Selling the Stones

Hype and popular music go hand in hand. The Rolling Stones would probably have made the big time without their manager Andrew Loog Oldham, but his creative use of media manipulation certainly helped. Having previously worked for Brian Epstein and the Beatles he had seen how money could be made by moulding and promoting a band. He didn’t hang about. The moulding stage came first. He sacked their piano player Ian Stewart because his looks did not match the image about to be created. He changed the musical direction of the band by encouraging Mick Jagger and Keith Richards to write pop/rock songs to replace the blues covers they were used to performing, at a stroke pushing the Blues purist Brian Jones down the pecking order. Promotion came next. Oldham successfully hyped up the Stones’ “bad boy” image and generated widely quoted headlines such as “Would you let your daughter go with a Rolling Stone?” The press lapped it up. His provocative cover notes on their second album encouraged fans to mug a blind beggar for funds to buy the album. Outrage. The  Stones never looked back. Andrew Loog Oldham was 19 years old.

Pierre-François Palloy was an 18th century chancer, always on the lookout for the next big deal. In July 1789, in Paris, there was no bigger deal than the recently ransacked prison the Bastille. So Palloy acquired it, or at least the rights to demolish it and dispose of the debris. He had a grander plan than that, however. He would sell the stones of the Bastille, but more importantly he would sell an idea of the Bastille, an idea that lasts to this day. It was people like Palloy who turned the Bastille into a national symbol of liberated humanity. Others did it for political gain; Palloy did it to increase the value of his stones. Loog Oldham would have been proud. He did the same.

Palloy promoted the cult of the Bastille as a political tourist attraction with guided tours, historical lectures and accounts which hugely exaggerated the horrors of its dungeons, the numbers of its persecuted prisoners and the suffering they had endured. The truth was somewhat different. No 18th century jail was pleasurable, of course, but the Bastille was by no means the worst. Its most famous inmate was the Marquis de Sade. He had a desk, a wardrobe for his dressing gowns and silk breeches, four family portraits, tapestries on his walls, velvet cushions and pillows, mattresses, eau-de-cologne fragrances, and night lamps to help him get through his personal library of 133 books. He moved out a week before the Bastille was stormed. 7 prisoners were found inside, four of them forgers, one an aristocrat, plus two lunatics. No persecuted, tortured victims of the state. Media hype told otherwise. Prints began to emerge in which bits of armour were revealed as fiendish “iron corsets”, and a printing press as a wheel of torture. Palloy Enterprises capitalised on and furthered such fake news. By November 1789 he had completed the demolition of the prison and the reconstruction of its new image was well underway. So Palloy began to sell his product. Out of the stones of the Bastille he had miniature working models made of the prison and 246 chests of souvenirs which he took on the road, touring the French provinces. The chests were full of stone paperweights shaped like small Bastilles, snuffboxes and daggers. So familiar. Both Oldham and Palloy followed the same plan. Find your product, dismantle it, recreate it, invest it with a “bad boy” image, then take it on tour.

Hype did not appear fully-formed in the 20th century. It has a long history. With our modern know-how we like to think of ourselves as superior to previous generations but, let’s face it, there was not much Andrew Loog Oldham could teach Pierre-François Palloy about selling the stones.

Be careful what you wish for

 

 

In the growing climate of anti-royalist feeling in pre-revolutionary France there was a cult of admiration for republican Rome. Jacques-Louis David, who had a track record of jumping on promising bandwagons, produced these two paintings at that time as a salute to the popular Roman values of heroic, male stoicism.

From their schooldays the French audience would know the stories the paintings referred to. The first, titled “The Lictors bring to Brutus the Bodies of His Sons”, tells of Brutus who led the Roman revolt that expelled the King and brought about the first republic. As consul, one of his first tasks was to pass judgment on conspirators who tried to bring back the king. Among the conspirators were two of his sons. The verdict was death. He did not spare his sons. With the others, they were flogged and beheaded. The painting shows the moment the dead sons are returned to an admirably impassive, stoic Brutus. We are meant to contrast this male strength with the weakness shown by the despairing mother and sisters on the right of the painting. The French public is being given a lesson on the qualities needed to conduct a revolution.

The second more famous painting, titled “The Oath of the Horatii”, instructs us with the same contrast. Strong males and weak females. Rome is at war and this war will be settled by three champions selected by both sides. The three sons of the Roman Horatius will fight for Rome. We see them proudly receiving their weapons from their father while mother and sisters again despair. An 18th century audience might also be aware of the events following the oath. Rome wins but only one son returns. All the enemy’s champions have been killed, including one who happened to be engaged to one of the Roman sisters. When her surviving brother returns, she weeps for her fiancė. For this crime against Roman stoicism, the brother kills her. His sister.

With hindsight, knowing what we know about the subsequent course of the French Revolution, it is a shame the French are unable to ask Jacques-Louis David a question. What were you promoting with these paintings? Simply the strength of character to pursue the cause? Dutiful, patriotic determination? Surely you didn’t mean we needed to kill our sons, daughters and sisters In the name of Roman virtue? Or did you? Because that’s what happened next.

After the fall of the Bastille, at first aristocrats, royalists and moderates, as long as they swore allegiance to the republic, lived safely. What David and other armchair revolutionaries could not have foreseen, however, were the events of 1793 and 1794. The Terror.

The Terror, that time of fanatical infighting and bloodletting, was the time when David’s ideal of Roman stoicism was pushed to it’s appalling limits. Factions competed with each other to be the ultimate Brutus in the way that they dealt with royalist conspirators. Thousands of so-called conspirators were imprisoned simply for their unacceptable beliefs. In September 1792 around half of them were massacred by the Paris mob. Women were not spared. Prisons which had been reserved for women suffered the same fate. The Princesse de Lamballe, a companion to Marie Antoinette, was, like many others, brought to an impromptu tribunal in prison. When asked to swear an oath of hatred for the king, she refused. At which point a door opened and she saw the fate awaiting her; men with axes and knives. She was led out and butchered.

At the height of the terror whole families were guillotined simply for being aristocratic. Like Brutus and Horatius before them, Jacobin leaders purified those families that did not live up to the Roman/revolutionary ideal by slaughtering sons and daughters. Chrétien de Malesherbes had committed a double crime. He was aristocratic and, as a lawyer, had conducted the defence at the king’s trial. On the day he was executed he was made to wait and watch while his daughter and a granddaughter were guillotined before him. Soon after, his 76 year-old sister followed him to the scaffold.

Be careful what you wish for. In promoting Roman stoic virtues perhaps Jacques-Louis David and other pre-revolution idealists did not foresee events such as these. But that suggests they did not fully appreciate the messages within the paintings. It’s not even as if these messages were coded. They were hiding in plain sight. When the mob rose, the writing had been on the wall for some time. And so had the paintings.