For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
StonesTod
utter baloney
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
Quote
flilflam
have heard many fans recommend that the Stones hang it up because of their age.
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
Quote
mickschix
Mick has pride in his performance and that of his band members.
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.
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.
Quote
BluzDude
I think this stat has the age of Ronnie wrong
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.