brainwashed.

>Is it the clothes they wore?

Bingo -- it's the clothes.

The Greatest:





Brainwashed:







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-09 07:16 by Glam Descendant.

While arguably true, it really has nothing to do with whether or not they are, it's merely a phrase used as an introduction on the 69 tour, and then immortalized on Get Your Ya's Ya's Out, that happened to stick.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Ultimately it all comes down to personal taste. For me, the Stones is Mick, his voice and his lyrics. Someone, I think one of the people connected to the film Alfie, either the producer or director, said that Mick has a voice that comes along once in a lifetime, a voice made for the blues.

Here is a great article about Mick as a songwriter:

Mick Jagger: Our Most Underrated Songwriter?

By Ron Rosenbaum

December 9, 2001 | 7:00 p.m

I learned about George Harrison after a draft of this column went to the copy editors. Reading the many well-deserved tributes he's getting now made me feel even more strongly the importance of paying tribute to artists while they're still with us rather than waiting for death to provide a "peg." It's one of the things I've tried to do since I began The Edgy Enthusiast, and you can think of this Mick Jagger tribute in that light.

Recently I came upon a startling remark by Stephen Booth, a brilliant literary scholar who occupies a special place in my pantheon for his transformative edition of Shakespeare's sonnets. (His Yale University Press commentary on the sonnets is an exhilarating exercise in polysemous pleasure–which is not as dirty as it sounds.) Anyway, I'd been tracking down some of Mr. Booth's other essays in places like Pacific Coast Philology when I came upon that remarkable opening line from one of his essays: "Shakespeare is, of course, our most underrated poet." Shakespeare underrated ? In a tongue-in-cheek kind of way, Mr. Booth is saying that all the millions and perhaps billions of words expended on Shakespeare's poetry have still not come close to justly rating his immensity. So he's underrated! In that spirit, I would like to argue that Mick Jagger is our most underrated songwriter. Despite the millions and millions of words expended on Mick Jagger's rock-star persona, on the mansions and the babes and the paternity suits and the Tootsie Roll soaked in acid on the tour plane (or was that Led Zeppelin?), despite–or because of–the millions and millions of words about Mick Jagger the celebrity , no one has done justice to Mick Jagger as a writer . A writer of brilliant, soulful, soaring, incantatory anthems, hymns to broken hearts ("Memory Motel"), broken spirits ("Wild Horses") and fragmentary hopes for redemption (the incomparable "Sweet Virginia"). And let's not forget, at this particular moment, that he's one of the rare rock songwriters who has addressed the question of evil and apocalypse ("Sympathy for the Devil," "Gimme Shelter") in a sophisticated way. He's more well-known for his "Jumpin' Jack Flash" manic-exhibitionist stage persona, but he's done some killer slow, aching ballads, such as "You Can't Always Get What You Want" and "Angie" and "Time Waits for No One." He's been doing it from the beginning of his songwriting career, with underappreciated slow-tempo numbers like "Blue Turns to Grey," "The Singer Not the Song" and one of my all-time, all-time faves, "Tell Me (You're Coming Back to Me)." That's the one where I think he first discovered the power of incantatory repetition that transforms simple love songs into soaring sonic prayers in the gutter religion of love. Sometimes it's the despairing prayer of a Graham Greene whiskey priest, as in the almost completely overlooked "Till the Next Good Bye." Sometimes it's the bleak beauty, the spare Beckett-like eloquence of "No Expectations." He's got another potential classic in the anthemic "Wild Horses" mode on his new solo album, Goddess in the Doorway –a song called "Don't Call Me Up." But that's not what prompted this column, or even my call to radio guru Jonathan Schwartz. No, what prompted me to call Mr. Schwartz was the dispiriting news that I first read in Page Six, that Mick Jagger's new solo album only sold a paltry 900 copies in its first week of release in the U.K.! This despite a prime-time network documentary (ABC's Being Mick Jagger ) about his living the high life, hobnobbing with Prince Charles at the royal premiere of the film he's just produced ( Enigma , starring Kate Winslet), and making music with the many children of his several wives. I say "despite" the prime-time documentary, but maybe because of it–because, again, it played into the image that people have always used to underrate him, to write him off as a jet-setting celeb these days, rather than the serious artist he was and still is. This jet-set stuff obscures the fact that Mick Jagger has written powerful songs that will last forever (the unbearably sad and beautiful "Memory Motel" will last as long as memory–or at least as long as motels). But before I go any further, I think it's important to say that when I say "Mick Jagger has written," I mean the songs that Mick Jagger and Keith Richards have written. Most of them are written for Mr. Jagger's voice , for his persona. But I have a feeling that the writing credit "Jagger/Richards" represents a real collaboration, whatever the division of labor may be.* Actually, I'd love to know how Mick and Keith work together as a team. (My fantasy is to do one of those Paris Review "Writers at Work" interviews with them.) But when I say Mick Jagger is our most underrated songwriter, I also believe he's our most underrated voice. A voice–and a delivery–that deserves comparison, by this time, with Frank Sinatra, Count Basie, Bob Dylan and Neil Young as one of the defining male voices of the century. Yes: Jagger and Sinatra. That's why I felt compelled to put in a call to my friend Jonathan Schwartz, an elegant advocate for Sinatra, Bennett, all those guys, but someone who also has a deep understanding of Dylan. I've had some of my most illuminating Dylan conversations with Jonathan, and yet I couldn't recall any real conversation about the Stones. Jonathan Schwartz, as I'm sure you know, is the gifted novelist, memoirist and host of two widely admired Saturday and Sunday afternoon music-and-meditative- monologue shows on WNYC. When I reached him, he told me he was about to send me news of an additional gig as on-air producer and programmer on a singer-songwriter channel of the new no-commercials satellite-radio service XM, where, he said, they allow him the freedom to play "deep tracks"– overlooked classics by his favorites, such as (in the order he reeled them off) Lena Horne, Count Basie, Nat King Cole, Tony Bennett and that other guy he likes so much, Frank whatever. I felt that Jonathan might be the one person who could redress the imbalance in Mick Jagger's reputation, repair the underestimation of Mr. Jagger as a songwriter. I was ready to say, "See here, Jonathan, you're one of the few people who has the perspicuity to appreciate both that Frank guy and Bob Dylan. It's time you did the same for Mick Jagger's songs." But before I got two sentences into my prepared rant, Jonathan stopped me to say that, in fact, he has played Jagger on his mostly Sinatra and Tony Bennett show. He told me how he segued recently from a conga riff at the end of "Sympathy for the Devil" into Mel Tormé's "I Don't Want to Cry Anymore" in a way that perfectly "married the two genres of music," as he put it. And then he cited several other Jagger songs he'd played, including some of those classic anthemic ballads that are my favorites as well, among them "You Can't Always Get What You Want," "Wild Horses" and "Angie." I shouldn't have been surprised at Jonathan's discernment. We went on after that to consider the relationship between Jagger and Dylan as songwriters. Was Jagger, as Jonathan initially suggested, "a blue-collar Dylan"? I put it differently: Mick Jagger's audience might have been more authentically blue-collar, in the sense that Bob Dylan's initial audience bought their blue work shirts at the Harvard Co-op, so to speak. But Mick Jagger's songwriting was anything but blue-collar, even when–Jonathan had a point here–portraying blue-collar kids in "Satisfaction" and "Street Fighting Man." Mick Jagger, I argued, was more of an aesthete in the sense that his art–or part of his art–was not to call attention to his art. Not to call attention the way Dylan did, with over-the-top verbal pyrotechnics, at least until Dylan shifted into a new, more pared-down mode of songwriting with Blood on the Tracks –not necessarily better, perhaps, or as novel as the Highway 61-Blonde on Blonde Dylan, but very, well, Jaggeresque. (I await the sensitively written Ph.D. thesis comparing "Gimme Shelter" with "Shelter from the Storm.") Meanwhile, though, Mick Jagger–always a peacock on stage–was, in his ballads, more in the mode (or the pose) of the aristo-poet than the blue-collar rocker. At his unaffected best, Jagger can display flashes of the tossed-off brilliance of Byron. But there's something else about Jagger that defines him as a songwriter, defines him as a singer–something that doesn't necessarily appear on a lyric sheet. It's his beautiful use of incantation. Incantation : a lovely word for a special kind of vocal recurrence, one that combines overtones of prayer, magic, spell casting, all that. Incantation: It's a kind of vocal voodoo that has almost completely overcome the genius of Van Morrison, so that sometimes you feel he's only about incantation. Ecstatic incantation: It's what defines rock music against the "standards" given such knee-jerk reverence by young fogies and old. (Well, maybe that and the Little Richard-like, ecstatic " Whooo-oooo! " that made the Beatles the Beatles.) But what made the Stones the Stones is Jagger's jagged-edge incantation. No one does more with the incantation of a first line–a focused incantation–than Jagger. It's there in the beautiful, desperate, hopeless urgency of "Tell Me (You're Comin' Back to Me)." And in the way it's not just "Wild Horses" but "Wild, wild horses." And then there's the amazing apocalyptic couplet that fades to infinity in "Gimme Shelter": War …it's just a shot away, shot away, shot away Love …it's just a kiss away, kiss away, kiss away…. (By the way, has anyone ever compressed a deeper truth about human nature in two lines of a song?) It's not "You're just a memory," but "You're just a memory, just a memory, just a memory" in "Memory Motel." Each incantatory reiteration of "memory" conjuring up a very real ghost, rather than consigning the unquiet spirit to the memory hole–which is the ostensible declarative intent of the song. So many Jagger/Richards songs deal with time (and, implicitly, memory), don't they? "Time Is on My Side" ("Time, time, TIME / Is on my side … yes it is"), "Good Times, Bad Times," "Out of Time," "This Could Be the Last Time" …. I've celebrated before the brilliant visionary metaphysics of "Time Waits for No One," with Mick Taylor's guitar somehow spilling out a vision of beauty and complexity that virtually translates Stephen Hawking's theory of "imaginary time" into guitar runs. String theory! Recently, I came across an extraordinary phrase in a poem by Robert Lowell: We are all old-timers, Each of us holds a locked razor. I found it in the foreword of the fascinating book I'd just picked up, Gracefully Insane (by the Boston Globe writer Alex Beam). It's about McLean's, that remarkable institution right outside Boston where some of the best and brightest madmen and madwomen, from Lowell to Sylvia Plath to Susanna Kaysen, were resident–some recurrently, like Lowell. In a section of "Waking in the Blue," Lowell talks about waking up there and then glimpsing the "shaky future grow familiar" in those who were older and had been there longer–and more often. Thus: We are all old-timers, Each of us holds a locked razor . For Lowell, the "locked razor" suggests mortality, insanity. In the songs of Mick Jagger, the "locked razor" is the heart, a ticking time bomb–the locked razor whose jagged edge scars when it opens.

who else could it be

they are the "soundtrack to my life"

Quote
otonneau
Sure, it's marketing - a slogan someone came up. But that does not answer @#$%&'s question. After all, innumerable bands have been labelled "the greatest", and the label has not sticked. So it's not enough to come up with a title, and it's not enough to publish it endless times; somehow, it must meet something in the mind of the receiver.

I think the relevance of the title now is due primarily to longevity.

The Beatles stopped too early, and the reformed bands come accross as a bit of has-beens; regardless of the drop in quality, the Stones have enough continuity and consistency to go directly back to the birth of rock n'roll. That sets them beyond the bands that retired, and out of reach of the young ones, just as bluesmen who are born today will never equal the prestige of those from the forties.

Any new band will be measured against the Stones, but the very fact that the Stones are the standard means they cannot be beaten, if that makes sense.

In paris, there is the standard metre; no piece of metal in the world can be closer to a meter than the standard meter. The Stones are the standard rock band, therefore the 'best', in the sense that everybody MUST be compared to them, but they can't be compared to anyone.

I think the point is nailed here: the Stones are the standard. I have always taken the label to be a sort of conservative one: it was put through at the time when the rock music was in its most progressive phase, and the Stones remained musically quite close to the simple basic chuckberry-form (compared to, say, Hendrix, Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, etc.). I take the point of the song "It's Only Rock'n'Roll" also referring to this kind of non-progressive, non art-like, down-to-earth nature of rock as well. The Stones don't pretend to be anything but a pure rock&roll band.

But taken as it is, it is one of those horrible cliches I think only the Americans are able to come up with: "King of Rock", "King of Pop", etc. I dion't think the Brits or the Europeans could have have guts to call anyone as "greatest" or "king"? They sound so corny.

- Doxa

>> one of those horrible cliches I think only the Americans are able to come up with <<

... Sam Cutler is English

Quote
doubledoor
Greatest front-man + Greatest rhythm guitar player + one of the greatest drummers (who with BW makes superb rhythm section + many of the greatest songs written in rock + amazing live performances + doing it when rock counted most (60s and 70s)= Greatest band

You've said enough !

The Stones make me sweat.



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

Quote
with sssoul
>> one of those horrible cliches I think only the Americans are able to come up with <<

... Sam Cutler is English

I know, but the context was America, and the album that fixed the cliche came out of American tour... and The Stones always been great in marketing their act to US market... (in fact, it would be interesting to know what exactly is the story of his introduction...or is there any.)

Funny, even years later, Philip Norman in his Beatles book were complaining this very claim of being 'greatest' heavily (I think he mentioned something like to effect that the STones used the label because their because their true rivals were not active at the moment, like mouses having a field day when the cat is not present...)

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-09 10:38 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
otonneau
Sure, it's marketing - a slogan someone came up. But that does not answer @#$%&'s question. After all, innumerable bands have been labelled "the greatest", and the label has not sticked. So it's not enough to come up with a title, and it's not enough to publish it endless times; somehow, it must meet something in the mind of the receiver.

I think the relevance of the title now is due primarily to longevity.

The Beatles stopped too early, and the reformed bands come accross as a bit of has-beens; regardless of the drop in quality, the Stones have enough continuity and consistency to go directly back to the birth of rock n'roll. That sets them beyond the bands that retired, and out of reach of the young ones, just as bluesmen who are born today will never equal the prestige of those from the forties.

Any new band will be measured against the Stones, but the very fact that the Stones are the standard means they cannot be beaten, if that makes sense.

In paris, there is the standard metre; no piece of metal in the world can be closer to a meter than the standard meter. The Stones are the standard rock band, therefore the 'best', in the sense that everybody MUST be compared to them, but they can't be compared to anyone.

I think the point is nailed here: the Stones are the standard. I have always taken the label to be a sort of conservative one: it was put through at the time when the rock music was in its most progressive phase, and the Stones remained musically quite close to the simple basic chuckberry-form (compared to, say, Hendrix, Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, etc.). I take the point of the song "It's Only Rock'n'Roll" also referring to this kind of non-progressive, non art-like, down-to-earth nature of rock as well. The Stones don't pretend to be anything but a pure rock&roll band.

But taken as it is, it is one of those horrible cliches I think only the Americans are able to come up with: "King of Rock", "King of Pop", etc. I dion't think the Brits or the Europeans could have have guts to call anyone as "greatest" or "king"? They sound so corny.

- Doxa

If we want to get really technical then, the standards exists now, sure, but the statement was made, the title was assumed at a time when the Stones had not been around near as long. Weren't the Beatles even still together ?
I think it really comes down to cockiness, and again - balls to just take on, and thereby essentially copywriting the title. The Muhammad Ali comparison makes perfect sense to me.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
If we want to get really technical then, the standards exists now, sure, but the statement was made, the title was assumed at a time when the Stones had not been around near as long. Weren't the Beatles even still together ?
I think it really comes down to cockiness, and again - balls to just take on, and thereby essentially copywriting the title. The Muhammad Ali comparison makes perfect sense to me.

Exactly! It is a cliche now, but originally it was quite controversial claim or statement. And it was made under the circumstances when (a) popularitywise bigger band was still around (b) such incredible newer acts, such as Jimi Hendrix, Cream and Led Zeppelin, had arisen the standard of musical ability and quality to another level, and (c) bands like The Who were in the height of powers as a live act, etc.. ...

For example, one can only think what John Lennon - or the army of Beatles fans - were thinking after hearing it (and the people perhaps not yet had a 'pop vs. rock' distinction so clearly available then [and The Beatle fans don't still accept it]- the statement says nothing less that The Stones is BETTER band than teh Beatles). I think it was a kind of middle-finger statement actually... The Stones were really cocky then.. Just watch THE STONES IN THE PARK and Jagger talking about The Beatles in past-like form: "You know, when they WERE big"... Perhaps Mick was honest, and seeing that the times of the rivalry Beatles vs. Stones were behind, and that they were now in the phase of facing another generation of rivals; The Beatles was not such a huge thing anymore (as incredible as it might sound NOW). The Stones really had an Muhammad Ali-like attitude - and one cannot blame them: they were in the peak of their creativity, they knew it, and were ready to challenge ANYONE. I don't think the Cutler introduction was just a contingent remark - it was a part of bigger plan - or a mark of their arrogant self-secure attitude then. The band was "back" and stronger than ever, and they let everyone knew it. And they surely made sure that the Cutler introduction was to be found in YA-YA'S!

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-09 12:00 by Doxa.

Even if the label dates back to the sixties, that does not mean that it meant the same thing now as then.

As Doxa says, at the time it was a cocky self-assertion; and one can imagine lots of people thinking "of course they are not, pretentious punks that's what they are" and so on.

Just as a comparison, I have countless live recordings of soul singers being introduced as "the king of soul", "Mr Soul", "the greatest this or that"; everybody takes it as a bit of hyperbolic working the crowd, nothing serious.

Paradoxically, the title made most sense for the Stones, I think, in the eighties-nineties; not that they were at their best then, but because for everyone they were both ultimate hitmakers, war survivors, emperors (most grossing tours etc), etc. Even a non-Stones fan would have said that yeah, they were the greatest rnr band; not perhaps to mean that their music was the best, but that they were the BIGGEST act in the world, the most legendary.

I think now, the title has lost its meaning because the Vegas act has gone on too long, and is stagnating. The Stones needed to remain relevant, if not musically, at least in business terms; there is a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy there, they are the greatest so everyone wants to see them (even non-fans), and since everyone wants to see them, then they are the greatest, and so on.

But there are only so many stadiums you can fill, so many giant screens you can pile up, etc; in the end, it becomes a routine, less people go, the momentum is lost (a 40 year momentum, not bad) and the title now seems silly.

Well put, Oliver, well put!

- Doxa

For me it's the music. Plain and simople.

Rob

Yes, I agree that the title sounds hollow and silly today. And that is not the day's fault IMO; nor are the times to blame. It's on the Stones. I can easily envision a scenario, where the Stones could still call themselves "The Geatest R&R Band" today with some kind of cred.
And yes - it all might seem a little trite in the big picture; of course this all doesn't matter, but if you're going to talk Rock'n Roll, then your standards are going to have to be lowered

In "You can't always get what you want" Sam Cutler makes us believe he came up with the
"Greatest Rock 'n Roll Band in the World" line most and for all to boost the confidence
of the Stones themselves, who hadn't toured for three years. He was using reverse psychology,
trying to goad them into actually believing it.

Quote
marcovandereijk
In "You can't always get what you want" Sam Cutler makes us believe he came up with the
"Greatest Rock 'n Roll Band in the World" line most and for all to boost the confidence
of the Stones themselves, who hadn't toured for three years. He was using reverse psychology,
trying to goad them into actually believing it.

Well that would be direct psychology rather than reverse :-)

Quote
otonneau
Well that would be direct psychology rather than reverse :-)

Actually it became some sort of reverse psychology afterwards. Mick protested to Sam
after the show about the use of the terms in the introduction, but Sam replied something
along the lines of "either you are or you're not" or something like that. I guess that
did the trick.

Wouldn' that Cutler quote by Marco be another very good answer for this thread?

I dunno, I love The Stones but I find Springsteen and The Beatles to be slightly better and more consistent.The argument that The Beatles aren't as great because they didn't stick around as long as The Stones is not valid due to the fact that The Beatles managed to achieve more than any other act in the history of rock in merely seven years, at least in terms of studio work.When it comes to concerts, The Stones and Springsteen are probably the greatest but in the end it all depends on personal taste so it's kinda pointless to argue about it.

A 20-point charter for the brainwshed:

1) Every track the the Stones have made is brilliant and far, far better than anything that anyone else has ever put out.
2) The Stones are as good today as they have ever been.
3) The Stones' setlists in recent years have been interesting and challenging with something for everyone.
4) Keith's playing is better than ever.
5) Ronnie has never been too drunk to play.
6) Ronnie is a better guitarist than Mick Taylor.
7) Mick Taylor should consider himself honoured to be mentioned in the same breath as the Rolling Stones.
8) The ticket prices are reasonable.
9) Forbid the mere mention of the Beatles, U2, Springsteen, Led Zepellin or anyone else who has outsold, outgrossed or received better reviews than the Stones.
10) Anyone ignoring above is an infidel and not a true Stones fan.
11) The Stones are not just in it for the money but to extend their creative, artistic abilities as far across the world as possible.
12) Keith actually likes Mick's songs.
13) Mick actually likes Keith's songs.
14) Mick's solo albums are great and misunderstood.
15) Live Licks is a brilliant live album.
16) Shine A Light is the best rock film ever made.
17) There are no such things as classic albums unless they are put out by the Stones.
18) Anything considered to be better or comparable to the Stones is either overrated or just "hype".
19) Mick jagger is still a great vocalist.
20) NEVER argue with infidels.

How many "yes" do I need to qualify being brainwashed,Barn ?

A single one,simple majority,...

If the subject of this thread is "who is the greatest rock n' roll band in the world", i.e. "who's your favourite band" then it's not very interesting because 1) it's a matter of taste and 2) it ain't a contest really.

The topic is interesting if we toy with this label as something that had a meaning even for non-fans; something in the Stones' identity that transcends the sole fact that you like them.

Just as, for instance, you need not be a fan of Michael Jackson or Elvis to see their immense importance; so many people love them, they changed so many people's conception of music, they are so universally known, everybody has an opinion on them whether negative or positive, etc... I have no specific list of factors; I think these factors are precisely what we are looking for.

I did not say that Stones are better than Beatles because they have been around longer; I said that their longevity allowed them to gain a different iconic status.

For one thing, anyway, they are still around so one can say the Stones ARE the greatest RnR band, whereas the Beatles, at best, WERE the greatest band.

Decline only influences this so much; if Muhammad Ali made a come back, he would still BE the greatest, although a greatest past his prime. I went to hear Ornette Coleman recently, and he is way past his prime; however, he still IS one of the greatest jazzmen in history.

A bit like a former president must still be addressed as "Mr President", at least according to the French etiquette; a strange overlap of past and present. As long as you still have a foot in the present, you still enjoy the glory of your past as an actual thing, but when you retire, suddenly your glory truly becomes a thing of the past - I hope that makes sense!

Quote
shortfatfanny
How many "yes" do I need to qualify being brainwashed,Barn ?

A single one,simple majority,...

...saying "yes" to just one of the above is more than enough!

>> I know, but the context was America ... (in fact, it would be interesting to know what exactly is the story of [Cutler's] introduction <<

... since you're interested: the story begins at the Hyde Park show - that's where Cutler first called them that.
so the context wasn't America. but i reckon you'll find a way to make your stereotyping fit anyway,
so ... have some popcorn :E

Quote
otonneau
If the subject of this thread is "who is the greatest rock n' roll band in the world", i.e. "who's your favourite band" then it's not very interesting because 1) it's a matter of taste and 2) it ain't a contest really.

The topic is interesting if we toy with this label as something that had a meaning even for non-fans; something in the Stones' identity that transcends the sole fact that you like them.

Just as, for instance, you need not be a fan of Michael Jackson or Elvis to see their immense importance; so many people love them, they changed so many people's conception of music, they are so universally known, everybody has an opinion on them whether negative or positive, etc... I have no specific list of factors; I think these factors are precisely what we are looking for.

I did not say that Stones are better than Beatles because they have been around longer; I said that their longevity allowed them to gain a different iconic status.

For one thing, anyway, they are still around so one can say the Stones ARE the greatest RnR band, whereas the Beatles, at best, WERE the greatest band.

Decline only influences this so much; if Muhammad Ali made a come back, he would still BE the greatest, although a greatest past his prime. I went to hear Ornette Coleman recently, and he is way past his prime; however, he still IS one of the greatest jazzmen in history.

A bit like a former president must still be addressed as "Mr President", at least according to the French etiquette; a strange overlap of past and present. As long as you still have a foot in the present, you still enjoy the glory of your past as an actual thing, but when you retire, suddenly your glory truly becomes a thing of the past - I hope that makes sense!

As always, many great points.
The last sentence just made me think of the recent Michael Jordan.
And just for the record: when further up I answered Doxa and your post (kind of as a package), and mentioned the Beatles, it was not in ref. to your mention of them in the first post. It was just used as a marker to what era I was talking about.

Quote
with sssoul
>> I know, but the context was America ... (in fact, it would be interesting to know what exactly is the story of [Cutler's] introduction <<

... since you're interested: the story begins at the Hyde Park show - that's where Cutler first called them that.
so the context wasn't America. but i reckon you'll find a way to make your stereotyping fit anyway,
so ... have some popcorn :E

I stand to be corrected... I also reckon that the Norman book referred to Hyde Park... and what goes for "stereotyping", I quote one of my heroes:"if you cannot take it as a joke, thats's too @#$%& bad.."

Sorry if I offend any sensitive souls. Greetings to Obama, by the way. God bless America.

- Doxa

Brainwashed. The Stones themselves abhorred the idea of being called that but Sam Cutler insisted on saying it.

It stuck. And now the media and fans never let it go. I never bother saying those words with their name to anyone. It's like selling cars - someone says 'this is the best'. Is it really? No. It's expensive etc but it's not THE BEST.

Keith, on the other hand, will tell you that it just keeps getting better and better.

Everytime they tour they set a record for highest grossing tour of all time. More current bands say they are influenced by the Stones then any other band. When they tour it is not a concert, it is a major event that is usually front page in the local newspapers.

The Beatles were a phenomenom but the Stones have delivered great songs and great albums for over 40 years.

It's so very lonely, you're 2,000 Light Years from home

Can't find a list of their tours and earnings. Where is it?