Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RallyMonkey]

This has been bugging me since I watched Almost Famous a few weeks ago.

In my youth, I always thought that Rolling Stone magazine was named after The Rolling Stones. Don't ask me why. It just seemed logical. Yet, then I realized Rolling Stone was probably around near the beginning of The Rolling Stones (I may very well be wrong).

Thus, I ask you. Are the names related in any way? Or possibly related to Like a Rolling Stone? (Which very well may have been recorded long after both, I'm not up to date on my Bob Dylan.) Or did all three groups just somehow stumble upon the expression and decide that they wanted to name things after them?

(UPDATE: Wikipedia tells me the chronology goes The Rolling Stones, Like A Rolling Stone, Rolling Stone. Yet, still, are they related in any way?)

[Kai]

I'm pretty sure it was taken from "Like a Rolling Stone". I could certainly be wrong though.

[!!!CPAOI!!!]

I always figured it came from the expression.  Moss doesn't grow on a rolling stone you know (although I think the magazine has disproved the old adage).

[Johnny C]

I think I'll give this thread three stars.

[Joseph]

I remember in an old Rolling Stone, I think it was the 500 Greatest Songs issues, there was some writing about the Muddy Water's song, and it was mentioned how the Rolling Stones took their name from it, as did the magazine.  I'm fairly sure that's what it said, anyhow.

[Joseph]

And, after a quick trip to my room and a tad of reading, I have the issue.  Apparently Rollin' Stone by Muddy Waters is the 459th greatest song of ever, and in the little blurb about it, it is written, "The Rolling Stones took their name from the title, as did, in part, this magazine; Bob Dylan tipped his hat with "Like a Rolling Stone."

[Gryff]

I think I'll give this thread three stars.

hiyo!

[Kai]

I think I'll give this thread three stars.

Until this thread is reissued, where it will be given 5 stars.

[Thrillho]

The rolling stones almost certainly swiped it from the muddy waters song 'Rolling Stone' recorded in 1948.

This is true. Brian Jones named them on a whim when asked what his band was called. Forty years on...

[sjbrot]

They had Jonathan Lethem writing about Bob Dylan.

The problem with the Stone is that they feel the need (which has been writen into their mission statement straight from the start) to be a general cultural authority. Which means they have to be down with the public, in the end.

And when artistic credibility and the public's taste intersect, Hoorah! We get a best-selling and really amazing novelist and essayist (and occasional music writer) talking about one of the music world's most enduring enigmas. And the other months, they go with the topless shot of a starlet covered in rose petals or a guitar or some guys hands or something.

They've done some pieces that would blow any other magazine out of the water. Their taste shouldn't be in question; they just need to be steered in the right direction.

[Luke C]

it's from an old expression "a rolling stone gathers no moss", which an extremely old latin proverb.

the rolling stones almost certainly swiped it from the muddy waters song 'Rolling Stone' recorded in 1948. my guess is dylan was referring to the proverb and the magazine was referring to dylan. in fact i'm certain of it.

I was wondering the same thing myself tbh. I assumed (for no real reason) it was the band first then the Dylan song (I had gussed he wrote it when the Stones were huge or maybe he toured with them or something, not very knowledgeable (sp) about Dylan I shall admit) then the mag named after the band. But like I say that was a guess with no basis tbh.

Glad someone cleared it up for me.

[Gryff]

There's a really interesting section in Like a Rolling Stone: Bob Dylan at the Crossroads by Griel Marcus, where the author describes in great detail the recording session for 'Like A Rolling Stone'. Marcus talks about each individual take, where the band did things differently, where they fucked it up, where Al Kooper joined in on organ. It seems like the take they used on the album was almost miraculous in its existence, because apparently the other versions uniformly struggled to capture the feel that Dylan was going for. It's a fascinating read if you're into the song.