For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Bärs
they said that Keith's numbers (and Charlies drum solo) was the best part.
. 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
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
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.Quote
mickijaggerooQuote
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.
Quote
Stoneage. 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
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
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!
Quote
BärsQuote
Stoneage. 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
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
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
paulywaulQuote
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 !!
Quote
BärsQuote
Stoneage. 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
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
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
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:
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.
Quote
paulywaulQuote
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.
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
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
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.
Quote
paulywaulQuote
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 !!
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.
Quote
Green LadyQuote
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.
Quote
Green LadyQuote
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.