I've been pondering this recently; why do the Stones, one of the most influential, prolific, and brilliant bands in the history of popular music, have such a small population of hardcore fans? (Ya know, I'm talking about sickos like us.) Dylan and Springsteen, two musicians that I would say are on-par with the Stones in terms of cultural cache (if not in terms of musical talent where Springsteen is concerned, however) seem to have a much larger population of "true believers." We've all seen what a Stones show is like; the overwhelming majority of the audience is only there to hear the warhorses. (That doesn't mean the Stones have to play them all, though!!) Why is this? Sticky Fingers sold 2 million copies (right, ErikJJF) - so why is 'Sway' seen as an opportunity for the average Joe to say "Get out of the 'Sway,' I'm buying a beer!" Simply put, where did all of those SF buyers go?

Were there legions of true fans once, but they slowly got turned off to the band due to its corporate mentality and high ticket prices? (My dad, a former Stonesfreak himself, lost interest around Steel Wheels.)

It can't only be a function of the band's age - after all, Bobby D. has been around for almost as long, and, as I mentioned above, a huge percentage of his audience is still "hardcore."

So what do you think? Why is this?

I truly doubt Dylan has more "true believers" than the Stones.

Apart from those who want to make good show on the family music quiz, there can't be that much more Dylan diehards.

I mean, It may look good to be a Dylan fan, like people who like being Beatles fans. These people can show of to their friends by knowing that there is something odd about the producing team involved in the seventh song on this and that album. Stones fans don't pretend to be intellectuals. And if they are, why bother showing it of.

If people don't get it, fcuk 'em....

"It's Good To Be Here, It's Good To Be Anywhere"-Keith Richards

"Halloween Is Every Night Of My Life"-Keith Richards

"I Got The Sticky Fingers, For Some Girls"

Maybe it's not the fact that the Stones have less hardcore fans than Dylan or Springsteen, but the fact that they have more casual fans?

More of the general public can probably name a Stones song like Brown Sugar and Satisfaction than they can a Dylan or Springsteen song.

- Corporate mentality and cultural cache don't mix well...
- Corporate mentality and the "danger feeling" the Stones used to mean don't mix well...

There must be more, but these are two reasons.

Oooops, another one: if the band plays for the occasional and corporate fan rather than playing for the hardcore, it's obvious the hardcore population must decrease, while the occasional fan population (who goes to see the Stones today and Celine Dion tomorrow, being wearing jeans today and light pants tomorrow the only difference) will increase. Problem is, there is a thing called "musical legacy" the Stones shouldn't put in danger...

[There'll be no wedding today...]

because ( i think ?) stones play's black music..
bob dylan folk music.( .beatles did covers mostly of white music..

Nikkibong, i don't know what exactly you mean saying "true believers." But i know the Stones outsell (by far) respectable Bob Dylan not only as live act but also as album sellers.

Blue collar lefties are zealots who follow each other like sheep. If they could think for themselves they would enjoy the Stones.

I think that solo artists tend to become "cult" figures and attract a dedicated and loyal following. Someone like Dylan has kept his fans frustrated and enthralled in equal measure by his constant exploration of different musical styles - protest/folkie, acid head rocker, country, gospel etc etc. It's easier for a solo artist to do this than for a band so people like Dylan, Bowie, Zappa, Lou Reed get more credit for taking musical risks even if the results are sometimes less than inspiring. The Stones are great at what they do but are not really risk takers.

Andy

I tell people all the time the Stones greatnest lie in their non-hits,the deep cuts.The casual fan is spoonfed the hits so much,they believe that's all the Stones are about.Songs like Tops,Winter,Respectable,Sway,She Was Hot,Crazy Momma,Flight 505,Dandelion,ete,etc,would make some fly by night fans hardcore.PS the beauty about the Stones for me is they got alot of stuff I can turn people on to!!

I dont see the stones as "one of the most influential" band. Prolific? yes, at least once, brilliant? yes but not influential as their status of "greatest etc..." could imply. Velvet Underground is/has been the most influential band for nowadays rock music. Beatles of course because they defined what pop music was all about. Dylan of course and Neil Young. But Stones? They did not influence that much. Of course they defined a certain mold between blues and rock and roll but after them, those bands that followed them have been mostly a stones mimic more than a blooming of something great and different from that mold. This is one of the reason why, imho, Stones are still around, a part from personal motivations of course.

They still fill a spot that no one else can: the rhythm and blues/rock'n'roll band. The music they play is "out of time" literally, it is classic and unchangeable, that's another reason. Sure you can depart from the main street of that music to invent anything, but if you stay on the main street of r'n'b/r'n'r there you find no room for other than the stones.

You can find tons of great young storytellers on myspace.com and among indies that work under the dylan, springsteen, young, reed and waits influence, but the stones, i believe, did not nurture such a prolific prole. Just because they did not invent the music they stick to in 40 years. They invent the meaning of "rock and roll band" for sure. But they just play Chuck Berry or Solomon Burke covers. They happened to make them sound a whole lot better!

Maybe this is another reason why they attract more causual than die hard fans. Fanatics need a strong identity to identify with. Be that in the music style or in lyrics or in both. If you go to a stones concert you find the whole audience singing "woo hoo" during SFTD or responding "woooooooh" to mick's yeah yeah yeah on BS, or "no no no, eh eh eh" on satisfaction, but how many people you hear singing along with mick the lyrics of ASTL or TD? If you go to a Morrissey or Weller gig you see the difference. In 1986 i was attending the Queen concert at Webley stadiun in London, the whole crowd was singing each word of each lyrics.

If you consider also that they have ever looked for new audience more than to satisfy old fans you may find the reason why they have succeded - at least until now - to avoid the status of nostalgia act while playing mostly the same numbers most of the time. The Stones playing JJF is not the Eagles playing Hotel California just because HC is - for those who like the genre - a beautiful ballad whose beauty can be easily located in space and time, on the other hand JJF could have been written last night or 100 hundred years ago. You can see this "process" almost openly in the making if you think how the glimmer twins reworked The Last Time from a spiritual of the same title.

FEW!??? I'd hardly say FEW! Considering the type of music they play, they picked up millions of second generation fans, even third! Kids hear their folks play the Stones and get turned on! I think their fan numbers are amazing!

I grew up in Florence Italy. I had friends wearing Queen's shirts, Heavy Metal bands shirts, Dark bands shirts, Punk shirts, Clash shirts, Police shirts, Led Zeppelin's, Pink Floyd's etc never seen a Stones shirt..if not looking in a mirror.
People who like their music, sure a lot more than a single Dark band of the eighties, but not devoted die hard fans.

Debra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FEW!??? I'd hardly say FEW! Considering the type
> of music they play, they picked up millions of
> second generation fans, even third! Kids hear
> their folks play the Stones and get turned on! I
> think their fan numbers are amazing!


their concert numbers are amazing, but their fan numbers arent by comparison. 2 and a half million people will see them in North America this tour, but only a fifth of that amount have purchased their new album.

What Nikki is getting at is the amount of fans they have who appreciate their music in any depth. The Stones have sold 250 million records, but feel obliged to play anything not off "40 Licks" sparingly and almost apologetically. Other artists that hes mentioned (who happen to be my 2 other favourite artists) may have a smaller fanbase but a far higher percentage (not necessarily the same as a higher "number") of concert attendees/fans who know and appreciate a wider range of their back catalogue. The Stones obviously have a lot of fans who know the less obvious stuff but when it comes to concerts, theyve been marginalised as the band target a different audience with less knowledge of their music but with more cash. Thats the difference.

that's their own fault, the stones keep on neglecting their own fanbase

Hey maumau, I remember seeing Queen in 86 or 85 at the L.A. Forum with Billy Squire opening. I don't remember every person in the house singing every word to each lyeric far from it. I do remember the crowd going off on we will rock you and we are the champions and Bohemian Rapshady Though. Like everyband has there anthems that the whole house will sing everyword to every lyric Not every song your a little off i think. The only thing that comes to mind on that accutation is the punk rock shows like the sex pistols etc.. and mainly the people in the MOSH PIT are the ones singing every word to every lyric.

I'm not saying it's a significant issue...but one of the reasons you don't see so many folks in Stones Tee shirts is that they've always protected their brand and copyrights more fiercely than most. It's not easy to add a Stones shirt, or any other Stones branded product, to any range of clothing or fashion accessories.
[Though I was surprised to see the "lapping tongue" logo appear on a belt buckle in Next last year ! ]

I would say just the opposite. I read an article about music fans recently in Mojo Magazine and it said the band with the most dedicated, hardcore fans are the Rolling Stones and Grateful Dead. Now if the Stones would just treat us like the Dead treated their fans we'd be all set.

I don't like Bruce Springsteen but know a lot of people that do and know of them go around collecting bootlegs or his outtakes the way Stones fans do.

stonesfrk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey maumau, I remember seeing Queen in 86 or 85 at
> the L.A. Forum with Billy Squire opening. I don't
> remember every person in the house singing every
> word to each lyeric far from it. I do remember the
> crowd going off on we will rock you and we are the
> champions and Bohemian Rapshady Though. Like
> everyband has there anthems that the whole house
> will sing everyword to every lyric Not every song
> your a little off i think. The only thing that
> comes to mind on that accutation is the punk rock
> shows like the sex pistols etc.. and mainly the
> people in the MOSH PIT are the ones singing every
> word to every lyric.

Maybe there's a difference from LA Forum to Wembley stadium in 1986 with regard to Queen fans... Those kthousands who were there, i tell you, knew the words to We are the champions along with Kind of magic, Bohemian rhapsody and One vision, Love of my life and Radio ga ga, We will rock you and Want to break free and they sang them. Actually i was impressed. Also it was my first huge stadium show.
Stones crowd dynamics are more like Cab Calloway's singing minnie the moocher. And that is a strength to my eyes. Always thought that big staudium concert where everyone is singing in time has something of the nazi parade which is not pleasant at all. I felt this way also at my second and last U2 concert. I felt like I was - should be part - of an army of fans that were moving/singing/(thinking?) as one, and I dont like that very much. With the stones is more like a rave, a party where you share similar feelings with many people but the crowd is not "as one" person all the time.

Spud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not saying it's a significant issue...but one
> of the reasons you don't see so many folks in
> Stones Tee shirts is that they've always protected
> their brand and copyrights more fiercely than
> most. It's not easy to add a Stones shirt, or any
> other Stones branded product, to any range of
> clothing or fashion accessories.
>

At least recently, this isn't true at all. I see lots of hipster teens/20s--especially girls--wearing faux vintage stones t-shirts that I'm pretty sure they did not surf to rs.com to buy. All the little rock 'n roll fashion boutiques in NYC have chintzy stones crap.

The fact that they have a logo at all--and have had one for a long time--shows that they are brand-oriented.

Did any bands have a logo image piece before them? (though if any did, the stones certainly topped them with a warhol design)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-01 17:50 by cc.

Very interesting thread you started Nikkibong,
it's mighty wierd that this board IORR, that consists of "hardcore-Stones-fans" contains so many critical posts about Stones anno 2006....or their last 15 years. When even us IORR-people see lotsa negative things about RS, there must be some truth in it.

12X5 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe it's not the fact that the Stones have less
> hardcore fans than Dylan or Springsteen, but the
> fact that they have more casual fans?
>
> More of the general public can probably name a
> Stones song like Brown Sugar and Satisfaction than
> they can a Dylan or Springsteen song.

This is exactly what I would have replied to the original post. Agreed! Though I also am persuaded by Gazza's account of the hardcore fan being driven away by the decision to court casual fans. For example, me--I've only seen them twice. Though I don't think the amazing number of hit singles can be credited to this approach...

Here:
[www.radio88partille.com]

You also need to install Winamp and a codec found under the "Mediaspelare"-link on the site. It´s real easy!

Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings

I'm going to take a shot at possibly re-interpreting Nikki's point. I can certainly speak from a Dylan-fanatic perspective. Bob and the Stones have been in tandem as the acts that I've followed almost religiously for 30 years.

When you go to a Dylan concert, the fanatics always outnumber the casual fans. This may be in part due to the smaller gigs he plays. But, even at the theater shows of Stones shows I've attended, I would say that the hardcore fans were still (surprisingly) small in percentage.

At a concert, the difference is HUGE. When Bob drags out a rarely played song - say a Visions of Johanna or a Blind Willie McTell - he gets a tremendous reaction from the vast majority of the fans. Whereas when the Stones do a Sway, for instance....well, 'nuff said.

I think Bob's fans are more sophisticated and educated in general. Perhaps that owes something to the nature of the beast - I think you could describe his work as more highbrow than the Stones. Not meant as a derogatory statement, either. As Keith once said, rock'n'roll is from the waist down....

StonesTod, I remember hearing a boot, where the audience started cheering in the middle of the song (I think it was If You See Her Say Hello), because Dylan changed the lyrics A BIT. Imagine that at a Stones concert.

True about dylan, but it's important to note that he drops the highbrow approach once he gets into the studio. I mean, he writes his lyrics from a fairly highbrow perspective--er, usually... maybe not the day he came up with "Wiggle Wiggle"--but he insists on raw spontaneity in his musicians, and ends up often with a rougher sound than the stones, if never a "harder" sound.

His fans are a different story, and of course can be annoying. There's one called Tod, for example...

I've the same perspective of fanaticism when following Dylan and the Stones and I think Tod's pretty much right.

As for changing the lyrics a bit, Erik - it doesnt even need as much as that. It can even be as insignificant as the way a word is phrased or even if he as much as raises an eyebrow at someone..LOL

But while the Stones obviously attract much bigger crowds, theres definitely a higher proportion of fans at Dylan shows who a) go to multiple shows and b) who know not only most of the back catalogue but the most obscure stuff imaginable. And Bob knows he can basically play what he wants and a lot of people will appreciate it. I saw two of his 5 London shows in November. One night, he played three world premieres - a reworked calypso style version of Million Dollar Bash from the Basement Tapes - a 39 year old song that most of the general public wouldnt know ; Waiting for You - a song from a quite obscure film soundtrack from 3-4 years ago ; and an off the cuff cover of the Clash's London Calling. The crowd went ballistic. Using the first two as a comparison, imagine the Stones playing a never played song from Between the Buttons/Satanic Majesties and then, say, Jump On Top of Me, which was in the Pret a Porter soundtrack a few years back. Even in a theatre, most of the audience wouldnt get it.

Plus, he gets a younger audience than the Stones. Ticket prices are a big factor in that.

agree completely with stonestod statement

of course numbers matter but also it is the band's attitude. See how they are not interested in their archive material or in whatever is the bread other artists give to their fanbase.

Ina way, paradoxically, i like this attitude because it "could be" a sign of vitality, if only they follow this by playing 8 new songs every night...

There's something "necrophile" in releasing rarities and bsides (true rarities and bsides!!!) or outtakes exspecially for bands with a relatively short life behind. By now it is a common practice of labels

cc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> His fans are a different story, and of course can
> be annoying. There's one called Tod, for
> example...


AT YOUR SERVICE!

I also meant to disagree strongly with the post saying the stones are less influential than they are great. First, having such a huge catalogue of high quality songs is a major legacy. Second, they constantly expanded the styles of music they would play, yet always retained a rock and roll band attitude, thus expanding the styles that could count as "rock." Not that they were the first to do this in every case, and their take on reggae is certainly assailable, but the spirit is there and the flesh is often willing. Third and similar, keith's bringing open tunings into mainstream rock songs--did anyone do this before him? Only a few rock guitarists were really even proficient at that point, clapton and his ilk, who I believe all use standard tuning all the time.

But I also agree with the post that there is a certain conservatism in the band concept. So these changes are gradual--rarely more than a couple of songs per album are in a different style. Look at how many people are turned off by Black and Blue, hardly an "experimental" record to a neutral observer. mick himself pointed this out to charlie rose when that ass asked him something about musical development. mick compared a band to "miles DAV-is or someone." It was good to see he recognized and accepted--perhaps even had come to cherish--the comfort of being in a long-term band, which of course he'd complained about since the 60s.