At my studio downtown, and pulled out a bunch of Blues Artist, KoKo Tayor, Etta
James, B.B King, Buddy Guy, these guys seemed to hit their peak in their 60's.
As far as blues goes our band my not have even peaked yet.




www.demaiographicsllc.com

"yesterday's gone and tomorrow's just an illusion" - I don't know for sure but that's the word on the street....

My be yet to come too.

Comforting thought....

Quote
sonyzzz
At my studio downtown, and pulled out a bunch of Blues Artist, KoKo Tayor, Etta
James, B.B King, Buddy Guy, these guys seemed to hit their peak in their 60's.
As far as blues goes our band my not have even peaked yet.

That argument may be strengthened if they played that kind of music semi-regularly instead of as the occasional token gesture.

Either they no longer see it as something they're overly interested in (unlikely) or else they feel that their 'audience' might get quickly bored with it.

Looking forward to hearing their next release!

I would agree with this, had the Stones decided at some point to become a Blues band. Blues and Country artists do tend to age gracefully (or at least be involved in a genre which provides its practitioners that chance). Rock n Roll is not a particularly "dignified" form, and Rock n Roll bands/artists become a bit of a joke as they age. The same thing happens to Hip Hop artists - you can't be in your 40's talking about pumping crack, or pulling juks, or pimping - you look silly. Likewise, seeing a Rock n Roll band continuing to do the Sex/Drugs/RnR thing into their dotage is laughable. Think about Stones contemporaries who have aged with dignity - Neil Young, Lou Reed, Bob Dylan - they all had periods of goddawful music, but they righted themselves once they discovered that the way to continue making vital art was to embrace it as "art", to forsake commercialism, to embrace their own paths as artists and to continue down that path, serving the artform and nothing else. The Stones, at this point, are a commercial venture and nothing more. If they had a guiding artistic philosophy at this point, I think they'd be faring better.

...back to the Blues thing; my friends and I have been dying for them to make a Blues record for 20 years at this point. We all recognize that this would allow The Stones to age with at least a modicum of grace, but the boys don't seem interested. The Doors (Morrison in particular) saw that this was the only way to continue, but sadly, were only starting to follow this direction when Jimbo died.





Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-20 22:10 by The Ghost Of Good taste.

A return to a more bluesy sound would be very welcome. But they seem to be going in the other direction if anything. Many shows from the last tour they didn't even play one blues song. If they do a cover these days its usually a soul tune.

Like Gazza mentions I think the Stones are too worried about what the mass audience thinks of them. If they did something more adventurous and did a show of country and blues only or whatever I think the audience would embrace it and it would be a huge success. But I just don't see it happening.

at this point what would be adventurous for the Stones? if you mean doing shows that DON'T have all the favorites, that's not likely..
they have done just about everything...they've done a bunch of shows where the emphasis was on acoustic arrangement and not-often played songs...

Gazza is 100% right. They think too much what they believe the audience wants. Just play the motherf**ker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gazza is right, because with the Stones, the final decisions are always made with 'the bottom dollar' in mind.

[thepowergoats.com]