Tell Me :
Talk
...You're entitled to your opinion, Taylor, but so am I (not that you ever denied me or anybody else that right - I'm just stating the obvious here!...);
and I think that History & Eternity would have been even beter served if YOU would have 'quit' in 1974... with being a Stonesfan, that is.
Oh but ...my wrong!! In fact you DID quit, didn't you?!...
["I can hear the Bullfrog calling me..."]
I said "for history's and eternal fame's sake", not: for my sake. An objective statement, also called 'a fact'. Has nothing to do with opinion or being 'a fan' (whatever that may be).
Unlike Mozart, or even the Beatles, the Stones have always been, primarily, a visual entertainment. The concert footage will be their legacy. I think they know that's how it's going to be. That's why they seem to be so much more interested in releasing DVDs than in releasing CDs.
100 years from now people aren't going to care about rock and roll any more than people today care about the music of 1910. Most people are only interested in the music that was created in their own lifetimes, or more accurately, in the music that was created during the first 20 years of their lifetimes. Sure, there will be a few music scholars listening to the Beatles and Stones in 2110, but the average 30-year-old in 2110 is going to be concerned mainly with the music he heard growing up, the music that's going to be made during the years 2080-2100.
I strongly disagree. Mozart's operas are visually ten thousand times more interesting than whatever Stones show. I can know that, because I saw them both. I also grew up without all the pictures, DVD's etc. that we now have and was caught by the music itself. And that's still the case. But maybe the women, who fancy Jagger so much (and a few Keith) ... Women generally don't like Stones music: my YT-clips got almost 172.000 views, 17% of them are women. That seems proof to me: Stones music is mostly for men.
You didn't see Mozart in the 1700s. It's impossible to know for certain what ANY live performance looked like in the age before film and photography.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-10 02:05 by tatters.
It's certainly not, because it has been described en detail. You know, there actually IS scholarship as for that period in music history and there are quite some reliable sources as well. It only takes a little bit of imagination. Anyhow, it's not relevant how it was back then, it's relevant how it is here and now. Then we must conclude that Mozart is played in any form (opera (extremely visually too), chamber music, concertos, etc) and in any way (live, radio, TV, DVD etc.), all over the world, daily.
How do you know the people describing it weren't exaggerating?
Both Mozart and Beethoven were famous in their lifetimes as performers of their own music as well as composers - after a performer's lifetime, they have to be judged by what remains - so all we have left of Mozart is his written music. If he had lived in the 1920s his recordings might be legendary - later on, film or video of live performances - and we might be arguing that nobody but Wolfgang Amadeus himself could ever play Mozart properly! For all we know, that may be true - but as kleermaker said, it doesn't stop people all over the world from playing Mozart daily.
I think there will be two legacies - one the archive of live performances, which will inevitably grow wonderful-but-dated (think of silent film or 1930s blues records). The other will be the songs themselves, which will remain and get reinterpreted by new artists in ways that present-day Stones fans might faint away in horror at - but they will still be sung and re-sung for a long long time.
Just curious, kleermaker - how (technically) do you get those statistics out of YouTube? Are they by channel or by individual video? Do you have to be the channel-owner to get them? Not that I dispute them, although I do wonder if the stats for videos not so tightly focused on the Taylor era might be different - I just don't know how to find out.
(from one of Keith's few of the the 17%)
Good point indeed as for Mozart and Beethoven. Their performances of their own piano concertos (on a total different kind of piano(forte) than the pianos we have today) would of course be extremely interesting, but absolutely not important as for the many performances we have on CD, DVD and live. Besides Mozart wrote much of his music on demand that he never played or performed himself. So it's purely the music that does the trick. As for the Stones, there are just too many registrations of live performances of too many different qualities. For legacy reasons only the live period until 1974 will stand the test of time. But there's too little good material from that era. As for the studio material, there is too much inferior 'recent' material. As for their song material (the compositions): I don't think it will be played, sung and resung after they've gone. A hard condition would be that that material would have gained the status of being 'classical', just like Mozart's music is 'classical' in that sense. But maybe I'm wrong.
Then the stats. Indeed, only the channel-owner has access to all the data concerning his channel. They are very specified, by video and also the totals. The differences between the individual videos are very small, so the total number is representative for all videos. You get numbers as well as graphics. You get data about the gender and the age of the viewers. I don't think there's much difference between the videos from the different Stones-eras. Most people that are interested in the Taylor-era songs are also interested in the songs and live performances of the other eras. When you take a look at some vids and the comments then the Taylor/Wood discussion is very conspicuous, just like the Taylor-Wood threads on IORR show.
By clicking on a random video you can get some limited statistic info about that particular video (if it's available).
Main conclusions I've drawn for the statistic info I have (based on 172.000 views and about 60 different videos):
- most viewers are men (83%), just conform the population here on IORR and the Dutch Stonesforum (and I'm sure on any other Stonesforum as well);
- most viewers (both genders) are between 45-54: about 50% (followed by: 55-64: about 25%; 35-44: about 18% and 25-34: less than 5%). That's also conform the population here and on other Stonesforums imo. Most young fans are kids of Stonesfans I guess, and there are only very few of them. Little chance that people are going to dig the Stones when they get older, unlike classical music fans! So Stonesfans are a endangered species.
- most popular in the US, Canada, Europe, Australia, Japan and Argentina. Well, not very surprising either.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-10 19:26 by kleermaker.
The Taylor-era is musically the most interesting live period, the Jones-era culturally the most interesting. Overall the 1968-1973 era is musically and culturally the most interesting (the golden era). Believe me, posterity won't think like many people here (strange enough unlike the YT-viewers!) that Taylor ever overplayed etc. Stadiums shows etc. won't endure. But didn't I say that there's too little good live material from the Taylor-era?
I know all the personal preferences of most people here (including myself of course), but I was saying this from a more objective perspective. It's what I think would have a chance to survive and stand the test of time. Best chances for the golden era, studio and live-wise. Punk, disco, dance, reggae, funk and other trendy imitations won't survive because they're not authentic enough and totally out of the cultural relevance focus. The same goes for the Vegas-era of course. It's only my prediction but I think it will be fulfilled. My prediction is that none of the Stones music will survive in the end, but we won't experience that, so don't worry. It's all speculation.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-10 19:49 by kleermaker.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: 100 years or more from now, how will the Stones be remembered?
Posted by:
shadooby
()
Date: December 9, 2010 02:25
There will forever be the debate between the Beatles and Stones as long as there is recorded media...
Re: 100 years or more from now, how will the Stones be remembered?
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: December 9, 2010 05:54
And no one else but the Beatles and the Stones will even be in the debate. That alone says a lot about the Stones.
Re: 100 years or more from now, how will the Stones be remembered?
Posted by:
colonial
()
Date: December 9, 2010 07:32
The Rolling Stones and The Beatles will be remembered 1.2.3.4...5 Hundred years from now.Actually I would go as far as to say.. they'll both be
Remembered Forever as two of the Greatest R n' R Bands on this Planet....
Remembered Forever as two of the Greatest R n' R Bands on this Planet....
Re: 100 years or more from now, how will the Stones be remembered?
Posted by:
ab
()
Date: December 9, 2010 08:16
Fondly. Great riffs last are eternal.
Re: 100 years or more from now, how will the Stones be remembered?
Posted by:
whiskey
()
Date: December 9, 2010 11:54
Who say's rock n roll will be remembered. I am sure other performers of the day when Mozart etc were around were playing something different, we dont remember them. Maybe they will be more interested in 100 years time to The Great Caruso/Al Jolsen/Jelly Roll Morton/Bing Crosby who were just as revered in the 20th century as the Stones/Beatles/ Jackson, maybe Benny Goodman/Glen Miller, everybody is important in our minds, even the local pub band who never get recorded. As soon as I get back I will post a review of the era.
Re: 100 years or more from now, how will the Stones be remembered?
Posted by:
whiskey
()
Date: December 9, 2010 11:59
I just got back. Bloody Rap music, the idiots of the future could have done better than that surely. Thank the Lord I will die before then.
Re: 100 years or more from now, how will the Stones be remembered?
Posted by:
SwayStones
()
Date: December 9, 2010 13:07
Re: 100 years or more from now, how will the Stones be remembered?
Posted by:
nankerphlege
()
Date: December 9, 2010 14:10
They will be regarded as high as Bach or mozart. Thier impact in modern music is equal to the impact of mozart in his time. While mozart was alive he was not regarded this way only untill sometime after his death. I think this will be the case with the stones.
Go Dawgs!
Go Dawgs!
Re: 100 years or more from now, how will the Stones be remembered?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: December 9, 2010 14:20
... they'll still be trying to unravel the meaning of rmk.....
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: 100 years or more from now, how will the Stones be remembered?
Posted by:
MississippiBullfrog
()
Date: December 9, 2010 14:45
Quote
kleermaker
For history's and eternal fame's sake they better all quit in 1974.
...You're entitled to your opinion, Taylor, but so am I (not that you ever denied me or anybody else that right - I'm just stating the obvious here!...);
and I think that History & Eternity would have been even beter served if YOU would have 'quit' in 1974... with being a Stonesfan, that is.
Oh but ...my wrong!! In fact you DID quit, didn't you?!...
["I can hear the Bullfrog calling me..."]
Re: 100 years or more from now, how will the Stones be remembered?
Posted by:
marko
()
Date: December 9, 2010 15:20
huh 100 years from now,does even humans exist then? Nah,i don´t think so.We´re too selfish to survive next 100 years,or even next 20years.
Re: 100 years or more from now, how will the Stones be remembered?
Posted by:
WeLoveYou
()
Date: December 9, 2010 16:17
People will look back and say, Seems like 100 years ago!
I'll get my coat...
I'll get my coat...
Re: 100 years or more from now, how will the Stones be remembered?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: December 9, 2010 16:18
Quote
MississippiBullfrogQuote
kleermaker
For history's and eternal fame's sake they better all quit in 1974.
...You're entitled to your opinion, Taylor, but so am I (not that you ever denied me or anybody else that right - I'm just stating the obvious here!...);
and I think that History & Eternity would have been even beter served if YOU would have 'quit' in 1974... with being a Stonesfan, that is.
Oh but ...my wrong!! In fact you DID quit, didn't you?!...
I said "for history's and eternal fame's sake", not: for my sake. An objective statement, also called 'a fact'. Has nothing to do with opinion or being 'a fan' (whatever that may be).
Re: 100 years or more from now, how will the Stones be remembered?
Posted by:
Green Lady
()
Date: December 9, 2010 19:01
Quote
schillid
They'll still be touring...
Re: 100 years or more from now, how will the Stones be remembered?
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: December 9, 2010 20:53
History does funny things. One thing Mozart didn't have is video clips. For the first time performers will be preserved in color and state of the art sound. Maybe the Stones should have put a little more effort in their music videos, at least for posterity's sake. But unlike most other groups, they will have plenty of quality concert footage.
Re: 100 years or more from now, how will the Stones be remembered?
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: December 9, 2010 21:06
Yes, and in 2000 years their legend will have them having healed the sick and raised the dead with their music!
Re: 100 years or more from now, how will the Stones be remembered?
Posted by:
schillid
()
Date: December 9, 2010 21:40
Re: 100 years or more from now, how will the Stones be remembered?
Posted by:
behroez
()
Date: December 9, 2010 22:52
Just got this fax through my special Tele-Time Machine;
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
THE INSTITUTE FOR STUDY OF MODERN MUSIC dec. 3012
Ofcourse we can not discuss the revolution that has shaped our modern music over the past century without mentioning the obvious. That great legendary album by the Rolling Stones released in 2012 called "the Final Insult". For as we all know this album has changed the world of modern music forever and is well known in every household throughout our Planet Earth and it's colonies on Mars. Without this album that band the Rolling Stones would maybe only have been a footnote in some academic research papers on Afro-American music and more specifically the Rhythm and Blues by some obscure researchers only read by the experts on R&B, briefly mentioning the name of this band as the R&B ambassadors in Europe (a history about the Rolling Stones quite unknown to most of us). Very few know that before "the Final Insult" this band the Rolling Stones had been allready a mediocre rock band for 50 yrs with an at the time rapid aging fanbase hardly worthy of rememberance. The name of this band would have dissappeared into oblivion were it not for that musical revolution they started in 2012.
It was in 2012 when the allready almost 70 yrs old leadman of the this band Mick Jagger joined up with the now legendary producer Kevin Khargush and together dramatically changed the band's line-up and breaking away from the mediocre rock music they had been playing so far and invented the now well known Psychedelic-Funky-Trance-Rockjazz that shook the world at it's very foundations, and captivated musicloving people over the world for years to come. The gigantic world tour that followed the impact of this album was overwhelming and not surpassed to this very day. Every night they only played extended improvisations of the songs from the "Final Insult" with at every country guest musicians joining in on stage, from traditional musicians (from Africa, Turkey, Korea etc) to well known jazz and instrumental virtuosa of the different countries they played in at the time, without any break one song flowing through improvisation over into the other. Little do we know today that this legendary Mick Jagger known to us today from that historic event running up and down the stage in his bright white traditional Chinese clothes, and his iconic long beard, grey pony tail and sun-glasses, that ones he looked very different, nor do we want to know. Truelly when the Rolling Stones engraved it's presence on the slate of this world for ever with "the Final Insult" and introduced and united the human race with this all encompassing Psychedelic-Funky-Trance-Rockjazz it was......
><<><><><><><><><<<><><><><><><><<><><><><><><><><><><<><><><><><><><><>><><><><>
Here, due to atmospheric disturbances, the transmission through my Tele-Time Machine was adrubtly cut short. but it seems we are in for some big suprises!
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
THE INSTITUTE FOR STUDY OF MODERN MUSIC dec. 3012
Ofcourse we can not discuss the revolution that has shaped our modern music over the past century without mentioning the obvious. That great legendary album by the Rolling Stones released in 2012 called "the Final Insult". For as we all know this album has changed the world of modern music forever and is well known in every household throughout our Planet Earth and it's colonies on Mars. Without this album that band the Rolling Stones would maybe only have been a footnote in some academic research papers on Afro-American music and more specifically the Rhythm and Blues by some obscure researchers only read by the experts on R&B, briefly mentioning the name of this band as the R&B ambassadors in Europe (a history about the Rolling Stones quite unknown to most of us). Very few know that before "the Final Insult" this band the Rolling Stones had been allready a mediocre rock band for 50 yrs with an at the time rapid aging fanbase hardly worthy of rememberance. The name of this band would have dissappeared into oblivion were it not for that musical revolution they started in 2012.
It was in 2012 when the allready almost 70 yrs old leadman of the this band Mick Jagger joined up with the now legendary producer Kevin Khargush and together dramatically changed the band's line-up and breaking away from the mediocre rock music they had been playing so far and invented the now well known Psychedelic-Funky-Trance-Rockjazz that shook the world at it's very foundations, and captivated musicloving people over the world for years to come. The gigantic world tour that followed the impact of this album was overwhelming and not surpassed to this very day. Every night they only played extended improvisations of the songs from the "Final Insult" with at every country guest musicians joining in on stage, from traditional musicians (from Africa, Turkey, Korea etc) to well known jazz and instrumental virtuosa of the different countries they played in at the time, without any break one song flowing through improvisation over into the other. Little do we know today that this legendary Mick Jagger known to us today from that historic event running up and down the stage in his bright white traditional Chinese clothes, and his iconic long beard, grey pony tail and sun-glasses, that ones he looked very different, nor do we want to know. Truelly when the Rolling Stones engraved it's presence on the slate of this world for ever with "the Final Insult" and introduced and united the human race with this all encompassing Psychedelic-Funky-Trance-Rockjazz it was......
><<><><><><><><><<<><><><><><><><<><><><><><><><><><><<><><><><><><><><>><><><><>
Here, due to atmospheric disturbances, the transmission through my Tele-Time Machine was adrubtly cut short. but it seems we are in for some big suprises!
Re: 100 years or more from now, how will the Stones be remembered?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: December 10, 2010 00:09
After 2074:
Just like Laurel & Hardy.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-10 00:13 by Amsterdamned.
Just like Laurel & Hardy.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-10 00:13 by Amsterdamned.
Re: 100 years or more from now, how will the Stones be remembered?
Posted by:
tatters
()
Date: December 10, 2010 01:21
Quote
24FPS
History does funny things. One thing Mozart didn't have is video clips. For the first time performers will be preserved in color and state of the art sound. Maybe the Stones should have put a little more effort in their music videos, at least for posterity's sake. But unlike most other groups, they will have plenty of quality concert footage.
Unlike Mozart, or even the Beatles, the Stones have always been, primarily, a visual entertainment. The concert footage will be their legacy. I think they know that's how it's going to be. That's why they seem to be so much more interested in releasing DVDs than in releasing CDs.
100 years from now people aren't going to care about rock and roll any more than people today care about the music of 1910. Most people are only interested in the music that was created in their own lifetimes, or more accurately, in the music that was created during the first 20 years of their lifetimes. Sure, there will be a few music scholars listening to the Beatles and Stones in 2110, but the average 30-year-old in 2110 is going to be concerned mainly with the music he heard growing up, the music that's going to be made during the years 2080-2100.
Re: 100 years or more from now, how will the Stones be remembered?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: December 10, 2010 01:48
Quote
tatters
Unlike Mozart, or even the Beatles, the Stones have always been, primarily, a visual entertainment.
I strongly disagree. Mozart's operas are visually ten thousand times more interesting than whatever Stones show. I can know that, because I saw them both. I also grew up without all the pictures, DVD's etc. that we now have and was caught by the music itself. And that's still the case. But maybe the women, who fancy Jagger so much (and a few Keith) ... Women generally don't like Stones music: my YT-clips got almost 172.000 views, 17% of them are women. That seems proof to me: Stones music is mostly for men.
Re: 100 years or more from now, how will the Stones be remembered?
Posted by:
tatters
()
Date: December 10, 2010 02:01
Quote
kleermakerQuote
tatters
Unlike Mozart, or even the Beatles, the Stones have always been, primarily, a visual entertainment.
I strongly disagree. Mozart's operas are visually ten thousand times more interesting than whatever Stones show. I can know that, because I saw them both.
You didn't see Mozart in the 1700s. It's impossible to know for certain what ANY live performance looked like in the age before film and photography.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-10 02:05 by tatters.
Re: 100 years or more from now, how will the Stones be remembered?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: December 10, 2010 02:14
Quote
tattersQuote
kleermakerQuote
tatters
Unlike Mozart, or even the Beatles, the Stones have always been, primarily, a visual entertainment.
I strongly disagree. Mozart's operas are visually ten thousand times more interesting than whatever Stones show. I can know that, because I saw them both.
You didn't see Mozart in the 1700s. It's impossible to know for certain what ANY live performance looked like in the age before film and photography.
It's certainly not, because it has been described en detail. You know, there actually IS scholarship as for that period in music history and there are quite some reliable sources as well. It only takes a little bit of imagination. Anyhow, it's not relevant how it was back then, it's relevant how it is here and now. Then we must conclude that Mozart is played in any form (opera (extremely visually too), chamber music, concertos, etc) and in any way (live, radio, TV, DVD etc.), all over the world, daily.
Re: 100 years or more from now, how will the Stones be remembered?
Posted by:
tatters
()
Date: December 10, 2010 02:17
Quote
kleermakerQuote
tattersQuote
kleermakerQuote
tatters
Unlike Mozart, or even the Beatles, the Stones have always been, primarily, a visual entertainment.
I strongly disagree. Mozart's operas are visually ten thousand times more interesting than whatever Stones show. I can know that, because I saw them both.
You didn't see Mozart in the 1700s. It's impossible to know for certain what ANY live performance looked like in the age before film and photography.
It's certainly not, because it has been described in detail.
How do you know the people describing it weren't exaggerating?
Re: 100 years or more from now, how will the Stones be remembered?
Posted by:
Green Lady
()
Date: December 10, 2010 03:53
Quote
kleermakerQuote
tattersQuote
kleermakerQuote
tatters
Unlike Mozart, or even the Beatles, the Stones have always been, primarily, a visual entertainment.
I strongly disagree. Mozart's operas are visually ten thousand times more interesting than whatever Stones show. I can know that, because I saw them both.
You didn't see Mozart in the 1700s. It's impossible to know for certain what ANY live performance looked like in the age before film and photography.
It's certainly not, because it has been described en detail. You know, there actually IS scholarship as for that period in music history and there are quite some reliable sources as well. It only takes a little bit of imagination. Anyhow, it's not relevant how it was back then, it's relevant how it is here and now. Then we must conclude that Mozart is played in any form (opera (extremely visually too), chamber music, concertos, etc) and in any way (live, radio, TV, DVD etc.), all over the world, daily.
Both Mozart and Beethoven were famous in their lifetimes as performers of their own music as well as composers - after a performer's lifetime, they have to be judged by what remains - so all we have left of Mozart is his written music. If he had lived in the 1920s his recordings might be legendary - later on, film or video of live performances - and we might be arguing that nobody but Wolfgang Amadeus himself could ever play Mozart properly! For all we know, that may be true - but as kleermaker said, it doesn't stop people all over the world from playing Mozart daily.
I think there will be two legacies - one the archive of live performances, which will inevitably grow wonderful-but-dated (think of silent film or 1930s blues records). The other will be the songs themselves, which will remain and get reinterpreted by new artists in ways that present-day Stones fans might faint away in horror at - but they will still be sung and re-sung for a long long time.
Re: 100 years or more from now, how will the Stones be remembered?
Posted by:
Bingo
()
Date: December 10, 2010 04:02
In 2105-2107 they will be saying. "I can't believe people paid $450 for a ticket back then. That's what they cost now!"
Re: 100 years or more from now, how will the Stones be remembered?
Posted by:
Green Lady
()
Date: December 10, 2010 05:31
Quote
kleermakerQuote
tatters
Unlike Mozart, or even the Beatles, the Stones have always been, primarily, a visual entertainment.
I strongly disagree. Mozart's operas are visually ten thousand times more interesting than whatever Stones show. I can know that, because I saw them both. I also grew up without all the pictures, DVD's etc. that we now have and was caught by the music itself. And that's still the case. But maybe the women, who fancy Jagger so much (and a few Keith) ... Women generally don't like Stones music: my YT-clips got almost 172.000 views, 17% of them are women. That seems proof to me: Stones music is mostly for men.
Just curious, kleermaker - how (technically) do you get those statistics out of YouTube? Are they by channel or by individual video? Do you have to be the channel-owner to get them? Not that I dispute them, although I do wonder if the stats for videos not so tightly focused on the Taylor era might be different - I just don't know how to find out.
(from one of Keith's few of the the 17%)
Re: 100 years or more from now, how will the Stones be remembered?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: December 10, 2010 19:10
Quote
Green LadyQuote
kleermakerQuote
tatters
Unlike Mozart, or even the Beatles, the Stones have always been, primarily, a visual entertainment.
I strongly disagree. Mozart's operas are visually ten thousand times more interesting than whatever Stones show. I can know that, because I saw them both. I also grew up without all the pictures, DVD's etc. that we now have and was caught by the music itself. And that's still the case. But maybe the women, who fancy Jagger so much (and a few Keith) ... Women generally don't like Stones music: my YT-clips got almost 172.000 views, 17% of them are women. That seems proof to me: Stones music is mostly for men.
Both Mozart and Beethoven were famous in their lifetimes as performers of their own music as well as composers - after a performer's lifetime, they have to be judged by what remains - so all we have left of Mozart is his written music. If he had lived in the 1920s his recordings might be legendary - later on, film or video of live performances - and we might be arguing that nobody but Wolfgang Amadeus himself could ever play Mozart properly! For all we know, that may be true - but as kleermaker said, it doesn't stop people all over the world from playing Mozart daily.
I think there will be two legacies - one the archive of live performances, which will inevitably grow wonderful-but-dated (think of silent film or 1930s blues records). The other will be the songs themselves, which will remain and get reinterpreted by new artists in ways that present-day Stones fans might faint away in horror at - but they will still be sung and re-sung for a long long time.
Just curious, kleermaker - how (technically) do you get those statistics out of YouTube? Are they by channel or by individual video? Do you have to be the channel-owner to get them? Not that I dispute them, although I do wonder if the stats for videos not so tightly focused on the Taylor era might be different - I just don't know how to find out.
(from one of Keith's few of the the 17%)
Good point indeed as for Mozart and Beethoven. Their performances of their own piano concertos (on a total different kind of piano(forte) than the pianos we have today) would of course be extremely interesting, but absolutely not important as for the many performances we have on CD, DVD and live. Besides Mozart wrote much of his music on demand that he never played or performed himself. So it's purely the music that does the trick. As for the Stones, there are just too many registrations of live performances of too many different qualities. For legacy reasons only the live period until 1974 will stand the test of time. But there's too little good material from that era. As for the studio material, there is too much inferior 'recent' material. As for their song material (the compositions): I don't think it will be played, sung and resung after they've gone. A hard condition would be that that material would have gained the status of being 'classical', just like Mozart's music is 'classical' in that sense. But maybe I'm wrong.
Then the stats. Indeed, only the channel-owner has access to all the data concerning his channel. They are very specified, by video and also the totals. The differences between the individual videos are very small, so the total number is representative for all videos. You get numbers as well as graphics. You get data about the gender and the age of the viewers. I don't think there's much difference between the videos from the different Stones-eras. Most people that are interested in the Taylor-era songs are also interested in the songs and live performances of the other eras. When you take a look at some vids and the comments then the Taylor/Wood discussion is very conspicuous, just like the Taylor-Wood threads on IORR show.
By clicking on a random video you can get some limited statistic info about that particular video (if it's available).
Main conclusions I've drawn for the statistic info I have (based on 172.000 views and about 60 different videos):
- most viewers are men (83%), just conform the population here on IORR and the Dutch Stonesforum (and I'm sure on any other Stonesforum as well);
- most viewers (both genders) are between 45-54: about 50% (followed by: 55-64: about 25%; 35-44: about 18% and 25-34: less than 5%). That's also conform the population here and on other Stonesforums imo. Most young fans are kids of Stonesfans I guess, and there are only very few of them. Little chance that people are going to dig the Stones when they get older, unlike classical music fans! So Stonesfans are a endangered species.
- most popular in the US, Canada, Europe, Australia, Japan and Argentina. Well, not very surprising either.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-10 19:26 by kleermaker.
Re: 100 years or more from now, how will the Stones be remembered?
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: December 10, 2010 19:27
'For legacy reasons only the live period until 1974 will stand the test of time.' - Kleermaker
Why? Because Taylor split? The material? There are fantastic concerts from all the eras, along with crap from all the eras. Not every concert in '72 and '73 was a winner. There's great material performed live after 1974. The 1978 tour is getting more respect for being more stripped down and punked, and light on the warhorses. From the U.S. side, '81 debuts Start Me Up. '89 had a grandeur to it, full of classics, some of them rarely or never heard in concert. (2,000 Light Years From Home). '94 and '97 were a little light weight, but '99 was an absolute killer. The Licks Tour of '02 was hit and miss, I saw two great concerts in 2005 and 2006. And all of these tours set records for attendance and receipts. When Taylor wasn't overplaying, he added to the Stones sound sonically, but it's ridiculous to say they never sounded good on stage again.
Why? Because Taylor split? The material? There are fantastic concerts from all the eras, along with crap from all the eras. Not every concert in '72 and '73 was a winner. There's great material performed live after 1974. The 1978 tour is getting more respect for being more stripped down and punked, and light on the warhorses. From the U.S. side, '81 debuts Start Me Up. '89 had a grandeur to it, full of classics, some of them rarely or never heard in concert. (2,000 Light Years From Home). '94 and '97 were a little light weight, but '99 was an absolute killer. The Licks Tour of '02 was hit and miss, I saw two great concerts in 2005 and 2006. And all of these tours set records for attendance and receipts. When Taylor wasn't overplaying, he added to the Stones sound sonically, but it's ridiculous to say they never sounded good on stage again.
Re: 100 years or more from now, how will the Stones be remembered?
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: December 10, 2010 19:44
Quote
24FPS
'For legacy reasons only the live period until 1974 will stand the test of time.' - Kleermaker
Why? Because Taylor split? The material? There are fantastic concerts from all the eras, along with crap from all the eras. Not every concert in '72 and '73 was a winner. There's great material performed live after 1974. The 1978 tour is getting more respect for being more stripped down and punked, and light on the warhorses. From the U.S. side, '81 debuts Start Me Up. '89 had a grandeur to it, full of classics, some of them rarely or never heard in concert. (2,000 Light Years From Home). '94 and '97 were a little light weight, but '99 was an absolute killer. The Licks Tour of '02 was hit and miss, I saw two great concerts in 2005 and 2006. And all of these tours set records for attendance and receipts. When Taylor wasn't overplaying, he added to the Stones sound sonically, but it's ridiculous to say they never sounded good on stage again.
The Taylor-era is musically the most interesting live period, the Jones-era culturally the most interesting. Overall the 1968-1973 era is musically and culturally the most interesting (the golden era). Believe me, posterity won't think like many people here (strange enough unlike the YT-viewers!) that Taylor ever overplayed etc. Stadiums shows etc. won't endure. But didn't I say that there's too little good live material from the Taylor-era?
I know all the personal preferences of most people here (including myself of course), but I was saying this from a more objective perspective. It's what I think would have a chance to survive and stand the test of time. Best chances for the golden era, studio and live-wise. Punk, disco, dance, reggae, funk and other trendy imitations won't survive because they're not authentic enough and totally out of the cultural relevance focus. The same goes for the Vegas-era of course. It's only my prediction but I think it will be fulfilled. My prediction is that none of the Stones music will survive in the end, but we won't experience that, so don't worry. It's all speculation.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-10 19:49 by kleermaker.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Britney , DrPete , fzv98d , goingmad , hasenfuss , igkoda , IrelandCalling4 , Javadave , joguema , Nankstone , rebelhipi , spidey39 , stargroover , stonesmuziekfan , tiffanyblu , Topi , wolundamo , woodyrichards
Guests:
1672
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10