, fro it It was just this thing for creative artists

Still, your audience was certainly hip enough to knoas going on Weren't you concerned about the influence you ht have on them?

It was all in the open before you could even think about it You found yourself defending it withoutthat anyone else should do Ilike ”Well, it's up to me what I want to do,” but that's different I still consider that different It's the freedo your own personal experience, and these questions of freedoo to Vietnaal and philosophical points of the time It still seems absurd toit It's absurd Certainly this becauislate what I do with it” Which is true: You can't You can't just pass laws and enforce thes are concerned It doesn't work It didn't work during Prohibition, and it doesn't ith cocaine

Looking back, are you unhappy that the Stones beca use?

Yeah, I think it's very bad As I say, I don't reh, of course, you were sort of put on the spot to defend what you did And you didn't want to say, ”Oh, well, I'll never do it again,” because that was absurd So you were seen as defying authority, and in a way, that was the only stance to be taken I didn't see any other stance to take What e going to do? Co coot identified with the drug thing and with being an outlaw

But I think it beca Stones who ever got either arrested or involved with drugs In Brian Jones' case it probably contributed to his death So it was tree it did by persuading people how glamorous it all was In reality, it was also detri And it went on and on and on

Did it ever feel as if the Rolling Stones e?

Oh, yeah Several ti yourself In a way it was like being Lenny Bruce: He was a wonderful co himself every time he said ”fuck” that he was never funny anyet different answers froht, it was not the intention of the Rolling Stones to beco-user outlaws It was a real drawback as far as creativity went And it went on until 1977, with Keith's bust in Toronto

All those things affected the band and gave us this i like a real bunch of outlaw dope fiends-which was to a certain extent, I suppose, true But it was also iinal intent was just to do what one did and not h, in which the Stones came to be seen as advocates of evil One of the”Syhtful outright alliance with Satan and all that he represents I wondered, though, if you actually intended the song more as a comment on the nature of personal evil-you know, the idea that if there's any devil in this world, it's the devil that lives inside each of us In other words, it isn't Satan who ruins the world, but you and s, because I think it's much more pleasurable for people to have their own interpretation of a song or novel or fil out what people have taken wrong, so I', except to say that your point of view seehs]

You've obviously been thinking about ”Syht More or less But if sos literally-I mean, if they only want to look at them on one level-well, that's fine, you know It's just schoolot to look underneath the surface If people want to take it literally, they take it literally

But was it ever troubling that some people saw the Stones as soht it was a really odd thing, because it was only one song, after all It wasn't like it was a whole albuns It was only one song, and people seee so readily, which has carried all the way over to heavy- for all these hocus-pocus bands, so obviously the subject has a vast commercial potential But I should say here, we did not set out toout of the idea

Perhaps what made the topic so potent is that it hadn't been addressed that way in popular music before Also, you didn't treat the idea as if it were hocus-pocus You seemed to take your subject seriously

Well, for the duration of the song That's what those things are about It's like acting in a movie: You try to act out the scene as believably as possible, whether you believe it or not That's called good acting You have to re, it's not entirely autobiographical I suppose it's a natural assuwriter like, say, Lou Reed ordirectly to an audience, that we're so a personal experience or view And while I think that personal experience is a wonderful thing to build a song on, I also like to eination Likeis, people want to believe If they believe it, then great If you are writing a novel, and somebody believes that you know the subject, then it's all the better for you Because that's what you're trying to achieve

What if what they believe is so influence?

Well, you've got to be careful If you're doing a song that says heroin is greatI can't remember what Lou Reed's ”Heroin” is about, to be honest

The song doesn't proselytize for heroin-it si is like It's certainly not a celebration

But you knohat I reat! But ”Sympathy for the Devil” was prettyah, well, it's just one song, as I said hell, you know, I never really did the subject to death But I did have to back off a little, because I could see as happening It's an easily exploitable i way And I backed off, because I didn't want to go down that way-you know, have people thinking that wasI wanted to have other subjects and other roles, and you get typecast in there if you don't watch it IStones were very typecast fros we've talked about Myself, I was always typecast as rebellious and so on It was very difficult to conored by thethat seeressors was ”Street Fighting Man” In a period when bands like the Beatles were carefully aligning themselves with the nonviolent factions of the anti-war movement, the Stones seemed more inclined to consider the notion of violent revolution

Just the opposite I don't think violence is necessary in this society to bring about political change I was never supportive of the Weather like that I never believed that the violent course was necessary for our society For other societies perhaps, but in ours, it's totally unnecessary It's just , really However ro the barricades ht down a governovern at the Democratic convention in the sa on, for very ill-defined reasons I'm not quite sure what all that was really about, when you think about it now I mean, the Vietnam War was somewhat a part of it, but was that the reason for the Paris riots? It's very hard to put your finger on what it was all about It was a violent period It didn't seereat cause that was felt

Well, as you say, in America we had the Vietnam War to oppose

You had the war But there were other things to revolt against, weren't there? When you actually look back on it, it's very hard to pin dohat these causes were Now er doesn't rehts of minorities, to end poverty, and so on” And that's all certainly worth fighting for But it's got to be said: There were a lot of people anted violence for its own sake And in every crowd, these people tended to be the most loud- thing that ever happened to some people

But this whole issue of violence seee In fact, to some people, it was synonymous with the band You said it yourself, that violence is exciting for soe that ize your performances?

It's ait's a very difficult question I mean, I don't knohat to say [Pauses] The best rock & roll riness-whether on record or onstage That is, rock & roll is only rock & roll if it's not safe You know, one of the things I hate is what rock & roll has become in a lot of people's hands: a safe, viable vehicle for pop Oh, it's inevitable, I suppose, but I don't like that sort of music It's like, rock & roll-the best kind, that is, the real thing-is always brash That's the reason for punk I y-and that's really what rock & roll's all about

And so it's inevitable that the audience is stirred by the anger they feel That's probably one of the ideas Now, if that anger spills out into the street, that's not funny for people But if it's contained within a theater and a few chairs get broken, my opinion at the time-and my opinion now-is, well, so what?

But the truth is, I don't like to see people getting hurt At early concerts we did, the police used toI reirls would be standing up taking pictures, and the police would coet hit over the head with a billy club And the saratuitous violence from the police or the bouncers or whoever they were, the people there with the muscle And the audiences were often provoked by thatthese confrontations Because otherwise, nothing et a few kids onstage But when they start to put huge flanks of police or private security in there, with the sole idea of showing how butch they are-the classic case being Altamont-then there's trouble

Anyway, it's never been et hurt In fact, we used to always stop in thehurt I reot out of hand

Well, it doesn't really happen any out of hand, as you mentioned, was at Altamont Over the years many people have asserted that the violence that occurred on that day was soery the band had been flirting with all along Looking back, does that seem like a fair accusation?

It's not fair It's ridiculous I mean, to me that is the reed with Jann Wenner at the tiree with him I don't think he was at the concert I don't think any of the writers rote about it so fully were ever there Everyone who lived in San Francisco-including a lot of those people rote about Altaone on with all these saels It had simply happened a lot in San Francisco And it may sound like an excuse, but we believed-however naively-that this show could be organized by those San Francisco people who'd had experience with this sort of thing It was just an established ritual, this concert-giving thing in the Bay Area And just because it got out of hand, we got the bla the buck, because those writers ere there knee didn't organize the concert I anize it Perhaps we should have-that's another question In fact, that was one of the lessons well learned

But at the tiht that these people in San Francisco were the oing for the with it If I'd known it was going to be what it was, obviously I wouldn't have done it It was foolish ofat the end of the ”everyone's together and lovable” era, and San Francisco was supposed to be the center of it all That's one of the reasons we did the concert there

So I don't buy all that other bullshi+t I mean, that's an excuse made by the people in San Francisco And I don't like when they completely put the blame on us Some of it, yeah But not all of it

In their recent books about the Rolling Stones, Philip Norman and Stanley Booth- God bless them both

Both authors have clai Stones were never quite the sa to invoke violence in its ely superficial ways

I don't know I ood in a book, you know, to have, like, this great claim: ”And that was the end of the era” It's all so wonderfully convenient

But, you know, it did teach e shoithout, um, control

But as to violence and so onwell, we did a song on the last album that's quite violent [”One Hit to the Body”], and I don't thinkwell, maybe I mean, you can postulate all you want about what happened on that day I don't know I felt very upset And I was very sad about the violence, the guy that died and the hell's Angels behaving the way they did It ful It was a horrible thing to go through I hated it And the audience had a hard time It was a lesson that we all learned It was a horrible experience-not so much for me as for the people that suffered I had a pretty easy ride, you knoas lucky There's no doubt that it did leavea regret And it left things at a very low ebb at the end of as otherwise a very successful tour-in fact, the first major arena tour

So, I don't know-I'ment, except to say I think it's a bit convenient when you're writing a book I ood to be true I s aren't quite as simple as that But it wasit wasan experience

Let's move ahead a couple of years, to the time that you recorded Exile on Main Street-an albu Stones' finest work

I don't

You don't?