Tell Me :
Talk
They already are bigger than The Beatles and everybody else, especially because they´ve managed to be around so long. Mozart and Bach?? Far off, totally irrelevant, imo. No use in comparing. No rock musician could ever be justfully compared with those geniouses.
It's almost like a preconceived ideology:
1963-1983:
Authenticity
Cultural importance
Art matters
Constant progress
High musical level
Music more important than show
No side musicians
Fantastic songs
1989-2010:
Las Vegas
Only money matters
Hypocrisity
Musical senile
Only side musicians play
Only the show matters, not the music
Shit songs
I KNOW that reality is much more complex than this. It's actually sad that half of the bands existence is viewed that badly by some.
Do you have a problem with commercial succesful enterprises
Do you have a problem with commercial succesful enterprises
Do you have a problem with commercial succesful enterprises
Do you have a problem with commercial succesful enterprises
Do you have a problem with commercial succesful enterprises
Do you have a problem with commercial succesful enterprises
Wow, finally you show your true color (even though it's not a surprise to me, as you might have guessed.)
Go on, Sweet neo con- Bärs, tell us more of your political/economical agenda. Share it all here once you started.
It is you who comes up with confusing political and social dimensions to the discussion because that is the point that seemingly pisses you off. That rock and roll or The Stones would have some other significance than a pure old time show business. It pisses you off because for you the only significance it is that you can [now starts sarcasm] with your big wallet entertain yourself, pick up your family, friends, and their children, and your neighbours, and their children, to a Rolling Stones concert, have few beers, and that's it [end of sarcasm]. And because that is the only significance you can think the 'product' have, you - naturally - project that to all to their doings, since the day one. Then you are, justily, pissed off if one Swedish journalist gives two of five stars, and dares even critizise the Biggest Money Machine Show Business Ever Seen (you cannot argue with that money; A BIBBER BANG TOUR is the best grossing tour ever = the best tour ever). And I guess it pisses you off to see Doxa and the rest here at IORR critizise this wonderful enterprise with their nostalgic and naive arguments, right?
I can see that the political and economical things does bother you - and especially the revolutionary sceneries related to late-60's (a'la "Street Fighting Man", "Gimme Shelter"). But you make a serious fallacy if you cannot seperate the music and its artistic qualities from its social-political surroundings (no matter how much they are inspired or motivated the music or whatever). When alking about the "significance" or "mattering" or "being relavant" does not need to refer to some socio-political dimension. Great art lives in the world of its own. The only way is not to trivialize the musical content - the art, the substance - in the favor of one-track capitalism (as you do). You sound like The Stones music doesn't matter at all by its own artistic terms, and you make the Stones sound like them being some kind of whores doing anýthing to get as much bucks as possible.
I can only guess how much my rantings here along the years might have pissed you off.
But I like you, Bärs. I think we have just getting started!
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-17 22:44 by Doxa.
Quite a good summary. Sounds almost like someone has listened carefully my words here.
>
<
- Doxa
The point taken. Sorry for going OT (my bad habit).
- Doxa
You really think I am stupid, right? That I think that "commercial art" is "bad" art? Not even that I consider "Satisafction" to be the best single The Stones ever have done, and knowing that it is also their best sold single. That I consider SOME GIRLS to be one of their best albums, and what is their best sold studio album ever. But I also think that BEGGARS BANQUET is way better album than VOODOO lOUNGE even though it has sold much less. I can not understand why the commerciality an sich has to be such an issue for you - or how come it be such a big criteria for art to bad or good after-all. That seems to some kind obsession for you. Not for me. What I don't like Vegas tours and the albums made during it is the lack of inspiration and the artistic quality. That's my concern. They used to be succesfull both in commercial terms and artistic terms. But like I argumented before, they sacrified the latter to maintain the former. In many many posts and discussions here I have talked about and tried to figure out what really happened in the 80's (or from late 70's on). If you look my post history this is almost a constant theme there.
The way you are describing myself as a "believer who lost his faith on God" or that I "finally see the Stones as a commercial product" and due that my "entire world is falling apart" that is as pejoritive offending-intended psychological bullshit as it can be. Sherlock Holmes meets Sigmund Freud. I don't think my view of The Stones hasn't really changed for many, many years. I have never - or as far as I now remember - had any illusions of the nature of their game. The only thing that LIFE affected me was seeing what a small person as a human Keith actually is, and how horribly he is a prisoner of his own role and myth. Seemingly you are making too many wrong implications of my criticism of that book. But what does it really matter? In my books, that very book is just one more Vegas Era artifact, and nothing more. It didn't change at all the way I see the Stones. Before or after 1983. Beprhaps best it did was to be more empathic to Jagger and others after seeing how self-centric and phony Keith actually is. But "Gimme Shelter" sounds as majestic to my ears as it has always had. And Vegas era DVDs still bores me to hell.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-18 01:12 by Doxa.
You are a victim for your own propaganda. You keep repeating Las Vegas (which seems to be a name for Hell in your world) in post after post for everything after 1989. The description itself is a negative statement but is put forward like it was a fact, which is propagandistic. I think you should abandon the term and use a neutral description instead. It's almost an elitist attitude which blends well with your dislike of The Stones playing their older classics for the masses.
Las Vegas actually started on the front cover of their first album where they tried to have an attitude, while at the same time writing That Girl Belongs to Yesterday without have the courage ro release it themselves since it would distract from their image. Then they finally became pop stars, then devils, then decandent, then punks. It's been an easygoing show for the masses all the time. Just like on organism in evolution, The Stones have changed when they have had to change in order to survive. There is no selection pressure at the moment and that's why they don't change. An organism that doesn't change is living in harmony with the environment, and that is what The Stones do. Now they can really do what they were created to do: make money through music.
It's very safe to have a romantic view of the past because there is no possibility to be disappointed. You were not there in the arenas and stadiums in the 70s or 81-82, right? It's very likely that you would have been hugely disappointed even then and actually repeated the same criticism as you put forward today: only show, just money, poor new songs, stage gimmicks, weak guitar sound, Keith is lost, an army of side musicians etc.
Post of the week 
[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]
Oh boy, how seriously you seem to take this "Vegas" term. It is a funny, sarcastic term created here at IORR (I don't know who used it first, it could have been me, but I'm not sure), and there is not even an exact meaning or reference. But as a term it has some strong explanatory value because quite many have found it quite useful one to describe certain happenings in recent years or decades. It is a term of IORRean folklore basically.
I am not sure of its reference or applicability (there is even a thread about it), and like I have described I cannot even determine when it actually took place. As I mentioned in some thread a while ago that 1989/90 tour was a natural step of progress or change in the Stones evolution that was always typical or even a norm for them as an 60's act (and not like some 70's acts - like KISS or AC/BC etc - that had only one idea or concept they would use thorought their career.) Thereby one cannot "blame" STEEL WHEELS tour for the things that happend after it - that it set the formula on which base The Stones would go on forever. This is a hindsight. The "Las Vegas Era" was process that started in 1989 - or maybe from Jagger's solo tour where the new concept of teh Rolling Sones show was created - but recognizing its existence needed a decade or so. Personally by BRIDGES TO BABYLON TOUR I had the 'insight' that "we are repeating the same old formula here", this can last forever but does not leading nowhere, and adding anything. Then I lost my interest in The Rolling Stones and stopped thinking them as a "living and breathing band" (and maybe without IORR or net over-all I might be now an ex-Rolling Stones fan). . By LICKS TOUR I had come to terms with the nature of the band a semi-retired nostalgy package, that exists musically as a kind of show product of huge a business enterprise. I accepted it, and took the celebration mood: travel the world, see some shows, meet fellow Stones fans and have fun. I tried the same with LICKS TOUR 2, aka, A BIGGER BANG TOUR but honestly, I first time ever got bored or didn't feel good in a Rolling Stones concert. The thrill of seeing my old heroes alive "one more time" didn't compensate the lack of real musical thrill - to use your vocabulary - Brezhnevien state of affairs. Seeing Keith in such a bad state (as a musician) almost made my heart cry.
So I am spreading "propaganda" and "pre-conceived ideology" (my god, you live in a political word) - oh boy, you are flattering me. Am I really such a big authority that you need to start rebelling like a little boy to get attention or self-esteem? Aw, c'mon. There is room for differing opinions - always has have - but you don't need to get your point be heard by attacking me. There are many discussions going on in his board by many people with whom you could share your substantive views on things. Talking for example reasons why the Stones are seeing doing an artistic downhill or not. This is basically bloody bullhit meta-talk you and I are doing here and making this thread OT.
If your world is shaken by some hardcore Rolling Stones fans people using half-jokingly a term "Vegas" at Rolling Stones discussion board, oh my god... Would you be happy if I really take it out of my vocabulary and behave POLITICALLY CORRECT from then on? Bloody hell this board would be a boring place if cencors and language policemen like you could rule it.
Lastly for the censorship: never mind some stupid term; more threatening is the demand you do here:
Here you ste that if judging music is based on "personal taste" (who has ever claimed otherwise???) That one can not talk about it, and for example, analysize why one happens to like - or not - something? Incredible! You seem to imply that criticism or reviewing over-all is supposed to not base at all to personal taste (that as you might now could be developed, etc.). What you are implying that art is a kind of sphere where discussion of its intrinsic value is not allowed. That's scarey.
(What goes for your last sentence that is so naive that I guess you ashamed alredy by yourself. It is a type of inference the logicians would call recuctio ad absurdum.)
With respect,
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-18 12:17 by Doxa.
I don't know about that: all those eras are in my room: I have documents all over over them, bootlegs, official releases, etc. That's the material I make judgments about. That a concert took place in New York 1969 or New York 2002 is just equal to me. That is basically the evidence and source from the base I make my judgments.
(But if my own personal involvement in some era is asked, well - I had the pleasure to witness one absulutely great era under which I was caught by this band. In the early 80's The Stones were really a cool band, all the danger and mysticism still involved. That was the time when Keith Richards was recognized as the greatest rock and roll hero of all-time, including his low-profile unique attitide towards musicianship and playing the guitar (without the punk movement that wouldn't have veen noticed). Keith and Woodie duo defined what rock and roll guitarism is all about. Even Jagger was still somehow relevant in his cockiness and edgyness. They weren't any caricatoons yet. TATTOO YOU and "Start Me Up" was played everywhere, simply because they were goddamn great music. Now I am nostalgic)
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-18 14:03 by Doxa.
I can see your point but as an analysis I see that way too thin. You take way too simple factors to describe the happenings. Basically or in one level I wholeheartidly agree with anything you say. But there is something more - another level - that I find more crucial to describe in The Rolling Stones and in their history; that takes the outcome, the product at face-value. The music, The quality of it. You can explain their behavior from your explanatory basis but if that had been the whole story I would have never been interested in talking about The Stones, for example, in this forum for ages. It is the quality factor that makes me passionate Rolling Stones fan. To repeat myself: I don't care the motivation - what makes Mick, Keith and the "boys" - to make music or to perform (be it money, boreness, fun, muse, inner drive, an addiction being adolareted, drugs, following the trends, copying with the trends, etc.), That's not my business (well, I can somtimes make theories or guesses of it but that is not important really). I just judge the outcome, the result what they do. That is my business. That is where my passion is. To simplify with examples: sometimes they happen to produce great music in their way to cope with the trends ("Paint It Black", "Miss You") and sometimes not ("Rock and A Hard Place", "Anybody Seen My Love"). Of course, it interests me why the the quality of their work so dramatically collapsed during the 80's (as I and many others seem to think alike). We have some great discussions of that here at IORR from the base "what happened and why". It might irriate you, but sorry, that is the way we see the scene.
If you can't see any change happening in the quality of their output along the years, well you can't. To me it is not all the same. I am not a relativist.
- Doxa
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-18 14:00 by Doxa.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Keith kicks out Swedish journalist Markus Larsson
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: November 17, 2010 21:13
Quote
kleermaker
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.
They already are bigger than The Beatles and everybody else, especially because they´ve managed to be around so long. Mozart and Bach?? Far off, totally irrelevant, imo. No use in comparing. No rock musician could ever be justfully compared with those geniouses.
Re: Keith kicks out Swedish journalist Markus Larsson
Posted by:
Bärs
()
Date: November 17, 2010 21:21
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.
It's almost like a preconceived ideology:
1963-1983:
Authenticity
Cultural importance
Art matters
Constant progress
High musical level
Music more important than show
No side musicians
Fantastic songs
1989-2010:
Las Vegas
Only money matters
Hypocrisity
Musical senile
Only side musicians play
Only the show matters, not the music
Shit songs
I KNOW that reality is much more complex than this. It's actually sad that half of the bands existence is viewed that badly by some.
Re: Keith kicks out Swedish journalist Markus Larsson
Posted by:
mattty973
()
Date: November 17, 2010 21:39
I cannot believe some people on this board! The stones are amazing and I first saw them in the voodoo era and still these concerts ( plus btb tour ) are my favorites! It's only natural to like the first stuff that grabbed your heart the best! I think that the stones have produced magic and crap since the beginning! More magic at the start but still great stuff now and then!
Re: Keith kicks out Swedish journalist Markus Larsson
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: November 17, 2010 21:42
BTW, does anybody know what happened to the Swedish journalist Markus Larsson ???
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: Keith kicks out Swedish journalist Markus Larsson
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: November 17, 2010 22:02
Nothing happened to him, Hansie. His back in Stockholm, probably on his way to a Håkan Hellström concert (his favourite indie-artist [kind of a Morrissey-epigon]) as we speak.
Re: Keith kicks out Swedish journalist Markus Larsson
Posted by:
mattty973
()
Date: November 17, 2010 22:08
Mr Larsson is a simple sod you can tell watching the interview.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-17 22:09 by mattty973.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-17 22:09 by mattty973.
Re: Keith kicks out Swedish journalist Markus Larsson
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: November 17, 2010 22:30
He is back in Stockholm (or he's) I meant to say, not his. Sometimes my "swenglish" goes bad!
Re: Keith kicks out Swedish journalist Markus Larsson
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 17, 2010 22:36
Quote
BärsQuote
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?
Do you have a problem with commercial succesful enterprises
Do you have a problem with commercial succesful enterprises
Do you have a problem with commercial succesful enterprises
Do you have a problem with commercial succesful enterprises
Do you have a problem with commercial succesful enterprises
Do you have a problem with commercial succesful enterprises
Wow, finally you show your true color (even though it's not a surprise to me, as you might have guessed.)
Go on, Sweet neo con- Bärs, tell us more of your political/economical agenda. Share it all here once you started.
It is you who comes up with confusing political and social dimensions to the discussion because that is the point that seemingly pisses you off. That rock and roll or The Stones would have some other significance than a pure old time show business. It pisses you off because for you the only significance it is that you can [now starts sarcasm] with your big wallet entertain yourself, pick up your family, friends, and their children, and your neighbours, and their children, to a Rolling Stones concert, have few beers, and that's it [end of sarcasm]. And because that is the only significance you can think the 'product' have, you - naturally - project that to all to their doings, since the day one. Then you are, justily, pissed off if one Swedish journalist gives two of five stars, and dares even critizise the Biggest Money Machine Show Business Ever Seen (you cannot argue with that money; A BIBBER BANG TOUR is the best grossing tour ever = the best tour ever). And I guess it pisses you off to see Doxa and the rest here at IORR critizise this wonderful enterprise with their nostalgic and naive arguments, right?
I can see that the political and economical things does bother you - and especially the revolutionary sceneries related to late-60's (a'la "Street Fighting Man", "Gimme Shelter"). But you make a serious fallacy if you cannot seperate the music and its artistic qualities from its social-political surroundings (no matter how much they are inspired or motivated the music or whatever). When alking about the "significance" or "mattering" or "being relavant" does not need to refer to some socio-political dimension. Great art lives in the world of its own. The only way is not to trivialize the musical content - the art, the substance - in the favor of one-track capitalism (as you do). You sound like The Stones music doesn't matter at all by its own artistic terms, and you make the Stones sound like them being some kind of whores doing anýthing to get as much bucks as possible.
I can only guess how much my rantings here along the years might have pissed you off.
But I like you, Bärs. I think we have just getting started!
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-17 22:44 by Doxa.
Re: Keith kicks out Swedish journalist Markus Larsson
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 17, 2010 22:42
Quote
Bärs
1963-1983:
Authenticity
Cultural importance
Art matters
Constant progress
High musical level
Music more important than show
No side musicians
Fantastic songs
1989-2010:
Las Vegas
Only money matters
Hypocrisity
Musical senile
Only side musicians play
Only the show matters, not the music
Shit songs
Quite a good summary. Sounds almost like someone has listened carefully my words here.
><- Doxa
Re: Keith kicks out Swedish journalist Markus Larsson
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: November 17, 2010 23:07
Thanks for your reply Stoneage.
I was just trying to get this thread back on track
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
I was just trying to get this thread back on track
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: Keith kicks out Swedish journalist Markus Larsson
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 18, 2010 00:23
Quote
Rolling Hansie
Thanks for your reply Stoneage.
I was just trying to get this thread back on track
The point taken. Sorry for going OT (my bad habit
).- Doxa
Re: Keith kicks out Swedish journalist Markus Larsson
Posted by:
Bärs
()
Date: November 18, 2010 00:27
Doxa,
the one who is pissed is you - that's quite clear. It's also quite clear right now that you subscribe on the misconception that "commercial" art is "bad" art. That's what I meant when I said you are like a believer who's starting to doubt the existence of God. When you finally see the commercial product "The Rolling Stones", which is what RS always was, your entire world is falling apart. Suddenly everything Keith does is about "greed", despite the fact that he bought his own country mansion when he was 22 years old and has lived in luxure completely distanced from ordinary people since then. (Actually he became an Elvis very quickly, living with his dope and hanger ons - isolated from the real world.)
If you with "music that matters" mean "music that I think is good" then I completely follow you. The problem with that is that taste is personal. If their recent output doesn't matter to you, it can matter to someone else. If you are angry that they can't write classics today as they once did, I suggest that you share some of your own masterpieces with them to help restore the balance.
If you think someone is a whore when he's trying to create a selling product, that goes for you. Fact is that The Stones have followed every trend there is. They played black soul and R&B when it was popular. They quickly became a pop band when they had to. They suddenly changed to a "hard rock" band with distorted guitars and long guitar solos. After that they changed to punk, reggae, world music, synth, rap etc. whenever they had to to stay contemporary. That's how you survive in the business, by adaption to new markets and audiences. The stage show was there right in the 70s with the cock and all that. It's nothing new. In the 90s VL and B2B got radioplay and songs from those albums were often highlights during the shows. Licks was a nostalgia tour because they celebrated 40 years as a band. But they did it with style and dusted off a lot of songs and were creative with the three stage concept. The last tour could have been more focused on the new album, but since the whole album concept is out of time nowadays I can understand that they played more classics. After all, more people would say "Damned, they didn't play Satisfaction and HTW" than "Damned, they didn't play Biggest Mistake and Sweet Neo Con".
Since the golden era must have ended with Undercover 1983 and the senile era was planned 1988, there were only a few years for this extremely profound change to take place that replaced the true Rolling Stones you love with the Vegas act you loathe. That is simply not possible. Your perception of The Stones and their members is not balanced. You should ask yourself why you have this need to almost torture yourself by categorizing their career into two very simplified eras.
To remind you: I don't write these posts in order to disturb you or anyone else. Since you've - voluntarily I suppose - written many posts about your perception of The Stones on this message board I won't apologize for criticising that perception. You can take criticism right? You're not a.... primadonna?
the one who is pissed is you - that's quite clear. It's also quite clear right now that you subscribe on the misconception that "commercial" art is "bad" art. That's what I meant when I said you are like a believer who's starting to doubt the existence of God. When you finally see the commercial product "The Rolling Stones", which is what RS always was, your entire world is falling apart. Suddenly everything Keith does is about "greed", despite the fact that he bought his own country mansion when he was 22 years old and has lived in luxure completely distanced from ordinary people since then. (Actually he became an Elvis very quickly, living with his dope and hanger ons - isolated from the real world.)
If you with "music that matters" mean "music that I think is good" then I completely follow you. The problem with that is that taste is personal. If their recent output doesn't matter to you, it can matter to someone else. If you are angry that they can't write classics today as they once did, I suggest that you share some of your own masterpieces with them to help restore the balance.
If you think someone is a whore when he's trying to create a selling product, that goes for you. Fact is that The Stones have followed every trend there is. They played black soul and R&B when it was popular. They quickly became a pop band when they had to. They suddenly changed to a "hard rock" band with distorted guitars and long guitar solos. After that they changed to punk, reggae, world music, synth, rap etc. whenever they had to to stay contemporary. That's how you survive in the business, by adaption to new markets and audiences. The stage show was there right in the 70s with the cock and all that. It's nothing new. In the 90s VL and B2B got radioplay and songs from those albums were often highlights during the shows. Licks was a nostalgia tour because they celebrated 40 years as a band. But they did it with style and dusted off a lot of songs and were creative with the three stage concept. The last tour could have been more focused on the new album, but since the whole album concept is out of time nowadays I can understand that they played more classics. After all, more people would say "Damned, they didn't play Satisfaction and HTW" than "Damned, they didn't play Biggest Mistake and Sweet Neo Con".
Since the golden era must have ended with Undercover 1983 and the senile era was planned 1988, there were only a few years for this extremely profound change to take place that replaced the true Rolling Stones you love with the Vegas act you loathe. That is simply not possible. Your perception of The Stones and their members is not balanced. You should ask yourself why you have this need to almost torture yourself by categorizing their career into two very simplified eras.
To remind you: I don't write these posts in order to disturb you or anyone else. Since you've - voluntarily I suppose - written many posts about your perception of The Stones on this message board I won't apologize for criticising that perception. You can take criticism right? You're not a.... primadonna?
Re: Keith kicks out Swedish journalist Markus Larsson
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 18, 2010 01:07
Quote
Bärs
Doxa,
the one who is pissed is you - that's quite clear. It's also quite clear right now that you subscribe on the misconception that "commercial" art is "bad" art. That's what I meant when I said you are like a believer who's starting to doubt the existence of God. When you finally see the commercial product "The Rolling Stones", which is what RS always was, your entire world is falling apart. Suddenly everything Keith does is about "greed", despite the fact that he bought his own country mansion when he was 22 years old and has lived in luxure completely distanced from ordinary people since then. (Actually he became an Elvis very quickly, living with his dope and hanger ons - isolated from the real world.)
You really think I am stupid, right? That I think that "commercial art" is "bad" art? Not even that I consider "Satisafction" to be the best single The Stones ever have done, and knowing that it is also their best sold single. That I consider SOME GIRLS to be one of their best albums, and what is their best sold studio album ever. But I also think that BEGGARS BANQUET is way better album than VOODOO lOUNGE even though it has sold much less. I can not understand why the commerciality an sich has to be such an issue for you - or how come it be such a big criteria for art to bad or good after-all. That seems to some kind obsession for you. Not for me. What I don't like Vegas tours and the albums made during it is the lack of inspiration and the artistic quality. That's my concern. They used to be succesfull both in commercial terms and artistic terms. But like I argumented before, they sacrified the latter to maintain the former. In many many posts and discussions here I have talked about and tried to figure out what really happened in the 80's (or from late 70's on). If you look my post history this is almost a constant theme there.
The way you are describing myself as a "believer who lost his faith on God" or that I "finally see the Stones as a commercial product" and due that my "entire world is falling apart" that is as pejoritive offending-intended psychological bullshit as it can be. Sherlock Holmes meets Sigmund Freud. I don't think my view of The Stones hasn't really changed for many, many years. I have never - or as far as I now remember - had any illusions of the nature of their game. The only thing that LIFE affected me was seeing what a small person as a human Keith actually is, and how horribly he is a prisoner of his own role and myth. Seemingly you are making too many wrong implications of my criticism of that book. But what does it really matter? In my books, that very book is just one more Vegas Era artifact, and nothing more. It didn't change at all the way I see the Stones. Before or after 1983. Beprhaps best it did was to be more empathic to Jagger and others after seeing how self-centric and phony Keith actually is. But "Gimme Shelter" sounds as majestic to my ears as it has always had. And Vegas era DVDs still bores me to hell.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-18 01:12 by Doxa.
Re: Keith kicks out Swedish journalist Markus Larsson
Posted by:
angee
()
Date: November 18, 2010 04:25
What are the Vegas era DVDs again? Steel Wheels and after?
Re: Keith kicks out Swedish journalist Markus Larsson
Posted by:
Bärs
()
Date: November 18, 2010 10:10
Quote
DoxaQuote
Bärs
Doxa,
the one who is pissed is you - that's quite clear. It's also quite clear right now that you subscribe on the misconception that "commercial" art is "bad" art. That's what I meant when I said you are like a believer who's starting to doubt the existence of God. When you finally see the commercial product "The Rolling Stones", which is what RS always was, your entire world is falling apart. Suddenly everything Keith does is about "greed", despite the fact that he bought his own country mansion when he was 22 years old and has lived in luxure completely distanced from ordinary people since then. (Actually he became an Elvis very quickly, living with his dope and hanger ons - isolated from the real world.)
You really think I am stupid, right? That I think that "commercial art" is "bad" art? Not even that I consider "Satisafction" to be the best single The Stones ever have done, and knowing that it is also their best sold single. That I consider SOME GIRLS to be one of their best albums, and what is their best sold studio album ever. But I also think that BEGGARS BANQUET is way better album than VOODOO lOUNGE even though it has sold much less. I can not understand why the commerciality an sich has to be such an issue for you - or how come it be such a big criteria for art to bad or good after-all. That seems to some kind obsession for you. Not for me. What I don't like Vegas tours and the albums made during it is the lack of inspiration and the artistic quality. That's my concern. They used to be succesfull both in commercial terms and artistic terms. But like I argumented before, they sacrified the latter to maintain the former. In many many posts and discussions here I have talked about and tried to figure out what really happened in the 80's (or from late 70's on). If you look my post history this is almost a constant theme there.
The way you are describing myself as a "believer who lost his faith on God" or that I "finally see the Stones as a commercial product" and due that my "entire world is falling apart" that is as pejoritive offending-intended psychological bullshit as it can be. Sherlock Holmes meets Sigmund Freud. I don't think my view of The Stones hasn't really changed for many, many years. I have never - or as far as I now remember - had any illusions of the nature of their game. The only thing that LIFE affected me was seeing what a small person as a human Keith actually is, and how horribly he is a prisoner of his own role and myth. Seemingly you are making too many wrong implications of my criticism of that book. But what does it really matter? In my books, that very book is just one more Vegas Era artifact, and nothing more. It didn't change at all the way I see the Stones. Before or after 1983. Beprhaps best it did was to be more empathic to Jagger and others after seeing how self-centric and phony Keith actually is. But "Gimme Shelter" sounds as majestic to my ears as it has always had. And Vegas era DVDs still bores me to hell.
- Doxa
You are a victim for your own propaganda. You keep repeating Las Vegas (which seems to be a name for Hell in your world) in post after post for everything after 1989. The description itself is a negative statement but is put forward like it was a fact, which is propagandistic. I think you should abandon the term and use a neutral description instead. It's almost an elitist attitude which blends well with your dislike of The Stones playing their older classics for the masses.
Las Vegas actually started on the front cover of their first album where they tried to have an attitude, while at the same time writing That Girl Belongs to Yesterday without have the courage ro release it themselves since it would distract from their image. Then they finally became pop stars, then devils, then decandent, then punks. It's been an easygoing show for the masses all the time. Just like on organism in evolution, The Stones have changed when they have had to change in order to survive. There is no selection pressure at the moment and that's why they don't change. An organism that doesn't change is living in harmony with the environment, and that is what The Stones do. Now they can really do what they were created to do: make money through music.
It's very safe to have a romantic view of the past because there is no possibility to be disappointed. You were not there in the arenas and stadiums in the 70s or 81-82, right? It's very likely that you would have been hugely disappointed even then and actually repeated the same criticism as you put forward today: only show, just money, poor new songs, stage gimmicks, weak guitar sound, Keith is lost, an army of side musicians etc.
Re: Keith kicks out Swedish journalist Markus Larsson
Posted by:
ablett
()
Date: November 18, 2010 10:16
"Quite a good summary. Sounds almost like someone has listened carefully my words here."
Thats a joke right?
Thats a joke right?
Re: Keith kicks out Swedish journalist Markus Larsson
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: November 18, 2010 11:14
Hey Doxa and Bärs, may I suggest the two of you get a room 
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: Keith kicks out Swedish journalist Markus Larsson
Posted by:
paulywaul
()
Date: November 18, 2010 11:18
Quote
Rolling Hansie
Hey Doxa and Bärs, may I suggest the two of you get a room
Post of the week
[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]
Re: Keith kicks out Swedish journalist Markus Larsson
Posted by:
ablett
()
Date: November 18, 2010 11:29
"It's very safe to have a romantic view of the past because there is no possibility to be disappointed. You were not there in the arenas and stadiums in the 70s or 81-82, right? It's very likely that you would have been hugely disappointed even then and actually repeated the same criticism as you put forward today: only show, just money, poor new songs, stage gimmicks, weak guitar sound, Keith is lost, an army of side musicians etc."
><
>
<Re: Keith kicks out Swedish journalist Markus Larsson
Posted by:
Bärs
()
Date: November 18, 2010 11:56
Well, I really mean what I write. If you read reviews from the "golden era" you find all the same points of views in those reviews as you find today. In 1972 reviews I find terms like "multimedia extravaganza", comments on Mick's stage antics, comments on poor acoustics, bad venues etc. All in all the legendary 1972 tour, for instance, seems to have been viewed as a show or a party, somtimes with great music performed sometimes with not so great music performed. No deadly serious fine art with incredible depth performed by suffering geniouses.
Besides, I'm not in fight or someting like that. I like Doxa.
Doxa, a straight question:
Do you think that you COULD have been disappointed with the Stones performance artistically had you seen them in 1969-1982?
Besides, I'm not in fight or someting like that. I like Doxa.
Doxa, a straight question:
Do you think that you COULD have been disappointed with the Stones performance artistically had you seen them in 1969-1982?
Re: Keith kicks out Swedish journalist Markus Larsson
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 18, 2010 12:11
Quote
BärsQuote
DoxaQuote
Bärs
Doxa,
the one who is pissed is you - that's quite clear. It's also quite clear right now that you subscribe on the misconception that "commercial" art is "bad" art. That's what I meant when I said you are like a believer who's starting to doubt the existence of God. When you finally see the commercial product "The Rolling Stones", which is what RS always was, your entire world is falling apart. Suddenly everything Keith does is about "greed", despite the fact that he bought his own country mansion when he was 22 years old and has lived in luxure completely distanced from ordinary people since then. (Actually he became an Elvis very quickly, living with his dope and hanger ons - isolated from the real world.)
You really think I am stupid, right? That I think that "commercial art" is "bad" art? Not even that I consider "Satisafction" to be the best single The Stones ever have done, and knowing that it is also their best sold single. That I consider SOME GIRLS to be one of their best albums, and what is their best sold studio album ever. But I also think that BEGGARS BANQUET is way better album than VOODOO lOUNGE even though it has sold much less. I can not understand why the commerciality an sich has to be such an issue for you - or how come it be such a big criteria for art to bad or good after-all. That seems to some kind obsession for you. Not for me. What I don't like Vegas tours and the albums made during it is the lack of inspiration and the artistic quality. That's my concern. They used to be succesfull both in commercial terms and artistic terms. But like I argumented before, they sacrified the latter to maintain the former. In many many posts and discussions here I have talked about and tried to figure out what really happened in the 80's (or from late 70's on). If you look my post history this is almost a constant theme there.
The way you are describing myself as a "believer who lost his faith on God" or that I "finally see the Stones as a commercial product" and due that my "entire world is falling apart" that is as pejoritive offending-intended psychological bullshit as it can be. Sherlock Holmes meets Sigmund Freud. I don't think my view of The Stones hasn't really changed for many, many years. I have never - or as far as I now remember - had any illusions of the nature of their game. The only thing that LIFE affected me was seeing what a small person as a human Keith actually is, and how horribly he is a prisoner of his own role and myth. Seemingly you are making too many wrong implications of my criticism of that book. But what does it really matter? In my books, that very book is just one more Vegas Era artifact, and nothing more. It didn't change at all the way I see the Stones. Before or after 1983. Beprhaps best it did was to be more empathic to Jagger and others after seeing how self-centric and phony Keith actually is. But "Gimme Shelter" sounds as majestic to my ears as it has always had. And Vegas era DVDs still bores me to hell.
- Doxa
You are a victim for your own propaganda. You keep repeating Las Vegas (which seems to be a name for Hell in your world) in post after post for everything after 1989. The description itself is a negative statement but is put forward like it was a fact, which is propagandistic. I think you should abandon the term and use a neutral description instead. It's almost an elitist attitude which blends well with your dislike of The Stones playing their older classics for the masses.
Las Vegas actually started on the front cover of their first album where they tried to have an attitude, while at the same time writing That Girl Belongs to Yesterday without have the courage ro release it themselves since it would distract from their image. Then they finally became pop stars, then devils, then decandent, then punks. It's been an easygoing show for the masses all the time. Just like on organism in evolution, The Stones have changed when they have had to change in order to survive. There is no selection pressure at the moment and that's why they don't change. An organism that doesn't change is living in harmony with the environment, and that is what The Stones do. Now they can really do what they were created to do: make money through music.
It's very safe to have a romantic view of the past because there is no possibility to be disappointed. You were not there in the arenas and stadiums in the 70s or 81-82, right? It's very likely that you would have been hugely disappointed even then and actually repeated the same criticism as you put forward today: only show, just money, poor new songs, stage gimmicks, weak guitar sound, Keith is lost, an army of side musicians etc.
Oh boy, how seriously you seem to take this "Vegas" term. It is a funny, sarcastic term created here at IORR (I don't know who used it first, it could have been me, but I'm not sure), and there is not even an exact meaning or reference. But as a term it has some strong explanatory value because quite many have found it quite useful one to describe certain happenings in recent years or decades. It is a term of IORRean folklore basically.
I am not sure of its reference or applicability (there is even a thread about it), and like I have described I cannot even determine when it actually took place. As I mentioned in some thread a while ago that 1989/90 tour was a natural step of progress or change in the Stones evolution that was always typical or even a norm for them as an 60's act (and not like some 70's acts - like KISS or AC/BC etc - that had only one idea or concept they would use thorought their career.) Thereby one cannot "blame" STEEL WHEELS tour for the things that happend after it - that it set the formula on which base The Stones would go on forever. This is a hindsight. The "Las Vegas Era" was process that started in 1989 - or maybe from Jagger's solo tour where the new concept of teh Rolling Sones show was created - but recognizing its existence needed a decade or so. Personally by BRIDGES TO BABYLON TOUR I had the 'insight' that "we are repeating the same old formula here", this can last forever but does not leading nowhere, and adding anything. Then I lost my interest in The Rolling Stones and stopped thinking them as a "living and breathing band" (and maybe without IORR or net over-all I might be now an ex-Rolling Stones fan). . By LICKS TOUR I had come to terms with the nature of the band a semi-retired nostalgy package, that exists musically as a kind of show product of huge a business enterprise. I accepted it, and took the celebration mood: travel the world, see some shows, meet fellow Stones fans and have fun. I tried the same with LICKS TOUR 2, aka, A BIGGER BANG TOUR but honestly, I first time ever got bored or didn't feel good in a Rolling Stones concert. The thrill of seeing my old heroes alive "one more time" didn't compensate the lack of real musical thrill - to use your vocabulary - Brezhnevien state of affairs. Seeing Keith in such a bad state (as a musician) almost made my heart cry.
So I am spreading "propaganda" and "pre-conceived ideology" (my god, you live in a political word) - oh boy, you are flattering me. Am I really such a big authority that you need to start rebelling like a little boy to get attention or self-esteem? Aw, c'mon. There is room for differing opinions - always has have - but you don't need to get your point be heard by attacking me. There are many discussions going on in his board by many people with whom you could share your substantive views on things. Talking for example reasons why the Stones are seeing doing an artistic downhill or not. This is basically bloody bullhit meta-talk you and I are doing here and making this thread OT.
If your world is shaken by some hardcore Rolling Stones fans people using half-jokingly a term "Vegas" at Rolling Stones discussion board, oh my god... Would you be happy if I really take it out of my vocabulary and behave POLITICALLY CORRECT from then on? Bloody hell this board would be a boring place if cencors and language policemen like you could rule it.
Lastly for the censorship: never mind some stupid term; more threatening is the demand you do here:
Quote
Bärs
If you with "music that matters" mean "music that I think is good" then I completely follow you. The problem with that is that taste is personal. If their recent output doesn't matter to you, it can matter to someone else. If you are angry that they can't write classics today as they once did, I suggest that you share some of your own masterpieces with them to help restore the balance.
Here you ste that if judging music is based on "personal taste" (who has ever claimed otherwise???) That one can not talk about it, and for example, analysize why one happens to like - or not - something? Incredible! You seem to imply that criticism or reviewing over-all is supposed to not base at all to personal taste (that as you might now could be developed, etc.). What you are implying that art is a kind of sphere where discussion of its intrinsic value is not allowed. That's scarey.
(What goes for your last sentence that is so naive that I guess you ashamed alredy by yourself. It is a type of inference the logicians would call recuctio ad absurdum.)
With respect,
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-18 12:17 by Doxa.
Re: Keith kicks out Swedish journalist Markus Larsson
Posted by:
Beast
()
Date: November 18, 2010 12:11
Quote
paulywaulQuote
Rolling Hansie
Hey Doxa and Bärs, may I suggest the two of you get a room
Post of the week
Re: Keith kicks out Swedish journalist Markus Larsson
Posted by:
Bärs
()
Date: November 18, 2010 12:46
The problem is Doxa that you are praising eras you never experienced in person while you're slagging eras you have witnessed. That's a bit suspicous.
Re: Keith kicks out Swedish journalist Markus Larsson
Posted by:
Bärs
()
Date: November 18, 2010 13:17
What happened in the 80s was simply that they adapted to how things were done in the 80s in the same way they had done before. New technology, new sound preferences, new fashion, new ideals of how songs should be performed and interpreted, new stages etc. Later they adapted to the "unplugged" movement, they went for minimalism with No Security, they explored a great amount of their songs on Licks (which they never did during their "golden age" ). They have done a lot of small exeriments whilde sticking to a main stadium act that works in order to be accesible to a big audience. I don't find anything wrong with that.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-18 13:17 by Bärs.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-18 13:17 by Bärs.
Re: Keith kicks out Swedish journalist Markus Larsson
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 18, 2010 13:32
Quote
Bärs
The problem is Doxa that you are praising eras you never experienced in person while you're slagging eras you have witnessed. That's a bit suspicous.
I don't know about that: all those eras are in my room: I have documents all over over them, bootlegs, official releases, etc. That's the material I make judgments about. That a concert took place in New York 1969 or New York 2002 is just equal to me. That is basically the evidence and source from the base I make my judgments.
(But if my own personal involvement in some era is asked, well - I had the pleasure to witness one absulutely great era under which I was caught by this band. In the early 80's The Stones were really a cool band, all the danger and mysticism still involved. That was the time when Keith Richards was recognized as the greatest rock and roll hero of all-time, including his low-profile unique attitide towards musicianship and playing the guitar (without the punk movement that wouldn't have veen noticed). Keith and Woodie duo defined what rock and roll guitarism is all about. Even Jagger was still somehow relevant in his cockiness and edgyness. They weren't any caricatoons yet. TATTOO YOU and "Start Me Up" was played everywhere, simply because they were goddamn great music. Now I am nostalgic
)- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-18 14:03 by Doxa.
Re: Keith kicks out Swedish journalist Markus Larsson
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 18, 2010 13:49
Quote
Bärs
What happened in the 80s was simply that they adapted to how things were done in the 80s in the same way they had done before. New technology, new sound preferences, new fashion, new ideals of how songs should be performed and interpreted, new stages etc. Later they adapted to the "unplugged" movement, they went for minimalism with No Security, they explored a great amount of their songs on Licks (which they never did during their "golden age" ). They have done a lot of small exeriments whilde sticking to a main stadium act that works in order to be accesible to a big audience. I don't find anything wrong with that.
I can see your point but as an analysis I see that way too thin. You take way too simple factors to describe the happenings. Basically or in one level I wholeheartidly agree with anything you say. But there is something more - another level - that I find more crucial to describe in The Rolling Stones and in their history; that takes the outcome, the product at face-value. The music, The quality of it. You can explain their behavior from your explanatory basis but if that had been the whole story I would have never been interested in talking about The Stones, for example, in this forum for ages. It is the quality factor that makes me passionate Rolling Stones fan. To repeat myself: I don't care the motivation - what makes Mick, Keith and the "boys" - to make music or to perform (be it money, boreness, fun, muse, inner drive, an addiction being adolareted, drugs, following the trends, copying with the trends, etc.), That's not my business (well, I can somtimes make theories or guesses of it but that is not important really). I just judge the outcome, the result what they do. That is my business. That is where my passion is. To simplify with examples: sometimes they happen to produce great music in their way to cope with the trends ("Paint It Black", "Miss You") and sometimes not ("Rock and A Hard Place", "Anybody Seen My Love"). Of course, it interests me why the the quality of their work so dramatically collapsed during the 80's (as I and many others seem to think alike). We have some great discussions of that here at IORR from the base "what happened and why". It might irriate you, but sorry, that is the way we see the scene.
If you can't see any change happening in the quality of their output along the years, well you can't. To me it is not all the same. I am not a relativist.
- Doxa
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-18 14:00 by Doxa.
Re: Keith kicks out Swedish journalist Markus Larsson
Posted by:
Bärs
()
Date: November 18, 2010 14:02
That's my main complain about your analyis: You were not there, but you are still very confident about how to judge them. I would be very sceptic towards someone who has extremely confident opinions on what the Stones were like in the 90s, if that person never saw them in the 90s. Actually, I would simply dismiss his thoughts.
The Stones were as much caricatures even in the 60s as they are today. What whas cool or accepted to say or do in the 60s was not cool in the 70s or 80s. The western culture has changed several times during their career, morals have changed. If you like the hard rock era, of course you will like The Stones in that era. If you like the Flower Power era, you will like the Stones in that era. If you dislike the mid 80s in general, you will dislike The Stones in that era - as many do, etc.
In other words:
The Stones have always changed according to the times, and our judgement is therefore based on what we think about that era in general - what it means to us.
This might be trivial but I don't think you "see" this aspect.
The Stones were as much caricatures even in the 60s as they are today. What whas cool or accepted to say or do in the 60s was not cool in the 70s or 80s. The western culture has changed several times during their career, morals have changed. If you like the hard rock era, of course you will like The Stones in that era. If you like the Flower Power era, you will like the Stones in that era. If you dislike the mid 80s in general, you will dislike The Stones in that era - as many do, etc.
In other words:
The Stones have always changed according to the times, and our judgement is therefore based on what we think about that era in general - what it means to us.
This might be trivial but I don't think you "see" this aspect.
Re: Keith kicks out Swedish journalist Markus Larsson
Posted by:
Bärs
()
Date: November 18, 2010 14:33
About the quality:
You glorify again. They made a lot of poor music in the 60s and 70s and early 80s aswell, things that never mattered. What was different though is that the tops were higher in 64-73 than later, but the great 4 was made in just a few years and in 1971 their creative peak was over. What I don't understand is the anger because they can't reach that level again, which they have not been able to do for 40 years! (Yes, I know about SG but it's not in the same league when we talk about legacy.) I think that the results during the golden era was possible to achive only then, in that particular time and that social and cultural setting. Rock and pop music is so dependent on external factors like who you work with, who you are friends with, what is "hot", who's still alive, who's sleeping with who, who lives where etc. that these circumstances never can be recreated by willpower.
You glorify again. They made a lot of poor music in the 60s and 70s and early 80s aswell, things that never mattered. What was different though is that the tops were higher in 64-73 than later, but the great 4 was made in just a few years and in 1971 their creative peak was over. What I don't understand is the anger because they can't reach that level again, which they have not been able to do for 40 years! (Yes, I know about SG but it's not in the same league when we talk about legacy.) I think that the results during the golden era was possible to achive only then, in that particular time and that social and cultural setting. Rock and pop music is so dependent on external factors like who you work with, who you are friends with, what is "hot", who's still alive, who's sleeping with who, who lives where etc. that these circumstances never can be recreated by willpower.
Re: Keith kicks out Swedish journalist Markus Larsson
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: November 18, 2010 14:35
I think Bärs is saying that if we weren't there, we should be more careful with generalizing the different "eras" - that each of those periods of time had its ups and downs. In fact, so much that it's impossible to categorize them the way you do.
But I could be wrong...
And I don't necessarily disagree with you, either.
But I could be wrong...
And I don't necessarily disagree with you, either.
Re: Keith kicks out Swedish journalist Markus Larsson
Posted by:
ablett
()
Date: November 18, 2010 14:38
Interesting argument but on a side note Doxa you really can appear to be talking down to people.....
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
2226
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10