Quote
lsbz
Majorities are often stupid. Many people go to concerts just for the sake of being entertained; instead of listening to music. They often might as well have gone to a baseball game instead and flipped a coin to decide. Generally one should distrust large record sales and huge stadium crowds. They are rarely related to the quality of the music.

That is what you wrote and that is what I commented on. I didn't change a thing.

Quote
skipstone

Quote
lsbz
Majorities are often stupid. Many people go to concerts just for the sake of being entertained; instead of listening to music. They often might as well have gone to a baseball game instead and flipped a coin to decide. Generally one should distrust large record sales and huge stadium crowds. They are rarely related to the quality of the music.

That is what you wrote and that is what I commented on. I didn't change a thing.

No, you changed the meaning of what I wrote in an essential manner:

Quote
skipstone
Just because a lot of people like the Stones or Pink Floyd or U2 does not mean the quality of music they all play in a stadium is for stupid people.

People liking whatever band says *nothing* about the quality of their music; neither in a positive nor a negative sense. You used popularity as an argument in favor of the quality, and that's what I object to. But I personally think that U2 is a very good example of an overhyped band.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-20 00:45 by lsbz.

While the Stones are popular in Japan and Argentina, as an English speaking musical group their cultural impact on these countries is small. Besides, in 100 years there may be several billion people in countries like India, China and perhaps Brazil, Indonesia and Mexico, and the Stones are largely unknown in those countries today so their future impact will be minimal. Anyway, after a few World War(s), global-scale natural disasters and subsequent re-arrangement of borders and shifting of populations - not to mention new forms of media and entertainment - much of 20th century art and culture will likely be forgotten in the next century.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-20 06:00 by TornAndFried.

Quote
TornAndFried
True, but as an English speaking musical group their cultural impact on counties like Japan and Argentina is small. Besides, in 100 years there may be several billion people in countries like India, China and perhaps Brazil, and the Stones are largely unknown in those countries today so their future impact will be minimal. Anyway, after a few likely World War(s), global-scale natural disasters and subsequent rearrangement of borders and shifting of populations, much of 20th century art and culture will be forgotten in the next century.

It would be kind of cool if in 100 years at least some of the descendants of those estimated 1.2 million in attendance in Rio (Brazil) in 2006 would tell a tale or two about the great free concert that took place on the beach that their ancestors attended 100 years before. The Stones performing in China was historic and their have been rumors they may even perform in Israel on the next tour. The world appears to be shrinking, however, none of us can truly predict how history will play itself out over the next 100 years. I know one thing I would sure love to come back every 100 years just to check things out.

Quote
stonescrow
It would be kind of cool if in 100 years at least some of the descendants of those estimated 1.2 million in attendance in Rio (Brazil) in 2006 would tell a tale or two about the great free concert that took place on the beach that their ancestors attended 100 years before. The Stones performing in China was historic and their have been rumors they may even perform in Israel on the next tour. The world appears to be shrinking, however, none of us can truly predict how history will play itself out over the next 100 years. I know one thing I would sure love to come back every 100 years just to check things out.

No it wasnt. Most of the population of China were totally oblivious to it, and had (and still have) never heard of them. What was historic about it?

And whilst the Stones Copacabana gig was the biggest (to date) it certainly wasnt the first.

I'm with the previous poster. Most of what passes for culture and art in the 20th century will be forgotten in 100 years. Probably even 50 years. Its not a comment on the quality or even significance of that art, but on the speed of changes in media communication. In some ways its easier for the 'great' art and culture of previous centuries to survive because there was less mass exposure to it and it doesnt get 'diluted'. Any musical act or media invention from the current era has far more competition and its easier for it to be forgotten about in a couple of years.

Get it into perspective. A record that sells a couple of million and a tour seen by 5 million people is a drop in the ocean in a world that has over 7 billion people. Even in the western world, the Stones mean next to nothing to people under 25 - and thats despite the fact that they've lasted and remained hugely successful for an unprecedented period of time. It's serious delusion of grandeur to think this will be of any importance a century from now other than as a curious artefact.

About the Beatles being there first, remember that Lennon and McCartney were older than Jagger and Richard(s), who were older than Ray Davies and Pete Townsend, who were older than Ronnie Lane and Steve Marriott.

And about classical composers being remembered - that's a pretty debatable point. It's only a small fraction of the period of western classical music, itself only a small fraction of classical music, which is widely known at the moment. From the late baroque to the early twentieth century, maybe.

There are earlier composers of similar stature to Mozart or Debussy (eg. Guillaume de Machaut, Guillaume Dufay, Orlande de Lassus) who are not known by the wider public. And if they're known, I'd guess it's often because of their exoticism, in the same sort of way that Indian or Persian classical music is, I think, often listened to in the West.

That doesn't mean that they won't be better known in the future. The popularity of the late baroque composers, for example, is fairly modern. For quite a while, people tended to be interested in whatever was new, not in the work of dead composers, and hardly anyone cared about Bach.

Quote
TornAndFried
The reason being is because the population of the races I mentioned - Latino, Asian and African - is growing quickly while the white (European descent) population who makes up the majority of Stones fans is not. Therefore,in 100 years from now the world will likely be populated by people who will have no connection whatever to the music of therStones, the Beatles, or to 20th Century rock music in general.

As prosperity goes up, population growth goes down. Besides, China already has a one-child policy.

Quote
skipstone
Because Hispaniola will get much bigger?

What TornAndFried means is LATINOS.

Mestizos, surely? Argentina is mostly of white European descent.

Anyway, the Stones were and are of fairly different descent to Muddy Waters and Howlin' Wolf.

They would be remembered as cultural icons, if the 2012 doomsday would not get in the way.

Remember the words of the wise.

;-)

Quote
lsbz

Quote
skipstone

Quote
lsbz
Majorities are often stupid. Many people go to concerts just for the sake of being entertained; instead of listening to music. They often might as well have gone to a baseball game instead and flipped a coin to decide. Generally one should distrust large record sales and huge stadium crowds. They are rarely related to the quality of the music.

That is what you wrote and that is what I commented on. I didn't change a thing.

No, you changed the meaning of what I wrote in an essential manner:

Bullshit. You're saying that a majority of people who follow a band that go to a show are there just for the fuckofit. A band selling out means a lot of people want to see THAT band. It has nothing to do with baseball. Bands overplaying a market allow people to by-the-way-the-Stones-are-in-town-and-there-are-plenty-of-tickets attend.

Quote
skipstone
Just because a lot of people like the Stones or Pink Floyd or U2 does not mean the quality of music they all play in a stadium is for stupid people.

Quote
lsbz
People liking whatever band says *nothing* about the quality of their music; neither in a positive nor a negative sense. You used popularity as an argument in favor of the quality, and that's what I object to. But I personally think that U2 is a very good example of an overhyped band.

That's subjective and makes zero sense. You're taking it out of context. You go to a U2 show and people sing along to - I know this is probably out of your league with the Stones - NEW SONGS. I wouldn't call that necessarily "popularity". I'd call that being a fan - and the quality is in the difference of warhorses v new/obscure songs. And for those fans it is quality. As much as I can't stand Bon Jovi, those fans will tell you the quality is great etc blah blah blah...but they're just stupid anyway.

Since you object to popularity v. quality you're basically saying you don't go to ANY shows because someone might like it. You think U2 is an over-hyped band - at least they challenge their audience and don't rest on their Beach Boys laurels like some other band we know.

Quote
skipstone
A band selling out means a lot of people want to see THAT band.

I doubt that. Some of them, but certainly not all if you have large stadium crowds.

Quote
skipstone
You go to a U2 show and people sing along to - I know this is probably out of your league with the Stones - NEW SONGS.

New songs are most often not good songs. U2 have very few good songs.

Quote
skipstone
Since you object to popularity v. quality you're basically saying you don't go to ANY shows because someone might like it.

No, again deliberately misinterpreting what I wrote. Popularity says *nothing* about the quality of music; neither in a negative, nor a positive way.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-21 08:51 by lsbz.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
stonescrow
It would be kind of cool if in 100 years at least some of the descendants of those estimated 1.2 million in attendance in Rio (Brazil) in 2006 would tell a tale or two about the great free concert that took place on the beach that their ancestors attended 100 years before. The Stones performing in China was historic and their have been rumors they may even perform in Israel on the next tour. The world appears to be shrinking, however, none of us can truly predict how history will play itself out over the next 100 years. I know one thing I would sure love to come back every 100 years just to check things out.

No it wasnt. Most of the population of China were totally oblivious to it, and had (and still have) never heard of them. What was historic about it?

And whilst the Stones Copacabana gig was the biggest (to date) it certainly wasnt the first.

I'm with the previous poster. Most of what passes for culture and art in the 20th century will be forgotten in 100 years. Probably even 50 years. Its not a comment on the quality or even significance of that art, but on the speed of changes in media communication. In some ways its easier for the 'great' art and culture of previous centuries to survive because there was less mass exposure to it and it doesnt get 'diluted'. Any musical act or media invention from the current era has far more competition and its easier for it to be forgotten about in a couple of years.

Get it into perspective. A record that sells a couple of million and a tour seen by 5 million people is a drop in the ocean in a world that has over 7 billion people. Even in the western world, the Stones mean next to nothing to people under 25 - and thats despite the fact that they've lasted and remained hugely successful for an unprecedented period of time. It's serious delusion of grandeur to think this will be of any importance a century from now other than as a curious artefact.

One, (The Rolling Stones) of the two, (The Beatles being the other) greatest rock 'n' roll bands in the history of western civilization making their first trip to a country like China certainly has historical significance not only in the context of the history of rock 'n' roll but also within the context of the history of the Rolling Stones themselves.

As long as western civilization survives (no matter what it's ethnic make-up will look like 100 years from now) I think both the Beatles and Rolling Stones legacies will endure. Assuming the author of this thread was speaking of how they (The Stones) would be remembered by western civilization 100 years from now the billions that have no knowledge of them today and presumably the billions that would have no knowledge of them in the future are really irrelevant to this discussion. Having said that, who knows how far and wide western culture will expand it's influence over the next century? Could be that 100 years from today the kids in China will be watching the historic final tour of the great Rolling Stones that took place in the years 2011 and 2012!