Tell Me :
Talk
How does it? Especially considering theyd already had a few hit singles before it was released.
The criteria for the HOF is that a minimum of 25 years have to have passed since an act's first record. The Stones couldnt have been inducted any earlier than the Jan'89 ceremony for the simple fact that their first record was released in June 1963 and they hadnt passed the 25 year mark by the time of the previous ceremony in January 1988.
I cant see how anyone can argue against 1962 being the starting point. You cant release a record until youve actually formed - to suggest an act doesnt exist until they put out a record is pretty preposterous. And as no one can really pinpoint a specific date when they actually decided 'lets form a band' or even rehearsed for the first time, then the first public appearance is the obvious yardstick.
This only works with bands of course; with solo artists they were formed as soon as they were born (even first public performances wouldn't really work, for example Jerry Lee Lewis first performed in public when he was around 9 years old in 1944 but didn't release his first record until 1956).
Back to The Rolling Stones; were they first formed when Bill joined & they were actually calling themselves The Rolling Stones (or The Rollin' Stones), or do we include the embryonic band featuring Mick & Keith (& Dick Taylor, etc), just as many Beatles fans would include The Quarrymen, The Silver Beatles (pre-Ringo), etc?
So, I think their first single is the best thing to commemorate them by.
They were called The Rolling (or rather 'Rollin' ) Stones at the time of their first concert on July 12, 1962. They were a working, professional band at that date and would have been paid for their performance.
Little Boy Blue & The Blue Boys never 'performed' a gig though, and its a bit of a stretch to call any band 'The Rolling Stones' prior to Jones and Stu being involved, especially considering Brian's role in bringing the band together. I dont think anyone in the Stones considers Mick and Keith's first band to be the original incarnation of the Rolling Stones.
They played about 115 gigs as the Rolling Stones (more dates than in some of their world tours in recent decades!) before their first record was released, so they were most definitely every bit as much a 'band' in every sense of the word as every other band would be who play in bars and clubs anywhere in the world but who just dont happen to have a record contract.
Fans had known about this acetate for decades (a friend of mine heard it when he visited Jerry Lee's long-time friend Cecil Harrelson way back in 1967), but it wasn't until 2006 (following an internet campaign on a fans forum!) that it was finally released. Personally I prefer the Fats Domino-inspired instrumental B-side though...
Good points, I agree. It is a bit daft to ask what are they doing for their fans, particularly in their station of life. I should have been more acurate to say their fans and themselves.
Anyways, my hopes are for a few shows. Someone mentioned earlier that the stones would not "clean and start the big machine" just to do a few shows. I just hope they would drop that big machine and sort of devolve and be a band that can play a show when it wants to . . .
P.S. indeed 1981-1983, they did do alot . . .
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
50 Years, really? How so, and now what?
Posted by:
NorthShoreBlues2
()
Date: May 18, 2011 21:31
Its probably already been discussed, but its been kinda bothering me lately:
How is 2012 the 50 year anniversary? Is it as a band? Is that the "official" start date.
Stones formed in 1962 + 50 = 2012
1st show in 1962 + 50 = 2012
1st single was 1963 + 50 = 2013
1st Album was 1964 + 50 = 2014 (Or was the first album 1963??)
They were inducted to the Rock'Roll Hall of fame in 1989, I'm pretty sure you have to be an act for 25 years to get into the Hall of fame, so perhaps they were going off of there first album, which i think makes the most sense.
Some of you guys know that I'm a big Pearl Jam fan. Please don't hold it against me.
By contrast, PJ are celebrating their 20th anniversary (PJ20) and thats from their 1st album.
PJ formed: 1990
First show: Oct, 1990 (they celebrated a 10 year anniverary in 2000, that was for their fist show)
First Album: Summer 1991
This is what has been done, and what is so far planned for 2011: PJ20:
1. Jan 2011: Live Album Compilation release (for the casual fan, remember they release every show as official bootlegs)
2. Feb 2011: Remastered 2nd (Vs.) and 3rd (Vitology) albums reissued w/bonus tracks and Soundboard release of a famous Boston 94 show.
3. March 2011: Vedder solo tour of Australia
4. April 2011: The band records new material for possible fall 2011 release
5. May/June 2011: Vedder to release new solo record and DVD, will do short solo US tour
6. Sept 2011: Announced last week: PJ weekend festival Labor Day weekend Alpine Valley w/ a bunch of special guests . . .
7. Sept 2011: Short Canadian Tour
8. Sept 2011: PJ20 Documentary by Cameron Crow- Theater Release (much like the Who's Kids Are Alright)
9. Sept 2011: Soundtrack Release from PJ20
10. Sept 2011: New Authorized Book about the band
11. Nov 2011: Rumored South American tour
12. Rumored few US dates added by end of year
So these guys are doing this to celebrate with their fans, now what the hell is our beloved band doing to celebrate with its fans???
Why not a short stint at MSG, a new DVD, open the vaults, short stint in Paris or London, etc . . . why not?
keeping my fingers crossed!!!
How is 2012 the 50 year anniversary? Is it as a band? Is that the "official" start date.
Stones formed in 1962 + 50 = 2012
1st show in 1962 + 50 = 2012
1st single was 1963 + 50 = 2013
1st Album was 1964 + 50 = 2014 (Or was the first album 1963??)
They were inducted to the Rock'Roll Hall of fame in 1989, I'm pretty sure you have to be an act for 25 years to get into the Hall of fame, so perhaps they were going off of there first album, which i think makes the most sense.
Some of you guys know that I'm a big Pearl Jam fan. Please don't hold it against me.
By contrast, PJ are celebrating their 20th anniversary (PJ20) and thats from their 1st album.PJ formed: 1990
First show: Oct, 1990 (they celebrated a 10 year anniverary in 2000, that was for their fist show)
First Album: Summer 1991
This is what has been done, and what is so far planned for 2011: PJ20:
1. Jan 2011: Live Album Compilation release (for the casual fan, remember they release every show as official bootlegs)
2. Feb 2011: Remastered 2nd (Vs.) and 3rd (Vitology) albums reissued w/bonus tracks and Soundboard release of a famous Boston 94 show.
3. March 2011: Vedder solo tour of Australia
4. April 2011: The band records new material for possible fall 2011 release
5. May/June 2011: Vedder to release new solo record and DVD, will do short solo US tour
6. Sept 2011: Announced last week: PJ weekend festival Labor Day weekend Alpine Valley w/ a bunch of special guests . . .
7. Sept 2011: Short Canadian Tour
8. Sept 2011: PJ20 Documentary by Cameron Crow- Theater Release (much like the Who's Kids Are Alright)
9. Sept 2011: Soundtrack Release from PJ20
10. Sept 2011: New Authorized Book about the band
11. Nov 2011: Rumored South American tour
12. Rumored few US dates added by end of year
So these guys are doing this to celebrate with their fans, now what the hell is our beloved band doing to celebrate with its fans???
Why not a short stint at MSG, a new DVD, open the vaults, short stint in Paris or London, etc . . . why not?
keeping my fingers crossed!!!Re: 50 Years, really? How so, and now what?
Posted by:
Jumpinjackflash59
()
Date: May 18, 2011 22:43
I have the feeling that people here expect much more than a half dozen shows in NYC London Paris + a DVD, they want a tour. Or am i wrong? Plus i doubt the Stones would clean and start the big machine one more time for only a few concerts here and there, they could even loose money considering they like to do it first class.
There is a huge difference between 20th anniversary and 50th anniversary. 20 years means you're around 40, in a perfect shape as men and at a peack (peeck, pick? What's the right word?) as musicians. It's a positive message and you don't have to worry about your success. 50 years means you are around seventy, possibly out of shape. Maybe it's a positive message for the fans, but surely not for the rest of the public, the 90% of people who are expected to fill the big arenas and the stadium.
There is a huge difference between 20th anniversary and 50th anniversary. 20 years means you're around 40, in a perfect shape as men and at a peack (peeck, pick? What's the right word?) as musicians. It's a positive message and you don't have to worry about your success. 50 years means you are around seventy, possibly out of shape. Maybe it's a positive message for the fans, but surely not for the rest of the public, the 90% of people who are expected to fill the big arenas and the stadium.
Re: 50 Years, really? How so, and now what?
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: May 19, 2011 03:03
Quote
NorthShoreBlues2
Its probably already been discussed, but its been kinda bothering me lately:
How is 2012 the 50 year anniversary? Is it as a band? Is that the "official" start date.
Stones formed in 1962 + 50 = 2012
1st show in 1962 + 50 = 2012
1st single was 1963 + 50 = 2013
1st Album was 1964 + 50 = 2014 (Or was the first album 1963??)
They were inducted to the Rock'Roll Hall of fame in 1989, I'm pretty sure you have to be an act for 25 years to get into the Hall of fame, so perhaps they were going off of there first album, which i think makes the most sense.
How does it? Especially considering theyd already had a few hit singles before it was released.
The criteria for the HOF is that a minimum of 25 years have to have passed since an act's first record. The Stones couldnt have been inducted any earlier than the Jan'89 ceremony for the simple fact that their first record was released in June 1963 and they hadnt passed the 25 year mark by the time of the previous ceremony in January 1988.
I cant see how anyone can argue against 1962 being the starting point. You cant release a record until youve actually formed - to suggest an act doesnt exist until they put out a record is pretty preposterous. And as no one can really pinpoint a specific date when they actually decided 'lets form a band' or even rehearsed for the first time, then the first public appearance is the obvious yardstick.
Re: 50 Years, really? How so, and now what?
Posted by:
Sleepy City
()
Date: May 19, 2011 19:58
Quote
Gazza
You cant release a record until youve actually formed - to suggest an act doesnt exist until they put out a record is pretty preposterous.
This only works with bands of course; with solo artists they were formed as soon as they were born (even first public performances wouldn't really work, for example Jerry Lee Lewis first performed in public when he was around 9 years old in 1944 but didn't release his first record until 1956).
Back to The Rolling Stones; were they first formed when Bill joined & they were actually calling themselves The Rolling Stones (or The Rollin' Stones), or do we include the embryonic band featuring Mick & Keith (& Dick Taylor, etc), just as many Beatles fans would include The Quarrymen, The Silver Beatles (pre-Ringo), etc?
So, I think their first single is the best thing to commemorate them by.
Re: 50 Years, really? How so, and now what?
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: May 19, 2011 22:24
Bill joined December 1962, right? Charlie in January '63. I think they were calling themselves The Rollin' Stones by then. Isn't there a handbill or something?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-05-19 22:25 by 24FPS.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-05-19 22:25 by 24FPS.
Re: 50 Years, really? How so, and now what?
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: May 19, 2011 22:54
NorthShore, when Pearl Jam started it was not a singles market with albums being something of an afterthought so no one in their right mind would wait until 2014 to mark the Stones anniversary.
Also, Pearl Jam are marking 20 years. When the Stones hit 20 years they gave Europe and the UK a tour, a live album, and a concert film. 20 years after their first record was released there was a new album and a fan club and official newsletter trumpeting their 20th Anniversary. That's the only apt comparison to Pearl Jam today.
30 years on, there was an album and a world tour starting although they downplayed the anniversary.
40 years on we had a career retrospective with new material and a world tour all sold on the number 40.
Since the band's silver anniversary is not this year, I would hold off and be patient. They're not dead yet and they are all working even if it's largely as solo artists at the moment. There will likely be something to cash in (sorry, honor the fans by giving them something in appreciation of their years of support), but comparing a 20 year old band to a 50 year old band and saying "what are they doing for the fans?" just seems a bit daft.
Also, Pearl Jam are marking 20 years. When the Stones hit 20 years they gave Europe and the UK a tour, a live album, and a concert film. 20 years after their first record was released there was a new album and a fan club and official newsletter trumpeting their 20th Anniversary. That's the only apt comparison to Pearl Jam today.
30 years on, there was an album and a world tour starting although they downplayed the anniversary.
40 years on we had a career retrospective with new material and a world tour all sold on the number 40.
Since the band's silver anniversary is not this year, I would hold off and be patient. They're not dead yet and they are all working even if it's largely as solo artists at the moment. There will likely be something to cash in (sorry, honor the fans by giving them something in appreciation of their years of support), but comparing a 20 year old band to a 50 year old band and saying "what are they doing for the fans?" just seems a bit daft.
Re: 50 Years, really? How so, and now what?
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: May 20, 2011 01:04
Quote
Sleepy CityQuote
Gazza
You cant release a record until youve actually formed - to suggest an act doesnt exist until they put out a record is pretty preposterous.
This only works with bands of course; with solo artists they were formed as soon as they were born (even first public performances wouldn't really work, for example Jerry Lee Lewis first performed in public when he was around 9 years old in 1944 but didn't release his first record until 1956).
Back to The Rolling Stones; were they first formed when Bill joined & they were actually calling themselves The Rolling Stones (or The Rollin' Stones), or do we include the embryonic band featuring Mick & Keith (& Dick Taylor, etc), just as many Beatles fans would include The Quarrymen, The Silver Beatles (pre-Ringo), etc?
So, I think their first single is the best thing to commemorate them by.
They were called The Rolling (or rather 'Rollin' ) Stones at the time of their first concert on July 12, 1962. They were a working, professional band at that date and would have been paid for their performance.
Little Boy Blue & The Blue Boys never 'performed' a gig though, and its a bit of a stretch to call any band 'The Rolling Stones' prior to Jones and Stu being involved, especially considering Brian's role in bringing the band together. I dont think anyone in the Stones considers Mick and Keith's first band to be the original incarnation of the Rolling Stones.
They played about 115 gigs as the Rolling Stones (more dates than in some of their world tours in recent decades!) before their first record was released, so they were most definitely every bit as much a 'band' in every sense of the word as every other band would be who play in bars and clubs anywhere in the world but who just dont happen to have a record contract.
Re: 50 Years, really? How so, and now what?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: May 20, 2011 01:14
Jerry Lee Lewis first performed in public when he was around 9 years old in 1944 but didn't release his first record until 1956.....
Hey GAZZA ..... Jerry Lee cut his first acetate at J&M studio
New Orleans in 1952 .... A cover of Lefty Frizzel's Don't Stay Away ....
The acetate only surfaced in 2006 after being stored in a suitcase for some
50 odd years .... And it's a KILLER version from that Jerry Lee kid ...
Just thought ya might like ta know .........
TAKE CARE
ROCKMAN
Hey GAZZA ..... Jerry Lee cut his first acetate at J&M studio
New Orleans in 1952 .... A cover of Lefty Frizzel's Don't Stay Away ....
The acetate only surfaced in 2006 after being stored in a suitcase for some
50 odd years .... And it's a KILLER version from that Jerry Lee kid ...
Just thought ya might like ta know .........
TAKE CARE
ROCKMAN
Re: 50 Years, really? How so, and now what?
Posted by:
Sleepy City
()
Date: May 20, 2011 01:20
Quote
Rockman
Jerry Lee Lewis first performed in public when he was around 9 years old in 1944 but didn't release his first record until 1956.....
Hey GAZZA ..... Jerry Lee cut his first acetate at J&M studio
New Orleans in 1952 .... A cover of Lefty Frizzel's Don't Stay Away ....
The acetate only surfaced in 2006 after being stored in a suitcase for some
50 odd years .... And it's a KILLER version from that Jerry Lee kid ...
Just thought ya might like ta know .........
TAKE CARE
Fans had known about this acetate for decades (a friend of mine heard it when he visited Jerry Lee's long-time friend Cecil Harrelson way back in 1967), but it wasn't until 2006 (following an internet campaign on a fans forum!) that it was finally released. Personally I prefer the Fats Domino-inspired instrumental B-side though...
Re: 50 Years, really? How so, and now what?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: May 20, 2011 01:24
....sleepy Yeah both knock-outs from that Killer KId ....
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: 50 Years, really? How so, and now what?
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: May 20, 2011 01:42
Great stuff, Rockman - thanks!
Re: 50 Years, really? How so, and now what?
Posted by:
NorthShoreBlues2
()
Date: May 20, 2011 01:42
Quote
Rocky Dijon
NorthShore, when Pearl Jam started it was not a singles market with albums being something of an afterthought so no one in their right mind would wait until 2014 to mark the Stones anniversary.
Also, Pearl Jam are marking 20 years. When the Stones hit 20 years they gave Europe and the UK a tour, a live album, and a concert film. 20 years after their first record was released there was a new album and a fan club and official newsletter trumpeting their 20th Anniversary. That's the only apt comparison to Pearl Jam today.
30 years on, there was an album and a world tour starting although they downplayed the anniversary.
40 years on we had a career retrospective with new material and a world tour all sold on the number 40.
Since the band's silver anniversary is not this year, I would hold off and be patient. They're not dead yet and they are all working even if it's largely as solo artists at the moment. There will likely be something to cash in (sorry, honor the fans by giving them something in appreciation of their years of support), but comparing a 20 year old band to a 50 year old band and saying "what are they doing for the fans?" just seems a bit daft.
Good points, I agree. It is a bit daft to ask what are they doing for their fans, particularly in their station of life. I should have been more acurate to say their fans and themselves.
Anyways, my hopes are for a few shows. Someone mentioned earlier that the stones would not "clean and start the big machine" just to do a few shows. I just hope they would drop that big machine and sort of devolve and be a band that can play a show when it wants to . . .
P.S. indeed 1981-1983, they did do alot . . .
Re: 50 Years, really? How so, and now what?
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: May 20, 2011 06:40
SMOKIN HOT!!!!
That is some red hot, rock and roll, boogie woogie, good ole Jerry Lee LewisQuote
Sleepy City
Re: 50 Years, really? How so, and now what?
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: May 20, 2011 06:48
Quote
NorthShoreBlues2Quote
Rocky Dijon
Good points, I agree. It is a bit daft to ask what are they doing for their fans, particularly in their station of life. I should have been more acurate to say their fans and themselves.
Anyways, my hopes are for a few shows. Someone mentioned earlier that the stones would not "clean and start the big machine" just to do a few shows. I just hope they would drop that big machine and sort of devolve and be a band that can play a show when it wants to . . .
P.S. indeed 1981-1983, they did do alot . . .
I was unnecessarily cranky with you, NorthShore so apologies all around. Pearl Jam has always had an exceptional relationship with their audience while the Stones are more the ultimate performers and businessmen who wrote the book on how to wring the most out of the business. They approach their art very differently so from that perspective alone you can't compare them any more than you can reasonably compare Jagger's interaction with his audience to Springsteen's. They are very different animals.
Re: 50 Years, really? How so, and now what?
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: May 20, 2011 08:43
Well I suppose they could (but most likely won't) have a whole boat load of 50th anniversary celebrations beginning with Keith and Mick meeting at the Dartford Train Station in December of 1961. The next one could be Mick and Keith jamming together for the first time in January of 1962. Didn't Mick, Keith, and Brian jam together for the first time in May of 1962? Then there is the official first gig, on July 12, (the official anniversary of the Rolling Stones) followed by Bill Wyman joining the band in December of '62, and Charlie joining in January of 1963.
It's going to be interesting to see exactly when the tour begins and if they will actually kick the tour off on July 12, 2012, although, I doubt any of us are going to complain if it's a week or two later or even as late as late August.
It's going to be interesting to see exactly when the tour begins and if they will actually kick the tour off on July 12, 2012, although, I doubt any of us are going to complain if it's a week or two later or even as late as late August.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
CaptainAcid , craigmodel212 , falo01 , filoca , hockenheim95 , MisterO , Musicwinn , paulspendel , powerage78 , Purplevienna1 , rastakeith , steffialicia , StonyRoad , tiffanyblu
Guests:
1662
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10