Quote
Bärs
they said that Keith's numbers (and Charlies drum solo) was the best part.

Charlie played a DRUM SOLÒ? WOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote
Bärs
In sports you are compared with athletes in your own age, why not the some degree in music? Every musician and singer gets only worse when you've passed a certain age, but you can still improve in interpretation and maturity

. You are right to some degree, but I think a comparison between athletes and musicians is hard to do. A professional athlete's carrier is practically over after a certain age (say 30-35 years of age). Many musicians, especially jazz musicians, are at their best just a couple a year before they pass away. In Sweden we have the examples of Putte Wickman and Arne Domnérus,two great jazzmusicians who performed very well (and more soulful) even after the age of 80. Another example is Buddy Guy who has passed 76 and still performs very well. I think in keith's case I think that it is his ilnesses and way of life (drugs and so on) that has taken the better of him. Singers though is something different, your comparison is more valid there.

Quote
mickijaggeroo

Quote
Addicted
They were looking for scandal. They thought they'd found one when they interviewed some people, well connected Stones fans in Sweden, who said (on camera) that Keith was drunk in Gothenburg. The well connected fans have later said they were mis quoted, that Keith wasn't drunk, but that doesn't sink in with the low life tabloid.

The use of plural form, as in "fans" and "they" etc, seems to indicate that there were more than one saying those things. As far as I know we were 2 fans whom the press concentrated on. I was interviewed in different medias before and after the meet and greet, and the show. What I saw and heard at the meet and greet has been stated here numerous times, and it´s a well known fact who we 2 fans are. So using plural form could make people believe both had the same opinion. Which is not true.

Sorry, thought there were more than the two fans, and didn't know you were one of them. Anyway, I read the post where you're saying that "Keith was not drunk. Period." And you're completely right. He was not drunk before the show in Göteborg / Gothenburg.

..but Markus Larsson was...drunk...He always write shit about bands when he's drunk...

Jumpin' Jeeeeeehosaphat! Are y'all STILL talkin' about this nonsense. 16 pages fer Pete's sake!

The next one a you lilly-livered varmints adds another post is a gonna be dancin' ta muh six-shooters!

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
Bärs
In sports you are compared with athletes in your own age, why not the some degree in music? Every musician and singer gets only worse when you've passed a certain age, but you can still improve in interpretation and maturity

. You are right to some degree, but I think a comparison between athletes and musicians is hard to do. A professional athlete's carrier is practically over after a certain age (say 30-35 years of age). Many musicians, especially jazz musicians, are at their best just a couple a year before they pass away. In Sweden we have the examples of Putte Wickman and Arne Domnérus,two great jazzmusicians who performed very well (and more soulful) even after the age of 80. Another example is Buddy Guy who has passed 76 and still performs very well. I think in keith's case I think that it is his ilnesses and way of life (drugs and so on) that has taken the better of him. Singers though is something different, your comparison is more valid there.

Exactly, and after their prime as youths athlets have their own groups of 45+, 50+ etc. in marathons, tennis tournaments etc. That is, the Stones should be compared to what other rock bands in their 60s are able to do on stadiums, and not with how the Stones were in 1981 or 1972. Every core member in the band is "old", which means that there is always a risk that someone in the band is "off" that night, since it is much harder to recover physically from travelling and performing when your older - even if your pure technical skills are alive and well.

You named a couple of blues and jazz musicians that coped well with age. My point was that Keith actually has moved into that genre and developed as an interpreter, because that "jazzy" genre allows musicians to age way better than stadium rock does. It's hard to grow old gracefully as a rock musician. In fact, you're not supposed to be old at all, you are supposed to die young. That so many posters say that the Stones could have stopped after, let's say 1982, and it wouldn't have mattered, tells me that they are almost angry that the Stones are still alive and performing as a group at a necessarily lower lever than before and in that way showing their mortality. The very existence of the Stones today threatens to destroy the romantic and false image overzealous fans have created in their own minds of the group, and that's why they take their anger out on Keith for the moment. Next time it'll be someone else. Sooner or later also Charlie will be sacrificed. He just have to say or do something stupid and then the heat is on...

Quote
bustedtrousers
Jumpin' Jeeeeeehosaphat! Are y'all STILL talkin' about this nonsense. 16 pages fer Pete's sake!

The next one a you lilly-livered varmints adds another post is a gonna be dancin' ta muh six-shooters!

What this cartoon character's name, I used to love him ... haven't seen him for ages on the TV ? Boy was he mean with that ole six gun !!

GOT IT ............. Yosemite Sam !! Phew, thank heavens for that, I'd have been thinkin' 'bout that all day !!

[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-17 10:31 by paulywaul.

Here we have the guys that I love:



(I know you don't give a FF but anyway)

Quote
Bärs

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
Bärs
In sports you are compared with athletes in your own age, why not the some degree in music? Every musician and singer gets only worse when you've passed a certain age, but you can still improve in interpretation and maturity

. You are right to some degree, but I think a comparison between athletes and musicians is hard to do. A professional athlete's carrier is practically over after a certain age (say 30-35 years of age). Many musicians, especially jazz musicians, are at their best just a couple a year before they pass away. In Sweden we have the examples of Putte Wickman and Arne Domnérus,two great jazzmusicians who performed very well (and more soulful) even after the age of 80. Another example is Buddy Guy who has passed 76 and still performs very well. I think in keith's case I think that it is his ilnesses and way of life (drugs and so on) that has taken the better of him. Singers though is something different, your comparison is more valid there.

Exactly, and after their prime as youths athlets have their own groups of 45+, 50+ etc. in marathons, tennis tournaments etc. That is, the Stones should be compared to what other rock bands in their 60s are able to do on stadiums, and not with how the Stones were in 1981 or 1972. Every core member in the band is "old", which means that there is always a risk that someone in the band is "off" that night, since it is much harder to recover physically from travelling and performing when your older - even if your pure technical skills are alive and well.

You named a couple of blues and jazz musicians that coped well with age. My point was that Keith actually has moved into that genre and developed as an interpreter, because that "jazzy" genre allows musicians to age way better than stadium rock does. It's hard to grow old gracefully as a rock musician. In fact, you're not supposed to be old at all, you are supposed to die young. That so many posters say that the Stones could have stopped after, let's say 1982, and it wouldn't have mattered, tells me that they are almost angry that the Stones are still alive and performing as a group at a necessarily lower lever than before and in that way showing their mortality. The very existence of the Stones today threatens to destroy the romantic and false image overzealous fans have created in their own minds of the group, and that's why they take their anger out on Keith for the moment. Next time it'll be someone else. Sooner or later also Charlie will be sacrificed. He just have to say or do something stupid and then the heat is on...

Exactly. I find this anger and disappointment that Stones didn't die in 1980 pretty hilarious

Keith could have done it like this





-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Quote
paulywaul

Quote
bustedtrousers
Jumpin' Jeeeeeehosaphat! Are y'all STILL talkin' about this nonsense. 16 pages fer Pete's sake!

The next one a you lilly-livered varmints adds another post is a gonna be dancin' ta muh six-shooters!

What this cartoon character's name, I used to love him ... haven't seen him for ages on the TV ? Boy was he mean with that ole six gun !!

GOT IT ............. Yosemite Sam !! Phew, thank heavens for that, I'd have been thinkin' 'bout that all day !!

"Barte-Sam" (Moustache Sam) in norwegian. Love that guy

Quote
Bärs

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
Bärs
In sports you are compared with athletes in your own age, why not the some degree in music? Every musician and singer gets only worse when you've passed a certain age, but you can still improve in interpretation and maturity

. You are right to some degree, but I think a comparison between athletes and musicians is hard to do. A professional athlete's carrier is practically over after a certain age (say 30-35 years of age). Many musicians, especially jazz musicians, are at their best just a couple a year before they pass away. In Sweden we have the examples of Putte Wickman and Arne Domnérus,two great jazzmusicians who performed very well (and more soulful) even after the age of 80. Another example is Buddy Guy who has passed 76 and still performs very well. I think in keith's case I think that it is his ilnesses and way of life (drugs and so on) that has taken the better of him. Singers though is something different, your comparison is more valid there.

Exactly, and after their prime as youths athlets have their own groups of 45+, 50+ etc. in marathons, tennis tournaments etc. That is, the Stones should be compared to what other rock bands in their 60s are able to do on stadiums, and not with how the Stones were in 1981 or 1972. Every core member in the band is "old", which means that there is always a risk that someone in the band is "off" that night, since it is much harder to recover physically from travelling and performing when your older - even if your pure technical skills are alive and well.

You named a couple of blues and jazz musicians that coped well with age. My point was that Keith actually has moved into that genre and developed as an interpreter, because that "jazzy" genre allows musicians to age way better than stadium rock does. It's hard to grow old gracefully as a rock musician. In fact, you're not supposed to be old at all, you are supposed to die young. That so many posters say that the Stones could have stopped after, let's say 1982, and it wouldn't have mattered, tells me that they are almost angry that the Stones are still alive and performing as a group at a necessarily lower lever than before and in that way showing their mortality. The very existence of the Stones today threatens to destroy the romantic and false image overzealous fans have created in their own minds of the group, and that's why they take their anger out on Keith for the moment. Next time it'll be someone else. Sooner or later also Charlie will be sacrificed. He just have to say or do something stupid and then the heat is on...

Good points but, with respect, Bärs, I think there are some wrong implications. I easily can find myself in that category of fans that would have have them died in 1983 (in retrospect speaking!) but I don't think the case is being any angry now but more like being disappointed and reality-checking.

I think your sports analogy does fit as far as The Stones are seeing as elder sportmen (those semi or whole-retired ex-pros that used to were world-class champions and now continue the sports as a hobby). But the point is that the Stones still see themselves playing in the world series - like it is still is 1966, or 1972 or 1981 or something. They try to paly the young man's game like age never had happend - and most of their audience seem to think alike. They used to compete with The Beatles, then they compete with Led Zeppelin, and now they have competed with U2 for ages now. This, of course, is more to do with Mick Jagger than Keith Richards but however, Keith ´goes "on with the show", and does his share in maintaining the 'bad boy' image of the 60's, and the rock and roll outlaw image of the 70's. He even sacrified his own autobiography to the same game in order to keep up the appearances instead of showing some signs of maturity. Keith knows were the money is.

That is the problem with the Stones. I think for maintaining their competive status as as a pop figure - big audiences, big money, big everything - they have made some horrible sacrificies as far as music and their artistic relevance goes. And with it, they have lost the option to grow up convincingly and proudly.

In 1989 they stopped their creativity and made a product of their past, and they, as we know, have succeeded selling it to the nostalgy hungry masses. It is based on the old image and music they once created, and their function is to reproduce that as authentically as possible. They have hired a million of back musicians to realize this idea or a dream of a legendaric rock and roll band. Jagger works his ass off in order to maintain the idea the people have of Mick Jagger (hats off to Mick for that). They are selling the idea of eternal youth and all the fancy and cool things associated to the name "The Rolling Stones". It is still "Street Fighting Man", "Satisfaction", "Gimme Shelter" like they were still current music. It is in the sense that we we time travel for that little moment to the times when all that really mattered, and The Stones mattered. The Rolling Stones show is like a group hallucination that time doesn't exist. Musically they haven't evolved one bit since 1989 - the same old songs, the same old cliches, the same old iconic stars with the same old gestures. And all covered up with the latest biggest stage gimmicks.

Why to compare to the other acts of their sixties (Dylan, Springsteen, Macca, Young, etc.) if they have decided to not grow up, but desperately maintain the idea of themselves that refers to their twenties, thirties? That they are as 'tough' as ever... The "Best Stones Yet"... To me their act is not like Björn Borg going to senior tennis-tournaments but still trying to reach the finals of Wimbledon. And sometimes, of respect, the other players give him a free pass.

I agree with that the only sign of a bit evolving is Keith with his ballads and interpretation skills, but that is quite minimal part of The Rolling Stones. And still at the same time he pretends to to play the role of the old Keith Richards as the musical dynamo of the band that leads the band with his unique guitar work. Unfortunately there is not much left of that Keith Richards any longer. Just acting according to a role. But because the Stones is backed up up with army of back up musicians, Keith's shortcomings as a guitarist do not ruin the show. Yeah, maybe some shows are better than others (Gothenburg over Helsinki '07) but I think comparing them is.. well... it does not mean anything really... if Keith fbcks up the solo of "Honky Tok Women" or "Sympathy For The Devil" worse one day than other, I think the audience don't give a shit about it. Everybody's "on with the show". Even the journalists should be, as we have seen.

I don't think The Rolling Stones, or any of them individually, even Charlie Watts, is beyond criticism. For "old time's sake" I personally "forgive" a lot of their Las Vegas and Peter Pan/Captain Hook performances, and I go to see some of their shows occasionally just to have fun, meet fellow fans, and be nostalgic. But there is more serious music "critic" in me who loves music passionally and reminds me why I once happened to love this particular band so much, and we have drifted so far from that scene. In sports terms, we have been in "extra time" (after the original game has actually stopped) decades now, and I think this phase of heralding and celebrating the band's great past (the real story of the 60's and 70's) has lasted way too long. I don't even try to compare this post 1989 (or 1994) version of the band to the the 60's/70's band because it is not fair (and it would always flatter the post 1989 re-incarnation by taking it so seriously). I think they are essentially two different things. The musical group called the Rolling Stones that once made history does not exist any longer.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-17 12:48 by Doxa.

Doxa,

I think you are the nostalgic one - not the Stones. You seem like a believer who for the first time discovers that God perhaps is "manmade". I see it this way: The Stones was a product in showbiz from the very beginning. Their image, their looks, their attitude, their manners were all part of selling a product to the masses in order to reach BIG audiences, BIG fame and... BIG amounts of dollars. That is what the Stones are and always was meant to be - nothing more. That the "establishment" made them "evil" helped them to secure their status as rebels for eternity - but it was all about showbiz and selling records and tickets as much as possible. That's why the Stones don't see anything wrong with repeating themselves, it WORKS! Their job is to make money with their product RS, and they have done a tremendous job since 1989, much better than before. It's that simple. If anyone believes that RS really is about politics, @#$%& you mentality, musical legacy etc.., that person has confused the product with reality, and that person will be disillusioned sooner or later. If you watch Rocco Siffredi and then enters a relationship believing that sex is performed like that in real life, you will get disillusioned because the image was confused with reality. The Stones sell a VERY powerful image, but it's only rock'n'roll - and they explicitly said it themselves quite early on in their career.

These facts don't make them dishonest or their art bad or superficial one bit. If you are tired of listening to them or don't want to see them, well stop doing it and explore other music styles. But if are in a crisis because of Keith's book and question your whole life as a Stones fan and everything their music have given you, I think you take them much more seriously than they want anybody to take them. Then it's more a question about you than a question about the Stones. And to make sure: I don't want to come across as offensive in my posts. You have of course every right to your feelings.

If you watch Rocco Siffredi and then enters a relationship believing that sex is performed like that in real life, you will get disillusioned because the image was confused with reality.

But Rocco Siffredi is very much real.
I believe you're a woman, Bärs

I know that Rocco is very real, but his tricks with fruits on the silver screen don't reflect the ordinary sex life in a marriage.

Anyway, we must never forget that everything was not fantastic earlier. I'll take most from Licks tour instead of this - any day:

Really, just compare:

Quote
Bärs
I know that Rocco is very real, but his tricks with fruits on the silver screen don't reflect the ordinary sex life in a marriage.

Anyway, we must never forget that everything was not fantastic earlier. I'll take most from Licks tour instead of this - any day:

<<< Anyway, we must never forget that everything was not fantastic earlier. I'll take most from Licks tour instead of this - any day >>>

Bärs, I completely agree. I've seen this clip in various other threads on IORR where/when the discussion has invariably been about "Stones' eras" and the like. There is this belief held by some that nigh on everything before a certain date was unremittingly fantastic - with no exceptions; and by the same taken - everything after the date in question is worthy of nothing but complete dismissal. Rubbish, they've always swung between the sublime and the appalling ... they did it then and they still do it now.

[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-17 16:24 by paulywaul.

Quote
Bärs
Doxa,

I think you are the nostalgic one - not the Stones. You seem like a believer who for the first time discovers that God perhaps is "manmade". I see it this way: The Stones was a product in showbiz from the very beginning. Their image, their looks, their attitude, their manners were all part of selling a product to the masses in order to reach BIG audiences, BIG fame and... BIG amounts of dollars. That is what the Stones are and always was meant to be - nothing more. That the "establishment" made them "evil" helped them to secure their status as rebels for eternity - but it was all about showbiz and selling records and tickets as much as possible. That's why the Stones don't see anything wrong with repeating themselves, it WORKS! Their job is to make money with their product RS, and they have done a tremendous job since 1989, much better than before. It's that simple. If anyone believes that RS really is about politics, @#$%& you mentality, musical legacy etc.., that person has confused the product with reality, and that person will be disillusioned sooner or later. If you watch Rocco Siffredi and then enters a relationship believing that sex is performed like that in real life, you will get disillusioned because the image was confused with reality. The Stones sell a VERY powerful image, but it's only rock'n'roll - and they explicitly said it themselves quite early on in their career.

These facts don't make them dishonest or their art bad or superficial one bit. If you are tired of listening to them or don't want to see them, well stop doing it and explore other music styles. But if are in a crisis because of Keith's book and question your whole life as a Stones fan and everything their music have given you, I think you take them much more seriously than they want anybody to take them. Then it's more a question about you than a question about the Stones. And to make sure: I don't want to come across as offensive in my posts. You have of course every right to your feelings.

I don' get the point of your post. You seem imply that I am stupid or something. No other comments. @#$%& you too.

- Doxa

Quote
paulywaul

Quote
Bärs
I know that Rocco is very real, but his tricks with fruits on the silver screen don't reflect the ordinary sex life in a marriage.

Anyway, we must never forget that everything was not fantastic earlier. I'll take most from Licks tour instead of this - any day:

<<< Anyway, we must never forget that everything was not fantastic earlier. I'll take most from Licks tour instead of this - any day >>>

Bärs, I completely agree. I've seen this clip in various other threads on IORR where/when the discussion has invariably been about "Stones' eras" and the like. There is this belief held by some that nigh on everything before a certain date was unremittingly fantastic - with no exceptions; and by the same taken - everything after the date in question is worthy of nothing but complete dismissal. Rubbish, they've always swung between the sublime and the appalling ... they did it then and they still do it now.

Okay, smartasses, show me one poster here who actually thinks that everything they did prior, say, 1982, or 1973, or 1969, was always fantastic or they didn't do any mistekes, serious screw ups, etc back then? Now SHOW ME? It sounds like you don't get something crucial the people who are not so fond of the Las Vegas era try to say. Your "counter-examples" are simply ridiculous.

I think one of the main problems in this so called 'Las Vegas era' is that it makes the true legacy so obselete or even forgetten by people (like you two) who think that "it has always been the same". You seem to trivialize the past by claiming it equal to the recent happenings. Like you cannot understand that here is substantive difference between "Street Fighting Man" and "You Got Me Rocking", or how Keith generally played in, say, 1981/82 tour compared to A BIGGER TOUR.

The same anachronism is with Bärs who seem to have a field day for seeing the totally greedy nature of the recent Stones doings and saying hat "it has been always all the same". Yeah, it could have been but what does it matter? What matters is the product (with which they try to maximise their profits). I don't care about their incomes or motivations, all I care is the product what they have to offer. And there is the problem as far as I am concerned. I don' care a fbvk wjat is their motivation in doing that. I just care the result. And as a fan and a critic I judge the result. It is finally all that matters.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-17 18:13 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

I don' get the point of your post. You seem imply that I am stupid or something. No other comments. @#$%& you too.

- Doxa

Come on, I don't think he was offensive at all!

For the sake of discussion, you indirectly consider me part of a "nostalgy hungry mass", because I truly do like the MUSIC they play, and the show they put on. So what next?

I see it as fact that, as far as rock and roll goes, the Stones despite their age are still in the major league and I truly don't see anything wrong in how the stones aged. They all have their side projects, they have their lives out of the Stones, but they still love rock and roll. And the Stones still are class A rock and roll!

C

To better clarify my post above, I make two examples: Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd.

Formally both bands don't exist anymore. One, Led Zeppelin, because the lead Robert Plant is plainly not interetsed in that kind of music any more. PF because of mere internal contrasts (both Waters and Gilmour run their own Pink Floyd bands). When these contrsast were put a side for a short moment, Live 8, the magic was still intact.

I see the Stones as a bunch of individuals that are still able to set aside their personal issues and find a way to enyoy something that they all deep down love: play rock and roll.

C

Quote
liddas
For the sake of discussion, you indirectly consider me part of a "nostalgy hungry mass", because I truly do like the MUSIC they play, and the show they put on. So what next?

C

Well, I consider myself be one of those "nostalgy hungry masses" too. But there is another side in me who tries to be more objective about what is going on. If theren't a big passionate Rolling Stones fan in me, I wouldn't be here writing about them. But when I write them I try to say something more reflective. I simply just try to analysize what I find so great them and what not so great. Maybe I do that further than many other here do but that's because I like it; that's my hobby.

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
You seem to trivialize the past by claiming it equal to the recent happenings. Like you cannot understand that here is substantive difference between "Street Fighting Man" and "You Got Me Rocking", or how Keith generally played in, say, 1981/82 tour compared to A BIGGER TOUR.

The same anachronism is with Bärs who seem to have a field day for seeing the totally greedy nature of the recent Stones doings and saying hat "it has been always all the same". Yeah, it could have been but what does it matter? What matters is the product (with which they try to maximise their profits). I don't care about their incomes or motivations, all I care is the product what they have to offer.

You glorify the past and think that they somehow "mattered" earlier. I don't believe that other than on a very individual level, as always. The average person 1968 cared probably zero about some wanna be revolutionaries in Paris digging SFM. And now you criticize them for playing SFM, a song many think "mattered". But when they play a new song like YGMR you don't like it, and say it's not even near SFM in greatness. What are they really supposed to do? Apologize to you for not being able to repeatedly come up with the likes of BS, JJF, S, GS, SFM in a career spanning 50 years? Die?

Their income depends on the product. Every tour from SW to present have been huge financial successes, which mean that their product is absolutely perfect. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Every single act out there is trying to maximize profit, and that's the reason why we have a band called The Rolling Stones in the first place. They didn't record BB, LIB, SF etc. for love of the art or charity. Their earnings show that they ARE in biggest leage there is, they don't have to pretend anything. Do you have a problem with commercial succesful enterprises?

Quote
paulywaul

Quote
bustedtrousers
Jumpin' Jeeeeeehosaphat! Are y'all STILL talkin' about this nonsense. 16 pages fer Pete's sake!

The next one a you lilly-livered varmints adds another post is a gonna be dancin' ta muh six-shooters!

What this cartoon character's name, I used to love him ... haven't seen him for ages on the TV ? Boy was he mean with that ole six gun !!

GOT IT ............. Yosemite Sam !! Phew, thank heavens for that, I'd have been thinkin' 'bout that all day !!

Thought his name was Billy Gibbons.

Quote
Bärs
Doxa,

I think you are the nostalgic one - not the Stones. You seem like a believer who for the first time discovers that God perhaps is "manmade". I see it this way: The Stones was a product in showbiz from the very beginning. Their image, their looks, their attitude, their manners were all part of selling a product to the masses in order to reach BIG audiences, BIG fame and... BIG amounts of dollars. That is what the Stones are and always was meant to be - nothing more. That the "establishment" made them "evil" helped them to secure their status as rebels for eternity - but it was all about showbiz and selling records and tickets as much as possible. That's why the Stones don't see anything wrong with repeating themselves, it WORKS! Their job is to make money with their product RS, and they have done a tremendous job since 1989, much better than before. It's that simple. If anyone believes that RS really is about politics, @#$%& you mentality, musical legacy etc.., that person has confused the product with reality, and that person will be disillusioned sooner or later. If you watch Rocco Siffredi and then enters a relationship believing that sex is performed like that in real life, you will get disillusioned because the image was confused with reality. The Stones sell a VERY powerful image, but it's only rock'n'roll - and they explicitly said it themselves quite early on in their career.

These facts don't make them dishonest or their art bad or superficial one bit. If you are tired of listening to them or don't want to see them, well stop doing it and explore other music styles. But if are in a crisis because of Keith's book and question your whole life as a Stones fan and everything their music have given you, I think you take them much more seriously than they want anybody to take them. Then it's more a question about you than a question about the Stones. And to make sure: I don't want to come across as offensive in my posts. You have of course every right to your feelings.

I do and don't agree with you, Bärs. I do agree that at one time a lot of fans were eager to think that the Stones shared their anti-establishment political agendas, when in fact they (mostly) just wanted to play their music and get paid for it. The "Satanic and Rebellious" image was something they acquired almost accidentally, but once they saw how useful it could be they kept it, long after they had lost whatever real interest they ever had in satanism or revolution.

On the other hand, I think it took a long time for the band to become only a money-making machine (if in fact they have...). As I said in the first paragraph, at first they just wanted to play their music and do their thing - and in order to do that effectively they had to get paid enough to carry on. Bear in mind that in the 60s they had keen and greedy managers pushing them and taking their slice (in Klein's case a very big slice) of the profits, after paying huge sums in UK taxes - and they also believed that their "pop" career would be over very quickly, so they needed to make the money while they could - they thought two or three years' earnings might have to last them the rest of their lives.

However, I think you are mistaken to believe that they were always and only about money right from the beginning of their careers. Whatever happened later, at first money was simply the means to carry on doing what they wanted to do - making music. The fact that they were very skilful manipulators of their image from their earliest days together doesn't mean that there was nothing real behind it at all, though perhaps there was less than some of their politically-motivated fans might have wished.

If all Stones would have stopped in 1974 they forever would have had the same status as the Beatles, Bach and Mozart in music. But now people use artistically rather weak arguments like "Their earnings show that they ARE in biggest leage there is, they don't have to pretend anything. Do you have a problem with commercial succesful enterprises?" Musically they exist in name only. People are interested in them because of their glorious past, because they're a living legend from the famous 60ties and early 70ties. As simple as that.

Would you rather have a dead legend? I wouldn't.

Of course I don't wish them to be 'dead legends'. You're putting my words totally out of their context.

As for your remark "though perhaps there was less than some of their politically-motivated fans might have wished": I've never met such a fan neither was/am I myself such a fan. They surely had something to do with the Zeitgeist of the 60ties and early 70ties, but at a cultural level. Never at a political level. Actually they were politically more outspoken in their last period: Sweet Neo Con comes to mind.

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
Bärs
Doxa,

I think you are the nostalgic one - not the Stones. You seem like a believer who for the first time discovers that God perhaps is "manmade". I see it this way: The Stones was a product in showbiz from the very beginning. Their image, their looks, their attitude, their manners were all part of selling a product to the masses in order to reach BIG audiences, BIG fame and... BIG amounts of dollars. That is what the Stones are and always was meant to be - nothing more. That the "establishment" made them "evil" helped them to secure their status as rebels for eternity - but it was all about showbiz and selling records and tickets as much as possible. That's why the Stones don't see anything wrong with repeating themselves, it WORKS! Their job is to make money with their product RS, and they have done a tremendous job since 1989, much better than before. It's that simple. If anyone believes that RS really is about politics, @#$%& you mentality, musical legacy etc.., that person has confused the product with reality, and that person will be disillusioned sooner or later. If you watch Rocco Siffredi and then enters a relationship believing that sex is performed like that in real life, you will get disillusioned because the image was confused with reality. The Stones sell a VERY powerful image, but it's only rock'n'roll - and they explicitly said it themselves quite early on in their career.

These facts don't make them dishonest or their art bad or superficial one bit. If you are tired of listening to them or don't want to see them, well stop doing it and explore other music styles. But if are in a crisis because of Keith's book and question your whole life as a Stones fan and everything their music have given you, I think you take them much more seriously than they want anybody to take them. Then it's more a question about you than a question about the Stones. And to make sure: I don't want to come across as offensive in my posts. You have of course every right to your feelings.

I do and don't agree with you, Bärs. I do agree that at one time a lot of fans were eager to think that the Stones shared their anti-establishment political agendas, when in fact they (mostly) just wanted to play their music and get paid for it. The "Satanic and Rebellious" image was something they acquired almost accidentally, but once they saw how useful it could be they kept it, long after they had lost whatever real interest they ever had in satanism or revolution.

On the other hand, I think it took a long time for the band to become only a money-making machine (if in fact they have...). As I said in the first paragraph, at first they just wanted to play their music and do their thing - and in order to do that effectively they had to get paid enough to carry on. Bear in mind that in the 60s they had keen and greedy managers pushing them and taking their slice (in Klein's case a very big slice) of the profits, after paying huge sums in UK taxes - and they also believed that their "pop" career would be over very quickly, so they needed to make the money while they could - they thought two or three years' earnings might have to last them the rest of their lives.

However, I think you are mistaken to believe that they were always and only about money right from the beginning of their careers. Whatever happened later, at first money was simply the means to carry on doing what they wanted to do - making music. The fact that they were very skilful manipulators of their image from their earliest days together doesn't mean that there was nothing real behind it at all, though perhaps there was less than some of their politically-motivated fans might have wished.

Two very good posts. There is no doubt that the Stones were born from a deep love and devotion to music. Fame came pretty fast, and they went along for the ride, as Green Lady describes it in part. Seems like everyone adopted them along the way for their own reasons, and forces were at play beyond their control. Those who don't want to reconcile themselves to reality can stick to their ill bred adoption, but you'd be better served by enjoying the music, and that includes some very good songs released since Tattoo You.

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
Bärs
Doxa,

I think you are the nostalgic one - not the Stones. You seem like a believer who for the first time discovers that God perhaps is "manmade". I see it this way: The Stones was a product in showbiz from the very beginning. Their image, their looks, their attitude, their manners were all part of selling a product to the masses in order to reach BIG audiences, BIG fame and... BIG amounts of dollars. That is what the Stones are and always was meant to be - nothing more. That the "establishment" made them "evil" helped them to secure their status as rebels for eternity - but it was all about showbiz and selling records and tickets as much as possible. That's why the Stones don't see anything wrong with repeating themselves, it WORKS! Their job is to make money with their product RS, and they have done a tremendous job since 1989, much better than before. It's that simple. If anyone believes that RS really is about politics, @#$%& you mentality, musical legacy etc.., that person has confused the product with reality, and that person will be disillusioned sooner or later. If you watch Rocco Siffredi and then enters a relationship believing that sex is performed like that in real life, you will get disillusioned because the image was confused with reality. The Stones sell a VERY powerful image, but it's only rock'n'roll - and they explicitly said it themselves quite early on in their career.

These facts don't make them dishonest or their art bad or superficial one bit. If you are tired of listening to them or don't want to see them, well stop doing it and explore other music styles. But if are in a crisis because of Keith's book and question your whole life as a Stones fan and everything their music have given you, I think you take them much more seriously than they want anybody to take them. Then it's more a question about you than a question about the Stones. And to make sure: I don't want to come across as offensive in my posts. You have of course every right to your feelings.

I do and don't agree with you, Bärs. I do agree that at one time a lot of fans were eager to think that the Stones shared their anti-establishment political agendas, when in fact they (mostly) just wanted to play their music and get paid for it. The "Satanic and Rebellious" image was something they acquired almost accidentally, but once they saw how useful it could be they kept it, long after they had lost whatever real interest they ever had in satanism or revolution.

On the other hand, I think it took a long time for the band to become only a money-making machine (if in fact they have...). As I said in the first paragraph, at first they just wanted to play their music and do their thing - and in order to do that effectively they had to get paid enough to carry on. Bear in mind that in the 60s they had keen and greedy managers pushing them and taking their slice (in Klein's case a very big slice) of the profits, after paying huge sums in UK taxes - and they also believed that their "pop" career would be over very quickly, so they needed to make the money while they could - they thought two or three years' earnings might have to last them the rest of their lives.

However, I think you are mistaken to believe that they were always and only about money right from the beginning of their careers. Whatever happened later, at first money was simply the means to carry on doing what they wanted to do - making music. The fact that they were very skilful manipulators of their image from their earliest days together doesn't mean that there was nothing real behind it at all, though perhaps there was less than some of their politically-motivated fans might have wished.

Thanks for the input.

What I mean is that the showbiz/entertainment industry is profit driven as everything else. (To me that's only a positive thing because it motivates creativity.) A band product involves a lot of people: record companies, management, PR-people, studio staff, side musicians (very important in RS history), tour staff etc. besides the band. The band members on the posters are really only one part of it. When an artist or band is created and marketed the whole point is to be commercially succesful. That is not a choice the band can make, they HAVE to be commercially successful in order to survive in the business. To call this elementary fact "greed" is just naive.

One time rock music was the new thing. It "mattered" because it was new. Those day the Stones blues based rock music was the flavour of the month. Those years passed fairly quickly and the Stones had to adapt to musical styles, with perhaps not so good results (IORR, BAB ). Doxa pointed out once that they were saved by the bell as early as in the mid 70s by the punk movement, and perhaps made them "matter" for a little while again (the summer of Some Girls which was played "everywhere" ). But that's it. What "matters" are decided by external factors that are much more complex than it could be controlled by a rock band.
When RS acquired their bad boy image, which was intended but also accidentally reinforced, their image was not in their control any more. Keith could open the world's largest home for abandoned kittens, and he would still forever be a mad man in the tabloids and talk shows. Mick has been an unstoppable social climber all his life, but RS's counter culture image did not suffer. (A street fighting man begging to be knighted by the queen? Well, why not.) Everybody seems to have made their own mythical RS which has little to do with who they actually are.

There is a myth that commercial success equals bad art. That's wrong, without the possibilty of commercial success there would be no good art at all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-17 21:10 by Bärs.