Tell Me :
Talk
+1
Its a pretty sweeping and inaccurate one full of stereotypical cliches, to be honest.
And if you dont think too much of age, why start a thread highlighting theories about it?
bingo. i'm an older fan (50) and the age factor never comes up in convo with me; and, actually, i can't think of a single fan of my gen for whom it does. your theory is based on an inaccurate premise.
name one.
I think this stat has the age of Ronnie wrong
ya think?
Nag, nag, nag! I've been attending concerts since 1970 and I have to express my inner feeling for the 1982 version of the Stones:
First of all, in Gothenburg 1982, J Geils Band was the warm up act but they stole the show. The Stones couldn't play, the sound was terrible, Ron Wood out of focus as usual. Mick Jagger couldn't sing.
I later have seen the Stones 1990 in Gothenburg too and every concert in Sweden ever since! The best one's was 1990, 1995 and 2003. Just one concert that dropped in quality was the latest show in Gothenburg. So I think it's time to stop nagging about the Stones touring.
Mick sings better than ever (someone said he's overemoting, well I'd prefer that to the mumbling & stumbling in 1982), Keith has lost some of his momentum, yes, Ron Wood should be replaced by Taylor, yes, Charlie's doing a great job as usual, yes and Bill should be brought back to the stage with them. That would be wonderful ofcourse!
But I guess we have to stick with what ever they come up with regarding the line up on stage. As long as they make one more tour heading towards the 50th anniversary!
Been Stoned since 1964 and still am!
Hmm, I thought this might turn into a pissing contest.
Who did you have in mind, jfd? Jeff Beck, and...EC, Neil?
I can't think of any band.
It's a stupid chart anyhow...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-03 05:31 by ChrisM.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Fans Who Obsess About the Ages of the Stones
Posted by:
flilflam
()
Date: May 2, 2010 15:52
I have a theory about Stones fans who continuously fret about the advanced ages of the Stones. It is not a pretty theory.
I believe that the fans who hope the Stones will not tour again, or who complain that the Stones must be totally exhausted by touring, or who state that the level of playing has dropped off greatly due to age, are themselves very concerned with their own physical ailments. They project their feelings and thoughts onto a symbol of their healthy youth, which is the Stones and their music. These obsessive fans may be a bit jealous of the Stones ability to tour again and again with little apparent ill effect, while they may be suffering from mental and physical ailments.
I am not a clinical psychologist. I believe, however,that this theory has a great deal of validity.
How is your health? Do you write about how old the Stones are and imply the Stones should retire soon? Only you can validate or disprove my theory.
I believe that the fans who hope the Stones will not tour again, or who complain that the Stones must be totally exhausted by touring, or who state that the level of playing has dropped off greatly due to age, are themselves very concerned with their own physical ailments. They project their feelings and thoughts onto a symbol of their healthy youth, which is the Stones and their music. These obsessive fans may be a bit jealous of the Stones ability to tour again and again with little apparent ill effect, while they may be suffering from mental and physical ailments.
I am not a clinical psychologist. I believe, however,that this theory has a great deal of validity.
How is your health? Do you write about how old the Stones are and imply the Stones should retire soon? Only you can validate or disprove my theory.
Re: Fans Who Obsess About the Ages of the Stones
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: May 2, 2010 16:20
If only one of us falsifies your hypothesis the whole theory is invalid (K. Popper). I for one would have missed nothing if the Stones had stopped touring after 1982. I had seen, or better said heard, it all after 76 (The Hague), 82 (Rotterdam), the live albums LYL, Still Live, on YT etc. But if they would bring in M. Taylor again and wouldn't play stadiums anymore and if M. Jagger wouldn't sing so artificially anymore but in a natural way I would love to see them touring again.
Btw: When you see MT's touring activities and touring schedule you wonder how he can fix it. But the reviews I've read here from members personally and in the press (posted by pmk251) are good. So age is not the problem.
Btw: When you see MT's touring activities and touring schedule you wonder how he can fix it. But the reviews I've read here from members personally and in the press (posted by pmk251) are good. So age is not the problem.
Re: Fans Who Obsess About the Ages of the Stones
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: May 2, 2010 16:25
I thought that fliflam's point was pretty obvious. In a way this is why most of us are here to begin with. The Stones are a huge part of our lives, and seeing them go, reminds us of the frailty of symbols, body.
"Long as the Stones are rocking all is well" kind of thing.
It's a bit deep and morose, but if one thinks it through, IMO pretty clear.
"Long as the Stones are rocking all is well" kind of thing.
It's a bit deep and morose, but if one thinks it through, IMO pretty clear.
Re: Fans Who Obsess About the Ages of the Stones
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: May 2, 2010 17:29
utter baloney
Re: Fans Who Obsess About the Ages of the Stones
Posted by:
teleblaster
()
Date: May 2, 2010 17:32
Quote
StonesTod
utter baloney
+1
Re: Fans Who Obsess About the Ages of the Stones
Posted by:
Silver Dagger
()
Date: May 2, 2010 17:48
The only ones obsessed with age are The Stones themselves - remember all those young chicks in the front for Shine A Light.
Re: Fans Who Obsess About the Ages of the Stones
Posted by:
flilflam
()
Date: May 2, 2010 18:07
Sixty years old is the new fifty. Fifty is the new 40. 40 is the new thirty. I don't think too much of age. The fact that some iorr.org fans have talked about the ages of the Stones to me proves that some are overly concerned about age. I think the members of iorr.org that are 25 or so think little of the ages of the Stones. Once again, this is only a theory.
I just like the music and hope they go on and on so I can be entertained properly with music that makes sense to me The music is heads above anything modern I hear on the radio.
I just like the music and hope they go on and on so I can be entertained properly with music that makes sense to me The music is heads above anything modern I hear on the radio.
Re: Fans Who Obsess About the Ages of the Stones
Posted by:
Marhsall
()
Date: May 2, 2010 18:46
I think it's just a reprecussion in a youth obessed media...
Now if say Keith or Mick were engineer's and architech's thier age would only be mentioned for the fact of illustrating a long successful career, but being in the music business it doesn't become respectasble it's become a joke?
go figure
"Well my heavy throbbers itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down"
Now if say Keith or Mick were engineer's and architech's thier age would only be mentioned for the fact of illustrating a long successful career, but being in the music business it doesn't become respectasble it's become a joke?
go figure
"Well my heavy throbbers itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down"
Re: Fans Who Obsess About the Ages of the Stones
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: May 2, 2010 18:54
Quote
flilflam
Sixty years old is the new fifty. Fifty is the new 40. 40 is the new thirty. I don't think too much of age. The fact that some iorr.org fans have talked about the ages of the Stones to me proves that some are overly concerned about age. I think the members of iorr.org that are 25 or so think little of the ages of the Stones. Once again, this is only a theory.
Its a pretty sweeping and inaccurate one full of stereotypical cliches, to be honest.
And if you dont think too much of age, why start a thread highlighting theories about it?
Re: Fans Who Obsess About the Ages of the Stones
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: May 2, 2010 19:04
Quote
Silver Dagger
The only ones obsessed with age are The Stones themselves - remember all those young chicks in the front for Shine A Light.
Re: Fans Who Obsess About the Ages of the Stones
Posted by:
schillid
()
Date: May 2, 2010 20:05
Band
Member Band member's age by year
Y E A R
'62 '72 '82 '92 '02 '10*
BRIAN 19 - - - - -
MICK 19 29 39 49 59 67
KEITH 19 29 39 49 59 67
CHARLIE 21 31 41 51 62 70
BILL 26 36 46 56 n/a n/a
MICK T. n/a 24 n/a n/a n/a n/a
RON n/a n/a 39 49 59 67
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
TOTALS 104 149 204 254 239 271
Re: Fans Who Obsess About the Ages of the Stones
Posted by:
flilflam
()
Date: May 2, 2010 20:26
Gazza,
I have been reading iorr.org for at least seven years before I began to contribute. I have heard many fans recommend that the Stones hang it up because of their age. My theorizing is a reaction to many threads about senility, arthritis, wrinkles, and much, much more. I do not remember the names of these fans but I have read so many of them that I finally felt compelled to respond.
The fact is simple. People are living much longer than ever before. This is a fact. Read the census data and other government data.
I hope I did not offend anyone with these comments.
I wish a twenty something would identify himself and express his or her opinion about this topic.
I have been reading iorr.org for at least seven years before I began to contribute. I have heard many fans recommend that the Stones hang it up because of their age. My theorizing is a reaction to many threads about senility, arthritis, wrinkles, and much, much more. I do not remember the names of these fans but I have read so many of them that I finally felt compelled to respond.
The fact is simple. People are living much longer than ever before. This is a fact. Read the census data and other government data.
I hope I did not offend anyone with these comments.
I wish a twenty something would identify himself and express his or her opinion about this topic.
Re: Fans Who Obsess About the Ages of the Stones
Posted by:
mickschix
()
Date: May 2, 2010 21:08
Well, I'm not a 20 something but I have a theory; I think that us older fans project our own fears about aging and our own health issues onto members of the Stones. I know I sure feel my age...never mind what that is....and with one hip a total mess due to arthritis, I can attest to a quote from long ago, " what a drag it is getting OLD!". I marvel that we've had as many tours from them as we've had. I sure couldn't run around on a stage, sing, play guitar and perform the way they do for over 2 hours and I'm still quite a bit younger than they are! If they never toured again, yes, I'd be sad because a very important chapter in my life would have ended but I sure am thankful for all of the joy they've brought into my life.
Re: Fans Who Obsess About the Ages of the Stones
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: May 2, 2010 21:09
I dont recall seeing much (if any) of a call for them to hang it up simply 'because of their age' - its more to do with 'because of declining playing ability and decreased value for money', two factors which are closely linked.
I dont think too many people on this forum would give a toss if the Stones were 90 years old so long as they were still motivated and delivering. You can be 60, 70 and 80 years of age and still able to perform to a high level. If they're not, its actually more related to their health than exclusively to their age. The notion that Stones fans are obsessed with the band's age is a fallacy. Its the media who are. Every tour gets greeted with the same tedious 'The Stones are touring again - can you believe it, after all they have a collective age of 250' type crap from the media, who act as if no one's ever said it before. Any fan with any sense of knowledge about this band's history is fully aware that the Stones have ALWAYS been consistent about dismissing age as a relevant issue because they have always looked to old blues musicians as their musical role models and not transient 'here today, gone tomorrow' pop stars.
Every single member of the band has had health issues in the last five or six years which have posed a serious threat to their long term ability to function as a musician for much longer. Mick's voice problems, Charlie's throat cancer, Keith's arthritis and his motor skills following his accident, Ronnie's addiction problems. The only one of those problems which could be described as age-related is arthritis (and thats a problem Keith has had for well over a decade already)
For the record, I'm not one of the people who think they should 'hang it up'. However, as a fan I DONT particularly wish to see them continue until they drop if they're not capable of performing to an acceptable level. And thats as much to do with caring about them and their legacy to the extent where I dont want to see them embarrassing themselves as it is to do with my own self interest in not getting my money's worth.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-02 21:11 by Gazza.
I dont think too many people on this forum would give a toss if the Stones were 90 years old so long as they were still motivated and delivering. You can be 60, 70 and 80 years of age and still able to perform to a high level. If they're not, its actually more related to their health than exclusively to their age. The notion that Stones fans are obsessed with the band's age is a fallacy. Its the media who are. Every tour gets greeted with the same tedious 'The Stones are touring again - can you believe it, after all they have a collective age of 250' type crap from the media, who act as if no one's ever said it before. Any fan with any sense of knowledge about this band's history is fully aware that the Stones have ALWAYS been consistent about dismissing age as a relevant issue because they have always looked to old blues musicians as their musical role models and not transient 'here today, gone tomorrow' pop stars.
Every single member of the band has had health issues in the last five or six years which have posed a serious threat to their long term ability to function as a musician for much longer. Mick's voice problems, Charlie's throat cancer, Keith's arthritis and his motor skills following his accident, Ronnie's addiction problems. The only one of those problems which could be described as age-related is arthritis (and thats a problem Keith has had for well over a decade already)
For the record, I'm not one of the people who think they should 'hang it up'. However, as a fan I DONT particularly wish to see them continue until they drop if they're not capable of performing to an acceptable level. And thats as much to do with caring about them and their legacy to the extent where I dont want to see them embarrassing themselves as it is to do with my own self interest in not getting my money's worth.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-02 21:11 by Gazza.
Re: Fans Who Obsess About the Ages of the Stones
Posted by:
barbabang
()
Date: May 2, 2010 21:30
Quote
Gazza
I dont recall seeing much (if any) of a call for them to hang it up simply 'because of their age' - its more to do with 'because of declining playing ability and decreased value for money', two factors which are closely linked.
I dont think too many people on this forum would give a toss if the Stones were 90 years old so long as they were still motivated and delivering. You can be 60, 70 and 80 years of age and still able to perform to a high level. If they're not, its actually more related to their health than exclusively to their age. The notion that Stones fans are obsessed with the band's age is a fallacy. Its the media who are. Every tour gets greeted with the same tedious 'The Stones are touring again - can you believe it, after all they have a collective age of 250' type crap from the media, who act as if no one's ever said it before. Any fan with any sense of knowledge about this band's history is fully aware that the Stones have ALWAYS been consistent about dismissing age as a relevant issue because they have always looked to old blues musicians as their musical role models and not transient 'here today, gone tomorrow' pop stars.
Every single member of the band has had health issues in the last five or six years which have posed a serious threat to their long term ability to function as a musician for much longer. Mick's voice problems, Charlie's throat cancer, Keith's arthritis and his motor skills following his accident, Ronnie's addiction problems. The only one of those problems which could be described as age-related is arthritis (and thats a problem Keith has had for well over a decade already)
For the record, I'm not one of the people who think they should 'hang it up'. However, as a fan I DONT particularly wish to see them continue until they drop if they're not capable of performing to an acceptable level. And thats as much to do with caring about them and their legacy to the extent where I dont want to see them embarrassing themselves as it is to do with my own self interest in not getting my money's worth.
Re: Fans Who Obsess About the Ages of the Stones
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: May 2, 2010 21:36
Quote
GazzaQuote
flilflam
Sixty years old is the new fifty. Fifty is the new 40. 40 is the new thirty. I don't think too much of age. The fact that some iorr.org fans have talked about the ages of the Stones to me proves that some are overly concerned about age. I think the members of iorr.org that are 25 or so think little of the ages of the Stones. Once again, this is only a theory.
Its a pretty sweeping and inaccurate one full of stereotypical cliches, to be honest.
And if you dont think too much of age, why start a thread highlighting theories about it?
bingo. i'm an older fan (50) and the age factor never comes up in convo with me; and, actually, i can't think of a single fan of my gen for whom it does. your theory is based on an inaccurate premise.
Re: Fans Who Obsess About the Ages of the Stones
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: May 2, 2010 21:37
Quote
flilflam
have heard many fans recommend that the Stones hang it up because of their age.
name one.
Re: Fans Who Obsess About the Ages of the Stones
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: May 2, 2010 22:27
They should hang it up, possibly and probably, because they don't play like a band charging the amount of money they charge. I don't see an issue with that. And they just don't play that good anymore. Perhaps it's some kind of retroactive thing - they're charging more than ever to somehow make up for not charging enough back when they were really good.
But because they're old? Well, it's all relative. At some point they will be too old to play because they will be too old, as in not able. Whether they accept that or not is another thing but it'll be one giant rip off. Look at Chuck Berry and Jerry Lee Lewis.
But because they're old? Well, it's all relative. At some point they will be too old to play because they will be too old, as in not able. Whether they accept that or not is another thing but it'll be one giant rip off. Look at Chuck Berry and Jerry Lee Lewis.
Re: Fans Who Obsess About the Ages of the Stones
Posted by:
mickschix
()
Date: May 2, 2010 23:40
I'm raising a glass to that well written post, Gazza!! I agree totally, and for sure the Stones' heros are VERY old men!! I also fear that the day may come when they're on stage and I feel that they shouldn't be there. I have faith though that Mick won't allow that to happen because he has pride in his performance and that of his band members.
Re: Fans Who Obsess About the Ages of the Stones
Posted by:
BluzDude
()
Date: May 2, 2010 23:45
Quote
schillidBand Member Band member's age by year Y E A R '62 '72 '82 '92 '02 '10* BRIAN 19 - - - - - MICK 19 29 39 49 59 67 KEITH 19 29 39 49 59 67 CHARLIE 21 31 41 51 62 70 BILL 26 36 46 56 n/a n/a MICK T. n/a 24 n/a n/a n/a n/a RON n/a n/a 39 49 59 67 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ TOTALS 104 149 204 254 239 271
I think this stat has the age of Ronnie wrong
Re: Fans Who Obsess About the Ages of the Stones
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: May 3, 2010 00:05
Quote
mickschix
Mick has pride in his performance and that of his band members.
ya think?
Re: Fans Who Obsess About the Ages of the Stones
Posted by:
jamesfdouglas
()
Date: May 3, 2010 00:14
The Stones are pioneers in being aging rock stars.
It was funny to hear the media blast them, because back in'89 or '94 - WE knew better - that they could stilll rock it with the best of them.
'94 was a long time ago though.
Still - many of their pees in (or around) their age group are still blowing the Stones off the stage and out of the studio.
I'm 36 years old.
[thepowergoats.com]
It was funny to hear the media blast them, because back in'89 or '94 - WE knew better - that they could stilll rock it with the best of them.
'94 was a long time ago though.
Still - many of their pees in (or around) their age group are still blowing the Stones off the stage and out of the studio.
I'm 36 years old.
[thepowergoats.com]
Re: Fans Who Obsess About the Ages of the Stones
Posted by:
Fan Since 1964
()
Date: May 3, 2010 03:05
Quote
kleermaker
If only one of us falsifies your hypothesis the whole theory is invalid (K. Popper). I for one would have missed nothing if the Stones had stopped touring after 1982. I had seen, or better said heard, it all after 76 (The Hague), 82 (Rotterdam), the live albums LYL, Still Live, on YT etc. But if they would bring in M. Taylor again and wouldn't play stadiums anymore and if M. Jagger wouldn't sing so artificially anymore but in a natural way I would love to see them touring again.
Btw: When you see MT's touring activities and touring schedule you wonder how he can fix it. But the reviews I've read here from members personally and in the press (posted by pmk251) are good. So age is not the problem.
Nag, nag, nag! I've been attending concerts since 1970 and I have to express my inner feeling for the 1982 version of the Stones:
First of all, in Gothenburg 1982, J Geils Band was the warm up act but they stole the show. The Stones couldn't play, the sound was terrible, Ron Wood out of focus as usual. Mick Jagger couldn't sing.
I later have seen the Stones 1990 in Gothenburg too and every concert in Sweden ever since! The best one's was 1990, 1995 and 2003. Just one concert that dropped in quality was the latest show in Gothenburg. So I think it's time to stop nagging about the Stones touring.
Mick sings better than ever (someone said he's overemoting, well I'd prefer that to the mumbling & stumbling in 1982), Keith has lost some of his momentum, yes, Ron Wood should be replaced by Taylor, yes, Charlie's doing a great job as usual, yes and Bill should be brought back to the stage with them. That would be wonderful ofcourse!
But I guess we have to stick with what ever they come up with regarding the line up on stage. As long as they make one more tour heading towards the 50th anniversary!
Been Stoned since 1964 and still am!
Re: Fans Who Obsess About the Ages of the Stones
Posted by:
angee
()
Date: May 3, 2010 03:05
Quote
jamesfdouglas
Still - many of their pees in (or around) their age group are still blowing the Stones off the stage and out of the studio.
I'm 36 years old.
Hmm, I thought this might turn into a pissing contest.
Who did you have in mind, jfd? Jeff Beck, and...EC, Neil?
I can't think of any band.
Re: Fans Who Obsess About the Ages of the Stones
Posted by:
schillid
()
Date: May 3, 2010 04:39
Quote
BluzDude
I think this stat has the age of Ronnie wrong
It's a stupid chart anyhow...
Re: Fans Who Obsess About the Ages of the Stones
Posted by:
ChrisM
()
Date: May 3, 2010 05:25
This much appears certainQuote
flilflam
I am not a clinical psychologist.
This much seems true, In some cases the criticism levied against the Stones may be a projection on the critics insecurity. However, you have not substantiated your "theory" with any facts. The burden of proof for any theory lies with the the person whose theory it is. You have provided no proof here. Only supposition.Quote
flilflam
I believe, however,that this theory has a great deal of validity.
As I mentioned above,the burden of proof is on you, As to my health,I'm in the best health of my life. Regarding the health of the Stones, I cannot say, but I would venture to day that Keith and Ronnie are no longer able to play to the standard that would command top dollar ticket prices. For those who choose to think otherwise, that is of course your privilege, My view is that Keith, and it is with great sadness I say this, can longer play due to his arthritis. As to to Ronnie, it depends on ho drunk he is. This at least is my view of your "theory."Quote
flilflam
How is your health? Do you write about how old the Stones are and imply the Stones should retire soon? Only you can validate or disprove my theory.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-03 05:31 by ChrisM.
Re: Fans Who Obsess About the Ages of the Stones
Posted by:
colonial
()
Date: May 3, 2010 09:47
I dont get Stones fans going onto me about The Stones ages at all.Its usually non-fans that would go on about their age its the first thing they would say.And its usually in the first sentence of a Newspaper or a Newsreader they dont let anyone forget their ages especially when The Stones are involved.But no Stones fans hardly mention their ages at all.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
BeastyBurdeny , colonial , daspyknows , dkwalika , Harry , keefgotsoul , KeithNacho , kidquick185 , PaintMonkeyManBlack , perkmo , RollingFreak , Shotaway2 , straycatuk
Guests:
1719
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10