Quote
bernardanderson
in my opinion, rock and roll is a young man's game. you can either accept it and continue to make new, relevant and interesting music (neil young, for example) or you can continue rejecting this notion that you are in your old age and risk looking like a fool by resting on your laurels. country music, blues as well, is a type of music that lets one age gracefully, unlike rock and roll (unless you use it wisely).

Quote
Cujo
Could it be possible. In country music you have/had people like Johnny Cash, Merle Haggard, Kris Kristofferson and Willie Nelson. People well into their seventies who in the later days of their lives started to make the best music of their careers. They simply made the music they wanted to make without any restrictions. They realised that their days were almost counted and that it's better to go out gracefully than to try and please the recordcompany or the public. O how I wish the Stones could do the same.

Quote
Cujo
Could it be possible. In country music you have/had people like Johnny Cash, Merle Haggard, Kris Kristofferson and Willie Nelson. People well into their seventies who in the later days of their lives started to make the best music of their careers. They simply made the music they wanted to make without any restrictions. They realised that their days were almost counted and that it's better to go out gracefully than to try and please the recordcompany or the public. O how I wish the Stones could do the same.

Quote
bernardanderson
in my opinion, rock and roll is a young man's game. you can either accept it and continue to make new, relevant and interesting music (neil young, for example) or you can continue rejecting this notion that you are in your old age and risk looking like a fool by resting on your laurels. country music, blues as well, is a type of music that lets one age gracefully, unlike rock and roll (unless you use it wisely).

Quote
Addicted
Windymelody... I think now that they only play for pleassure, they could come up with music from their hearts.

Quote
24FPS
They didn't start out as a rock and roll band, they were a pop band. They used to work in whatever genre struck their fancy. It's lack of outside influences that hurt them now. I'd love to see someone like Jack White produce them and maybe play a little, and not put them on a pedestal. I thought their biggest mistake was not going directly into the studio after a tour, when their chops were strongest.

Quote
MississippiBullfrog

Quote
24FPS
They didn't start out as a rock and roll band, they were a pop band. They used to work in whatever genre struck their fancy. It's lack of outside influences that hurt them now. I'd love to see someone like Jack White produce them and maybe play a little, and not put them on a pedestal. I thought their biggest mistake was not going directly into the studio after a tour, when their chops were strongest.

...very strong points;
I agree 100%.

Quote
T&A
the stones aren't a band, in the classic sense, anymore. haven't been for 30 years. they are a corporation and make decisions that are in the best interests of their shareholders.

Quote
Squiggle
It looked like Bowie was lost to us but he came back. I still hope for something similar from the Stones.

Quote
Cujo
People well into their seventies who in the later days of their lives started to make the best music of their careers. They simply made the music they wanted to make without any restrictions.

Quote
T&A

Quote
Squiggle
It looked like Bowie was lost to us but he came back. I still hope for something similar from the Stones.

there's bowie news?

Quote
sweet neo con

Quote
Cujo
People well into their seventies who in the later days of their lives started to make the best music of their careers. They simply made the music they wanted to make without any restrictions.

restrictions?? only self-imposed (if any). Stones have had the freedom to do what they want for decades.

Quote
Cujo

Quote
sweet neo con

Quote
Cujo
People well into their seventies who in the later days of their lives started to make the best music of their careers. They simply made the music they wanted to make without any restrictions.

restrictions?? only self-imposed (if any). Stones have had the freedom to do what they want for decades.

There's always the pressure to make more money. Every tour has to make more money than the previous one. Every cd has to sell well. Sponsers are te be kept happy. The people coming to the shows must be kept happy (so they have to play the hits over and over again). Restrictions enough I think.

Quote
T&A

Quote
Squiggle
It looked like Bowie was lost to us but he came back. I still hope for something similar from the Stones.

there's bowie news?

Quote
swiss
Maybe it is like a marriage. People who stay together--in a rut--out of duty or habit, entropy, low expectations, or "cuz there's nothing else to do."

Quote
swiss
Ah, what a beautiful thoughtful thread. So many incredibly lucid points (many of my favorite posters/writers gathered in this thread). My evening was a bit sad, and this perked me right up - glad I dropped by iorr.

Excellent point about the Stones being a band vs the many of the older solo musicians cited who still have fresh authentic output.

Through the ages, I believe, that's been true for oldercountry, jazz, and blues musicans/artists. They may collaborate with others but, unlike the Stones, these older artists do not first have a "band identity."

Are there exceptions? are there entire bands that stay creative? (not merely productive) in any genre?

swiss,

This is one fantastic post! I loved every inspired word of it!

What's the shelflife of a band? What does is take to have a viable band that creates. I don't mean tribute bands or cover bands. But bands making and performing their own creations?

And has being in the Rolling Stones, having that be a central part to their identities as artists, actually squelched their individual creativity, at the same time as consistently delivering on the promise of $$$?

Maybe it is like a marriage. People who stay together--in a rut--out of duty or habit, entropy, low expectations, or "cuz there's nothing else to do." Versus those rare marriages (my parents have one) where they still like each other, stay fascinated with each other, still can talk for hours about ideas, the world, things they're thinking about and interested in. In those rare cases I think they can do it partly because each party continues to develop and grow fairly fearlessly in their own ways. My father started doing Tai Chi at 75. My mother started writing poetry. They take classes like the History of Islam, and Immigration in America, and great works of Wagner.

That's what Neil Young has done, and Dylan, Steve Earle, EmmyLou Harris, and the older peeps mentioned above. Push themselves, push their craft, stay a little out of their creative comfort zones, keep growing. Maybe not the meteoric growth of youth but growth just the same -- and with great richness, nuance, complexity, and depth.

What have Mick and Keith done to keep themselves awake and alive in the world. How reflective have they been? how much have they pushed themselves into new and uncomfortable places? (I don't mean up coconut trees or high upon the lofty heights of platform trainers)

And their relationship. I think Doxa has talked about this a lot, and a few other people over the years here. Their relationship doesn't seem very artistically inspiring or even particularly alive--let alone, healthy. As someone said above: they may not even like each other anymore--like married couples that may or may not love each other but surely don't like each other.

So, how does working together serve them as creative individuals, if at all?

Maybe neither Keith nor Mick can create anymore.

I think people have the potential to create up until their last breath, but for all practical purposes...what signs are there that they are still creating in any way? Seems like Mick is so superficial and into outward expression (i.e., performance) that he can't go where you have to, to create (which is a deep and weird place to go). And Keith's too undisciplined, and has been for years. And maybe not brave enough to spend a year doing scales to get his chops and his head in a place where he would have the rigor to create.

Maybe if they both were able to tend to themselves creatively they could collaborate again. Because in their case the whole is much greater than the sum of the parts - and part of the creative magic is an alchemy that arises between Keith and Mick, and spreads to Charlie, then to whomever else.

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
swiss
Ah, what a beautiful thoughtful thread. So many incredibly lucid points (many of my favorite posters/writers gathered in this thread). My evening was a bit sad, and this perked me right up - glad I dropped by iorr.

Excellent point about the Stones being a band vs the many of the older solo musicians cited who still have fresh authentic output.

Through the ages, I believe, that's been true for oldercountry, jazz, and blues musicans/artists. They may collaborate with others but, unlike the Stones, these older artists do not first have a "band identity."

Are there exceptions? are there entire bands that stay creative? (not merely productive) in any genre?


What's the shelflife of a band? What does is take to have a viable band that creates. I don't mean tribute bands or cover bands. But bands making and performing their own creations?

And has being in the Rolling Stones, having that be a central part to their identities as artists, actually squelched their individual creativity, at the same time as consistently delivering on the promise of $$$?

Maybe it is like a marriage. People who stay together--in a rut--out of duty or habit, entropy, low expectations, or "cuz there's nothing else to do." Versus those rare marriages (my parents have one) where they still like each other, stay fascinated with each other, still can talk for hours about ideas, the world, things they're thinking about and interested in. In those rare cases I think they can do it partly because each party continues to develop and grow fairly fearlessly in their own ways. My father started doing Tai Chi at 75. My mother started writing poetry. They take classes like the History of Islam, and Immigration in America, and great works of Wagner.

That's what Neil Young has done, and Dylan, Steve Earle, EmmyLou Harris, and the older peeps mentioned above. Push themselves, push their craft, stay a little out of their creative comfort zones, keep growing. Maybe not the meteoric growth of youth but growth just the same -- and with great richness, nuance, complexity, and depth.

What have Mick and Keith done to keep themselves awake and alive in the world. How reflective have they been? how much have they pushed themselves into new and uncomfortable places? (I don't mean up coconut trees or high upon the lofty heights of platform trainers)

And their relationship. I think Doxa has talked about this a lot, and a few other people over the years here. Their relationship doesn't seem very artistically inspiring or even particularly alive--let alone, healthy. As someone said above: they may not even like each other anymore--like married couples that may or may not love each other but surely don't like each other.

So, how does working together serve them as creative individuals, if at all?

Maybe neither Keith nor Mick can create anymore.

I think people have the potential to create up until their last breath, but for all practical purposes...what signs are there that they are still creating in any way? Seems like Mick is so superficial and into outward expression (i.e., performance) that he can't go where you have to, to create (which is a deep and weird place to go). And Keith's too undisciplined, and has been for years. And maybe not brave enough to spend a year doing scales to get his chops and his head in a place where he would have the rigor to create.

Maybe if they both were able to tend to themselves creatively they could collaborate again. Because in their case the whole is much greater than the sum of the parts - and part of the creative magic is an alchemy that arises between Keith and Mick, and spreads to Charlie, then to whomever else.

Quote
swiss
Maybe if they both were able to tend to themselves creatively they could collaborate again. Because in their case the whole is much greater than the sum of the parts - and part of the creative magic is an alchemy that arises between Keith and Mick, and spreads to Charlie, then to whomever else.