There's a slew of them here, and you know who you are. IF Mick (or his agents) peruse forums like this, then I'm not surprised that he doesn't bother to release the contents of the so-called "vaults". Why? Simply because so many of you no longer consider the band to be a "going concern". The three-year Bigger Bang tour, the largest-grossing tour of all time, is already forgotten.

The simple fact of the matter is, he (and the band) don't owe you anything. Nothing. Nada. Some of you seem to regard the outtakes and such as some sort of birthright. That is complete bullsh*t, and you know it. YET, you still lap up these bootlegs of unreleased half-finished demos, but somehow say that they should've quit twenty years ago.

Does this profile fit any of the ambulance chasers here? Yeah, I think it does.

Bad day at the office ?

If your point is some people here are too grumpy, it's awfully hard to argue with that. Of course, they'll just argue that your post is a bit grumpy, too...

But what do lawyers have to do with anything?

You know, there are plenty of brands of decaf out on the market today that taste just as good as the real thing...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-11 04:53 by ryanpow.

Actually, I don't give a shit what the Stones do - something, anything, nothing - just release the vaults.

bassplayer, u r a baiter, and u know it. There have been quite a few on the boards lately, of varying stripes.

That said, I do have to agree with some of your sentiments.

In fact, I hate myself and f me.

The band owes the fans EVERYTHING! LOL

Get some sleep basspalyer617.

Puzzling

I think that by thinking the band nowadays as "living concern" I think someone is fooling oneself. I don't think that even Mick Jagger and Keith Richards really think so. But they used did very so.

- Doxa

Quote
timbernardis
bassplayer, u r a baiter

Yeah, but he's a master at it

Does this mean that there are also Stones Neocons?

Quote
Sir Craven of Cottage
Does this mean that there are also Stones Neocons?

Sweet !

If there had been no Rolling Stones music/records before "Black And Blue" this forum wouldn´t even exist...

Quote
rootsman
If there had been no Rolling Stones music/records before "Black And Blue" this forum wouldn´t even exist...

I love everything post "Black and Blue" so I for one would have plently to discuss on a forum like this. I think a lot of others here feel the same.

Quote
vudicus

Quote
rootsman
If there had been no Rolling Stones music/records before "Black And Blue" this forum wouldn´t even exist...

I love everything post "Black and Blue" so I for one would have plently to discuss on a forum like this. I think a lot of others here feel the same.

Yes, and I'm one of them. However, there is a particular subgroup who seem to think that the entire history of the band is encapsulated in one five-year period. They are known as the "Taylorites". They are zealous and most definitely conservative. Neocons in a musical sense? Yes.

Quote
bassplayer617
Yes, and I'm one of them. However, there is a particular subgroup who seem to think that the entire history of the band is encapsulated in one five-year period. They are known as the "Taylorites". They are zealous and most definitely conservative. Neocons in a musical sense? Yes.

You have such great insight and overview of everyone posting at this board, bassplayer - I get the feeling you're both the local priest and the kindergarden-headmaster in one and the same person; it's quite impressive. Please tell us...what's your mission; what should we do to become wiser?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-12 01:07 by Erik_Snow.

Quote
bassplayer617

Quote
vudicus

Quote
rootsman
If there had been no Rolling Stones music/records before "Black And Blue" this forum wouldn´t even exist...

I love everything post "Black and Blue" so I for one would have plently to discuss on a forum like this. I think a lot of others here feel the same.

Yes, and I'm one of them. However, there is a particular subgroup who seem to think that the entire history of the band is encapsulated in one five-year period. They are known as the "Taylorites". They are zealous and most definitely conservative. Neocons in a musical sense? Yes.

Whereas I certainly don't agree with the "Taylorites" as you call them, I accept that they only enjoy a certain period of the bands work.
I'm sure they don't do it to offend people like you or I, they merely do not feel any connection with their later works, for whatever reason.

Let's face it the Rolling Stones in 1972 is a totally different band than the one in 2005 for numerous reasons, and maybe the later band is too far
detached from the earlier version to have any kind of impact with certain people.

Personally, I see strengths and weaknesses in both eras, but we're all bound to disagree on what they are. As long as people voice their feelings respectfully without just slagging off something that others on this board may love, than I really don't see a problem.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-12 01:19 by vudicus.

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
bassplayer617
Yes, and I'm one of them. However, there is a particular subgroup who seem to think that the entire history of the band is encapsulated in one five-year period. They are known as the "Taylorites". They are zealous and most definitely conservative. Neocons in a musical sense? Yes.

You have such great insight and overview of everyone posting at this board, bassplayer - I get the feeling you're both the local priest and the kindergarden-headmaster in one and the same person; it's quite impressive. Please tell us...what's your mission; what should we do to become wiser?

My mission is simply to enjoy it while it lasts. Nothing more, nothing less. When it's over, there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth. In the meantime, there is no need to push the band into its collective grave, as some of you seem so ghoulishly anxious to do.

There's a slew of them here, and you know who you are.

Don't get what this whole things about at all .....

BUT can ya name 'em so they can be captured & tortured ....



ROCKMAN

Bassplayer, lately you have stated several times that this whole Brussles 73 deal needs to be de-mythologized. I don't quite get that.
I love the Stones, and I love the myths. Makes the Stones experience even juicier to me.
Are you saying that about Brussels because you are trying to detract a little from the Taylor years?

One MAJOR issue I find with the board sometimes is that the pre-Banquet years don't get near enough coverage. By us.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Bassplayer, lately you have stated several times that this whole Brussles 73 deal needs to be de-mythologized. I don't quite get that.
I love the Stones, and I love the myths. Makes the Stones experience even juicier to me.
Are you saying that about Brussels because you are trying to detract a little from the Taylor years?

One MAJOR issue I find with the board sometimes is that the pre-Banquet years don't get near enough coverage. By us.

It's the mythology that makes the Stones the band they are. Great as the music is (a nd it is amazing) if you take away the stories and legends they are less interesting. Let's face it the Stones are on of the greatest soaps on the planet (and I mean that positively). We don't need to de-mythologise anything.

Thank you Sir Craven. Totally agree. Just like you say: Stones are one of the best Soaps around

I admit the importance of the mythology, but frankly I don't see any mythical in BRUSSELS AFFAIR: it is just the best goddamn rock concert ever captured on tape. Just LISTEN it; it gives the very fact why this band is called the best of them all. All you need is relative good ears and heart for rock&roll.

- Doxa

Of the pejorative term "conservative" here. I don't quite find it suitable.

There are ways to see the change.

First is to admit that the band is different in 2005 as it was in, say, 1972. I think ALL of us admit this.

Second is to think that the band is different but as good as ever. Call
these 'relativists'.

Third is to think that there are not just different but also not as as good as they once were. Call these 'objectivists'.

I think the discussion going here can be described in terms of the two last ones. Bassplayer617 seems to have a ball against the people who find the objective criteria of the third position to be such an important factor that they just don't take the band very seriously anymore - the band or its music just doesn't excite them anymore, and the very reasons why they see - or once saw - the band as such a massive concern do not exist anymore. They just don't like the band anyway or anyhow as it is, but they love the band for some particular, special reasons - for example, making the best rock music there ever have been. On other words: they are not relativists.

I find the objectivist position more healthy because it stands on something 'hard' - there are reasons why the people love the Stones, and not just the band 'being the Stones', and the fans being forced to dig anything they happened do.

I think many people (of course, not all of them!) who are 'objectivists' do still enjoy - at least to an extent - their current manifestation as it is: as a safe and sure nostalgy entertainment. But that's not the reason why they love the band and and why it means - or once meant - so much to them. They will know that whatever happened in the last twenty years of their existence is just a long and a boring footnote in a great story. Most of all, they find it ridiculous to really think the band as worthy as it once was. They think that the 'relativists' are just fooling themselves as they think that they are wittnessing some important or relevant or 'equal' phase in their story. To their ears it would like trying to hide or marginalize or ridicule the true greatness and importance the band once actually had. Unfortunately, the band (with their decreasing potentia and skills but endless drive for gathering quick fortunes by milking out the past) seem to share the same philosophy as the relativists (but they, at least, laugh all the way to bank...)

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-12 13:01 by Doxa.

Quote
rootsman
If there had been no Rolling Stones music/records before "Black And Blue" this forum wouldn´t even exist...

You got my vote!!

I don't know about that the thought that the band seems to share the same philosophy as the relativists Doxa. I would agree if they didn't continue to record new material, but they do. As often as all of us would like? No, but they are still writing and recording their own stuff. The true sign of the Stones throwning in the towel for me would be them opening the vaults and never doing anything new again. Leave the vault material for when the guys are gone and their families need cash flow.

That some of the fans don't like the material of the last 20 years is simply a matter of taste. Personally, the only two albums I have a hard time listening to all the way through are Emotional Rescue and Dirty Work. But that is just my opinion.

And let's face it, the blues guys they admired as kids that got them into music in the first place mostly played right up to the end of their lives. Elvis did, even had the number 1 single that week, Muddy did, Howlin' Wolf did, Bo Diddley did, etc. I honestly don't see that the Stones will be any different in that respect.

"Let's face it" has become one of the worst - it's at the same level as 'as we speak', 'you know' and 'it's like'.

So, let's face it, because, you know, like, the Rolling Stones are, as we speak, over. They've been over since, like, you know, 1974 or stuff like that. If there was a Stones ATM machine and I had an ATM machine card my PIN number would be something, like, you know, 1974.

''However, there is a particular subgroup who seem to think that the entire history of the band is encapsulated in one five-year period. They are known as the "Taylorites". They are zealous and most definitely conservative. Neocons in a musical sense? Yes.''

...this is absolutely facken hilarious, and completely full of shite

Errrrrr, I like the Stones music from 1962 to present.

I'm sometimes conservative, sometimes liberal, sometimes apathetic, sometimes all 3 at once. I'm very confused here.