IMO the answer to all three is No, l will try try to explain my position.
Musically although not enterely their fault,The music business now days is in its majority total crap,but lets face it imo their last few efforts have been substandard when compared to their earlier work,
How many of us here spend a lot of time listening to VL,BTB,ABB?,personally when l have the time l rather listen to Exile,Aftermath,SF,or live stuff.
Politically,At one time The Stones actually represented Revolution,and a stand against the establishment,now days their last politacally statement "Sweet Neocon"
just show them to be anti-bush,but then they join Bill and Hillary for a party.
So they become hypocrates one side is as bad as the other one, as far as lam concerned, they both represent the values that the Stones rebelled against at one point of their careers.
Socially, they don't do anything(that l know of) to help those in need,even people like Warren Buffet who just bequested all his fortune to charaties,and Bill Gates who gives millions to other poor countries. l guess our boys plan on taking their millions with them when they kick the bucket.
l am not looking for controversy here, if you feel different please enlighten us with your opinions.u

Financially, yes.

Sexally satisfied

Musically trying

(crowd of stuffy 60's laughter)

Totally irrelevent in any sense. But still good fun, yes.

Mathijs

yeah, $437 million worth of irrelevance!

aslecs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yeah, $437 million worth of irrelevance!


your comment is a perfect example of what we're talking about: irrelevance.

you can't catch me!

Your point? (if you got one)

Musically not relevant at all since 1981
Politically not relevant since 1991
Socially maybe in some countries, not in the big ones
Financially is their high point

I think we all know the right answers in our hearts, unless one is not too much 'blinded by love'... but I salute the years when there was the actual relevance! Now we just follow a good, nostalgic band, which existence and lasting ability to entertain millions and provide great moments of fun is a value in itself. The only relevance is a sort of Darwinian one... Too tough to die!

- Doxa

They provide a good night out.

Nothing more, nothing less.

ive never paid much attention to whether the stones were relevant socially or politically which i dont think they have been for a long while.

the most important part of the stones has been releasing studio albums and doing concerts.

and as long as they can do that then there is a place for them.

i would hope the stones are still doing this in 2012, and reach thier 50th anniversary of existance.

Stones - Milloin bucks to Katrina victims,
Keiths Red Cross single and they've been an invisible
drive chain to our hearts and souls for decades...We Dont Wanna Go Home..





ROCKMAN

Financially. That's it.

No, absolutely no, but blame the rest of the world!

C

short answer: noone is cutting edge or politically relevant in music.

long answer: -interesting question. is any act 'relevant' in today's world; i don't just mean popular or flavour du jour. the world has gotten smaller so to speak, with like 50-100 subgenres around the world available to all with a computer. i don't feel there is or will be a cutting edge of music anymore, and with the complete commercialization of all genres and advances in home recording, there's a million "sounds like..X" at the touch of a button. as late as 1997 though, with stuff like Juiced, Thief, Anybody, i thought the Stones were still relevant sonically. before that you have to go back to the song Undercover, perhaps their last tune that was all 3: sonically cutting edge, political and socially relevant (popular on radio and dancefloor).

politically, i don't know if anyone is relevant either; not because artists aren't lyrically or actively political anymore, they are. but just like protests and marches and such (which hardly ever make the news in the states even if a million people show), political folk songs, hiphop and rock (which hardly ever make the radio) don't seem to effect change in the corporate media, boardrooms or gov't legislation. and everyone else is anesthetized(sp?) by a constant barrage of bs news, entertainment and consumerism. "this species has amused itself to death" as roger waters and others have said.

here's a semi-humorous/semi-serious question back: what do you think would happen if it were ILLEGAL for there to be music or singing in adverts? think it through for a second, imagine several years of commercials without music. would music regain some of its immediacy/power? -just something to ponder....

....... not to change the subject, but yesterday NFL began a 'watch thursday night' game campaign... with the stones 'last time' ..

winter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>>
> > here's a semi-humorous/semi-serious question back:
> what do you think would happen if it were ILLEGAL
> for there to be music or singing in adverts? think
> it through for a second, imagine several years of
> commercials without music. would music regain some
> of its immediacy/power? -just something to
> ponder....
Well Thought out, Winter,yes the corporate world has taken over just about every facet of our lives with commercials and bs as you put it, and music being produced today in most cases its just computerized beats with no originality to it,but then the artists themselves sell out for huge paychecks, our boys are a prime example of selling out to the man,can't you spend one hour watching tv without that obnoxious chase adevertising coming on? and Mick screaming that he is free,
But a contradiction that l find amusing is that some of those corporations that ruin our lives are the ones doing the work of helping the poor and trying to find cure for aids,etc.Bill Gates comes to mind. While those musicians that at one time meant something are just too happy to take a big paycheck and don't make waves.
Anyway as the Stones put at one time What can a poor(old) boy do?

Not sure what -lly to call it but I think it is huge when I look around at a Stones concert and I see literally everyone laughing and dancing. That is quite a gift; both ways. To them and to us. Maybe to being relevant has lost it's original meaning and now has come to stand for something else. Maybe 'escape' IS being socially relevant today.
And like soimeone else just said - they can easily still be sonically challenging. B2B was an excellent album. "Stripped" was very good. A live album after a 40 year career is a different animal from a Livealbum by a 3 year young band.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

Well, I'm one of the younger fans. The Stones are my favourite band, watching and listening to them makes me happy. Every time.

The Relevance of the past is amazing to read in some books. But for me it's part of the past (like everything of the 60s and 70s). So, the answer is "No", but it should not be a sad answer.

(Is the slogan "Make love, not war" still relevant today? Or vinyl? M*A*S*H? ...)

Slightly musically if you're a fan (ABB is another pleasant listen...well, some/most of it) but a big NO on the rest... most young kids have ZERO interest in them...

Why should they be relevant nowadays?

Let's spend the night together, for example, was a very significant song in the 1960s when even holding hands in public seemed sort of a crime, let alone sex. Now go and ask any teenager (if he does not live in a very conservative area) if this song still has a meaning and you will get a bored smile. Sex today is nothing to think about in moral terms. Nobody of the young generation would understand why Mick had to change the words for the Ed Sullivan show.

Musically - Yes.
Politically - No, and never were in my opinion.
Socially - For some. Why do we hang on these boards?

JumpingKentFlash

No.

The question is part of a bigger one really. Are any popular music artists as politically and socially relevant or infuential as they were ?

No. Rock and Roll is no longer the domian or rallying flag of the young rebels and activists.[how can it be when presidents and prime ministers were raised on it]. Music is no longer the one dominant obsession of the young either.
In short it inevitably become part of the establishment the moment it was accepted by the establishment.

Musically, I say most definitely. I don't know how true fans can say that this band has not done anything worth listening to since Tattoo You. Until ABB, VL was their best friggin album, hands down blowin the doors off of Exile IMHO, but then along came ABB and I listened to that damn thing at least once a day for 7 straight months as I followed the band around the world. At age 30, I consider myself one of the younger fans. I wait and wait and wait for each new release to come out. VL, Stripped, and ABB are this band at their most prolific best - by far 3 of my top 5 Stones albums. And there are still a lot of younger musicians who reference them as role models - let's face it there will never be another band of this magnitude, much like with what the fab four did at their brief time. They are the greatest R-n-R band in the world for a reason.

Politically, I would say not since Highwire, and even then it was just brushed aside. A great political statement from a band on the cusp of turning into the financial icons they are today. I agree with the Sweet NeoCon comments, though I love the song, they do play to the other side these days.

As for socially...mymymy how soon we all forget! Yes, the $1MM dollars for Katrina, Keef's Hurricane single, and what about the SARS concert in Toronto? And the free concert that they gave in California on the Licks tour I think it was? for the environment I believe the topic was?? All I remember for sure was that Bill Clinton came out and addressed the audience before the boys came out. They may be greedy, but they have NEVER been afraid to be involved in a cause that they feel warrants supporting...look at the most recent of these - Ronnie's Wood.

Politically relevent in 1991?

A too-late-to-matter lame-o song about the Gulf war which no one even knows today did not make them politically relevent.

... an honest attempt, I guess.

Sweet Neo Con - politically relevant?
See previous comment.

I disagree with you, georgelicks, Rumsfeld and some others are gone but A Bigger Bang with Sweet Neo-Con and Dangerous Beauty is still in the stores. Hey, and they were the only ones in 1991 with Highwire and they were the only ones dealing with the aftermath of this Iraq war (I think we all agree that it was "good" to get rid of Hussein and that George senior missed that chance in 1991).
1981? Tattoo You? Recorded between 1973 and... no, you're right, I like Heaven very much but I still dislike Some Girls (punk and disco, superflous styles of the 70s). So which earlier one musicwise? This leaves us with the general question about the importance of music and the answer is aquestion: Who IS still around being "important" before that date?

Hello from Spain,Madrid

Let´s see it in perspective:

1st Rolling Stones were leaders in a time when there was a generational conflict between old people and young people, fathers and sons, Generational fight. Today this conflict does not exist. In my country fathers and mothers pray God so that their children leave home...nobady leaves home til almost thirties. Case closed.

2nd Rolling Stones were leaders in the sexual revolution era. AIDS killed that revolution and kills myriads of people today. Case closed

3rd Rolling Stones were leaders in the mind expanding experiences with drugd. Heroin, overdoses and AIDS again killed that revolution.

4th Rolling Stones were leaders in the Peace Revolution: Gandhi, Luther King, demonstrations against Vietnam war. Hundreds of later wars deny Peace revolution fruits.

5th Rolling Stones are the best rok band in the world. No teenager today cares. If it were reversely I would worry a lot...

Wrap up: it is not realistic that our band leads anything in today society. Being this tour the biggest in earning this year it is amazing