Tell Me :
Talk
what does trolling bate mean ? this had better be good im having a bad day
Could either of you explain the reasoning behind your posts?
Thanks
.....
Olly.
what does that mean. can anyone explain anything. im a stones fan. ok. i have watched this site for many years. the last few days i entered discussions. i have explained this all before.
Hi keefriffhards,
The term used by Stoneage means posting something with the intent of causing annoyance or offence to others (trying to 'hook' someone into a debate, or attract those who are likely to be offended - hence the bait/fishing reference).
I have no idea (see my comment above) why it has been applied and subsequently endorsed in this instance.
.....
Olly.
As the creator of the thread you refer to above, here are my observations:
I would say that The Stones are "active," rather than "productive."
I would concede that they are a force of nature, and as driven as anyone ever in the annals of pop music.
But the reason they can tour the same show endlessly is because of the songs they have written. They clearly decided many years ago that the world could provide them a very good living w/o their having to slave away in the studio trying to produce more records.
I understand why people still love what they do today. I just find 70-year-old men singing 45-year-old pop songs repetitive, a bit ghoulish, and, given the genius they once demonstrated, disappointing.
But they are on a victory lap, bringing lots of joy to many, many people ... and, apparently, in the process, also performing their "best show ever" every night. So, rock on!
well i had to listen to people on here today saying keith hardly wrote any of the songs. sounding off that jagger pretty much wtote them all. if that is not offensive what is. he is our songwriter..
they are 72 years of age. 30 years ago they were 52 years of age. way past the peak of any songwriter. but look at what they did in the 22 years before that.
are you sure your a stones fan ????
Not to split hairs, but 72 minus 30 is 42. Just sayin'
Plus, you can be a fan of the band, play their records on a regular basis, and just have little to no interest in their current incarnation.
Criticism does not connote dislike; in fact, criticism is often a sign of passion and love.
Very interesting.
For me, their 'artistic questing' is evident each and every time they take the stage.
I find your comment regarding arrangements interesting.
I immediately thought of Page and Plant's No Quarter album, with its inventive re-interpretations of songs...
...The big difference, of course, is that this occurred after the main event; it was an imaginative act of nostalgia in many ways; a coda, if you will
Had Led Zepelin been in existence in the 1990s, would they have produced a similar sound to the one featured on No Quarter? Possibly.
Perhaps it is the celebrated longevity of The Rolling Stones that has limited their creativity.
.....
Olly.
ok rollin stoner very clever you can add up better than me, well done mate. ok at 42 most artists are cooked by that time. maybe not bob dylan and a host of others.
the point i am trying to make on 2 posts today is that they are 72 years old give or take. they don't owe me you or anyone else anything. they gave it all. they still enjoy playing live. they still enjoy us enjoying them. they have given so many people so much pleasure over 53 years. some people on here seem jealous because they are rich. well they earned it pal .
you dont know who i am and i will be gone for a while.
there are some lovely people on here but too many nasty ones for me to handle.
i know i am a bit blunt and lack empathy sometimes and i probably asked for it.
i just don't know why people cant like all the stones. why the keith and mick camps. keef is my man but jagger is a genius. he is super human. i love the guy..
sorry im rambling a bit..
you still said excuses excuses, your still taking the piss. your the same as him.
you want so much from the stones you lot, you want them to bleed for you.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-23 23:24 by Rollin' Stoner.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
The Rolling Stones are a very productive band. Why do people sometimes suggest otherwise?
Posted by:
Olly
()
Date: June 23, 2015 19:27
I have read a few posts, particularly in the 'Why Record New Music' thread, that seem to express surprise at periods of apparent inactivity by the band.
I know this is common knowledge to many, but I wonder whether people appreciate just how active The Rolling Stones have been, particularly in recent decades.
I see many posts mentioning the number of studio recordings the band have released during this time (and they have released several), but the number of consistently high quality concerts they have performed is incredible.
I saw one post that mentioned the relative gap in apparent activity between 2007 and 2012, as if the band members wouldn't have wanted a break following the A Bigger Bang tour.
In August 2007, the band, with the four members at an average age of over 63 years, finished a 147-show world tour.
In the 18 years between August 1989 and August 2007, the band had spent aproximately 79 months on tour. I know the tours had breaks, but often this was just a couple of weeks over Christmas or a short break between continents.
79 months equates to over 6.5 years.
Essentially more than 1 day in every 3 spent touring or preparing to imminently tour between 1989 and 2007.
Financial gains aside, are people aware of the physical and psychological commitment this requires?
I appreciate many are frustrated by the fact the Stones haven't released more music in the latter half of their career. They are different products, but can the production of a live concert or tour be equated in terms of effort, quality or longevity with a studio album?
All comments welcome.
.....
Olly.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-23 23:43 by Olly.
I know this is common knowledge to many, but I wonder whether people appreciate just how active The Rolling Stones have been, particularly in recent decades.
I see many posts mentioning the number of studio recordings the band have released during this time (and they have released several), but the number of consistently high quality concerts they have performed is incredible.
I saw one post that mentioned the relative gap in apparent activity between 2007 and 2012, as if the band members wouldn't have wanted a break following the A Bigger Bang tour.
In August 2007, the band, with the four members at an average age of over 63 years, finished a 147-show world tour.
In the 18 years between August 1989 and August 2007, the band had spent aproximately 79 months on tour. I know the tours had breaks, but often this was just a couple of weeks over Christmas or a short break between continents.
79 months equates to over 6.5 years.
Essentially more than 1 day in every 3 spent touring or preparing to imminently tour between 1989 and 2007.
Financial gains aside, are people aware of the physical and psychological commitment this requires?
I appreciate many are frustrated by the fact the Stones haven't released more music in the latter half of their career. They are different products, but can the production of a live concert or tour be equated in terms of effort, quality or longevity with a studio album?
All comments welcome.
.....
Olly.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-23 23:43 by Olly.
Re: The Rolling Stones are a very productive band. Why do people sometimes suggest otherwise?
Posted by:
swiss
()
Date: June 23, 2015 20:26
.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-23 20:27 by swiss.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-23 20:27 by swiss.
Re: The Rolling Stones are a very productive band. Why do people sometimes suggest otherwise?
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: June 23, 2015 20:35
they are extremely productive until mick and keith fall out.
Re: The Rolling Stones are a very productive band. Why do people sometimes suggest otherwise?
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: June 23, 2015 20:39
I this a trolling bait?
Re: The Rolling Stones are a very productive band. Why do people sometimes suggest otherwise?
Posted by:
MrThompsonWooft
()
Date: June 23, 2015 21:08
Since Bridges to Babylon in 97 the Stones have released one studio album, A Bigger Bang. In the same time McCartney has released Run Devil Run, Working Classical, Driving Rain, Chaos and Creation in the Backyard, Memory Almost Full and New. Additionally he has released two albums by the Firemen and a number of live albums. He would also have had a hand in the Beatles Love.
By comparison the Stone shave been very unproductive - they have simply been recycling old product via their live shows (admittedly a higher number than McCartney).
By comparison the Stone shave been very unproductive - they have simply been recycling old product via their live shows (admittedly a higher number than McCartney).
Re: The Rolling Stones are a very productive band. Why do people sometimes suggest otherwise?
Posted by:
swiss
()
Date: June 23, 2015 21:21
Quote
Stoneage
I this a trolling bait?
Re: The Rolling Stones are a very productive band. Why do people sometimes suggest otherwise?
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: June 23, 2015 21:22
dont get me wrong i would love a new stones album as much as the next guy.
but im not sure if Keith or Mick want to be at close quarters for that long.
touring is fine, they arrive separately and they leave separately.
there has been a love hate between them for a while now.
they seem to be getting on so well lately, maybe leave well alone.
going back into the studio might be hard going for the two Alfa males.
it could be that they are just past the friction that making an album could create. just keep touring Mick kieth . ill settle for that..
but im not sure if Keith or Mick want to be at close quarters for that long.
touring is fine, they arrive separately and they leave separately.
there has been a love hate between them for a while now.
they seem to be getting on so well lately, maybe leave well alone.
going back into the studio might be hard going for the two Alfa males.
it could be that they are just past the friction that making an album could create. just keep touring Mick kieth . ill settle for that..
Re: The Rolling Stones are a very productive band. Why do people sometimes suggest otherwise?
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: June 23, 2015 21:24
Quote
swissQuote
Stoneage
I this a trolling bait?
what does trolling bate mean ? this had better be good im having a bad day
Re: The Rolling Stones are a very productive band. Why do people sometimes suggest otherwise?
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: June 23, 2015 21:31
is everyone new on here treated with suspicion or called a troll or a cheer leader
i am just trying to make a comment. i dont mind a disagreement or even an argument but what is this. everytime i join in someone starts. i had nurse ratchet earyier today now this. im not a troll
i am just trying to make a comment. i dont mind a disagreement or even an argument but what is this. everytime i join in someone starts. i had nurse ratchet earyier today now this. im not a troll
Re: The Rolling Stones are a very productive band. Why do people sometimes suggest otherwise?
Posted by:
Olly
()
Date: June 23, 2015 21:31
Quote
swissQuote
Stoneage
I this a trolling bait?
Could either of you explain the reasoning behind your posts?
Thanks
.....
Olly.
Re: The Rolling Stones are a very productive band. Why do people sometimes suggest otherwise?
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: June 23, 2015 21:34
Quote
OllyQuote
swissQuote
Stoneage
I this a trolling bait?
Could either of you explain the reasoning behind your posts?
Thanks
what does that mean. can anyone explain anything. im a stones fan. ok. i have watched this site for many years. the last few days i entered discussions. i have explained this all before.
Re: The Rolling Stones are a very productive band. Why do people sometimes suggest otherwise?
Posted by:
Olly
()
Date: June 23, 2015 21:40
Quote
keefriffhardsQuote
OllyQuote
swissQuote
Stoneage
I this a trolling bait?
Could either of you explain the reasoning behind your posts?
Thanks
what does that mean. can anyone explain anything. im a stones fan. ok. i have watched this site for many years. the last few days i entered discussions. i have explained this all before.
Hi keefriffhards,
The term used by Stoneage means posting something with the intent of causing annoyance or offence to others (trying to 'hook' someone into a debate, or attract those who are likely to be offended - hence the bait/fishing reference).
I have no idea (see my comment above) why it has been applied and subsequently endorsed in this instance.
.....
Olly.
Re: The Rolling Stones are a very productive band. Why do people sometimes suggest otherwise?
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: June 23, 2015 21:41
olly i know your new too. i want to make this work but they are sabotaging every post i enter. its making me feel quite ill.
Re: The Rolling Stones are a very productive band. Why do people sometimes suggest otherwise?
Posted by:
LongBeachArena72
()
Date: June 23, 2015 21:43
Quote
Olly
I have read a few posts, particularly in the 'Why Record New Music' thread, that seem to express surprise at periods of apparent inactivity by the band.
I know this is common knowledge to many, but I wonder whether people appreciate just how active The Rolling Stones have been, particularly in recent decades.
I see many posts mentioning the number of studio recordings the band have released during this time (and they have released several), but the number of consistently high quality concerts they have performed is incredible.
I saw one post that mentioned the relative gap in apparent activity between 2007 and 2012, as if the band members wouldn't have wanted a break following the A Bigger Bang tour.
In August 2007, the band, with the four members at an average age of over 63 years, finished a 147-show world tour.
In the 18 years between August 1989 and August 2007, the band had spent aproximately 79 months on tour. I know the tours had breaks, but often this was just a couple of weeks over Christmas or a short break between continents.
79 months equates to over 6.5 years.
Essentially more than 1 day in every 3 spent touring or preparing to imminently tour between 1989 and 2007.
Financial gains aside, are people aware of the physical and psychological commitment this requires?
All comments welcome.
As the creator of the thread you refer to above, here are my observations:
I would say that The Stones are "active," rather than "productive."
I would concede that they are a force of nature, and as driven as anyone ever in the annals of pop music.
But the reason they can tour the same show endlessly is because of the songs they have written. They clearly decided many years ago that the world could provide them a very good living w/o their having to slave away in the studio trying to produce more records.
I understand why people still love what they do today. I just find 70-year-old men singing 45-year-old pop songs repetitive, a bit ghoulish, and, given the genius they once demonstrated, disappointing.
But they are on a victory lap, bringing lots of joy to many, many people ... and, apparently, in the process, also performing their "best show ever" every night. So, rock on!
Re: The Rolling Stones are a very productive band. Why do people sometimes suggest otherwise?
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: June 23, 2015 21:44
Quote
keefriffhards
olly i know your new too. i want to make this work but they are sabotaging every post i enter. its making me feel quite ill.
well i had to listen to people on here today saying keith hardly wrote any of the songs. sounding off that jagger pretty much wtote them all. if that is not offensive what is. he is our songwriter..
Re: The Rolling Stones are a very productive band. Why do people sometimes suggest otherwise?
Posted by:
Rollin' Stoner
()
Date: June 23, 2015 21:47
5 studio albums in almost 30 years......prolific
Re: The Rolling Stones are a very productive band. Why do people sometimes suggest otherwise?
Posted by:
Olly
()
Date: June 23, 2015 21:51
Quote
LongBeachArena72Quote
Olly
LongBeachArena72,
Thanks for contributing.
I think it is easy to underestimate what is involved in touring, and that any band that tours is inherently active and/or productive - by definition.
Is the production of a live show or tour not comparable in terms of quality or worth to the production of a studio album?
Although I appreciate the lack of new music frustrates many.
.....
Olly.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-23 22:18 by Olly.
Re: The Rolling Stones are a very productive band. Why do people sometimes suggest otherwise?
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: June 23, 2015 22:01
Quote
Rollin' Stoner
5 studio albums in almost 30 years......prolific
they are 72 years of age. 30 years ago they were 52 years of age. way past the peak of any songwriter. but look at what they did in the 22 years before that.
are you sure your a stones fan ????
Re: The Rolling Stones are a very productive band. Why do people sometimes suggest otherwise?
Posted by:
LongBeachArena72
()
Date: June 23, 2015 22:13
Quote
OllyQuote
LongBeachArena72Quote
Olly
LongBeachArena72,
Thanks for contributing.
I think it is easy to underestimate what is involved in touring, and that any band that tours is inherently active and/or productive - by definition.
Is the production of a live show or tour not comparable in terms of quality or worth to the production of a studio album?
Although I appreciate thye lack of new music frustrates many.
Hi, Olly--
I am interested in art, specifically in the creation of works of art that will stand the test of time. Performance is an art, certainly, but, and this is only my opinion, it is a lesser art than the act of creating something new.
Plus, The Stones attitude toward performance is very conservative. They tend not to vary their approach much at all (not talking about setlists here; talking rather about things like musical arrangements). This makes it hard to really feel that they are truly pushing the envelope in their approach to live performance.
Ultimately, they are what they are. They had a longer run of creating vital new music than almost any other band, and then they were smart enough to capitalize on that output for the next 35 years. They are a commercial juggernaut, a good-time party band capable of repeating their greatest songs with an uncanny precision ... and they have abdicated their artistic questing, entirely.
Re: The Rolling Stones are a very productive band. Why do people sometimes suggest otherwise?
Posted by:
LongBeachArena72
()
Date: June 23, 2015 22:16
Quote
keefriffhardsQuote
Rollin' Stoner
5 studio albums in almost 30 years......prolific
they are 72 years of age. 30 years ago they were 52 years of age. way past the peak of any songwriter. but look at what they did in the 22 years before that.
are you sure your a stones fan ????
Not to split hairs, but 72 minus 30 is 42. Just sayin'
Plus, you can be a fan of the band, play their records on a regular basis, and just have little to no interest in their current incarnation.
Criticism does not connote dislike; in fact, criticism is often a sign of passion and love.
Re: The Rolling Stones are a very productive band. Why do people sometimes suggest otherwise?
Posted by:
Rollin' Stoner
()
Date: June 23, 2015 22:20
excuses, excusesQuote
keefriffhardsQuote
Rollin' Stoner
5 studio albums in almost 30 years......prolific
they are 72 years of age. 30 years ago they were 52 years of age. way past the peak of any songwriter. but look at what they did in the 22 years before that.
are you sure your a stones fan ????
Re: The Rolling Stones are a very productive band. Why do people sometimes suggest otherwise?
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: June 23, 2015 22:24
Don't worry, Olly. Go on with your thread. What I meant, a bit sarcastically, is that these kind of threads tends to go on forever without actually leading anywhere.
Of course there are lots of them here on iorr. I have started a few of them myself. So, no harm intended...
Of course there are lots of them here on iorr. I have started a few of them myself. So, no harm intended...
Re: The Rolling Stones are a very productive band. Why do people sometimes suggest otherwise?
Posted by:
Olly
()
Date: June 23, 2015 22:39
Quote
LongBeachArena72
Hi, Olly--
I am interested in art, specifically in the creation of works of art that will stand the test of time. Performance is an art, certainly, but, and this is only my opinion, it is a lesser art than the act of creating something new.
Plus, The Stones attitude toward performance is very conservative. They tend not to vary their approach much at all (not talking about setlists here; talking rather about things like musical arrangements). This makes it hard to really feel that they are truly pushing the envelope in their approach to live performance.
Ultimately, they are what they are. They had a longer run of creating vital new music than almost any other band, and then they were smart enough to capitalize on that output for the next 35 years. They are a commercial juggernaut, a good-time party band capable of repeating their greatest songs with an uncanny precision ... and they have abdicated their artistic questing, entirely.
Very interesting.
For me, their 'artistic questing' is evident each and every time they take the stage.
I find your comment regarding arrangements interesting.
I immediately thought of Page and Plant's No Quarter album, with its inventive re-interpretations of songs...
...The big difference, of course, is that this occurred after the main event; it was an imaginative act of nostalgia in many ways; a coda, if you will
Had Led Zepelin been in existence in the 1990s, would they have produced a similar sound to the one featured on No Quarter? Possibly.
Perhaps it is the celebrated longevity of The Rolling Stones that has limited their creativity.
.....
Olly.
Re: The Rolling Stones are a very productive band. Why do people sometimes suggest otherwise?
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: June 23, 2015 22:51
Quote
LongBeachArena72Quote
keefriffhardsQuote
Rollin' Stoner
5 studio albums in almost 30 years......prolific
they are 72 years of age. 30 years ago they were 52 years of age. way past the peak of any songwriter. but look at what they did in the 22 years before that.
are you sure your a stones fan ????
Not to split hairs, but 72 minus 30 is 42. Just sayin'
Plus, you can be a fan of the band, play their records on a regular basis, and just have little to no interest in their current incarnation.
Criticism does not connote dislike; in fact, criticism is often a sign of passion and love.
ok rollin stoner very clever you can add up better than me, well done mate. ok at 42 most artists are cooked by that time. maybe not bob dylan and a host of others.
the point i am trying to make on 2 posts today is that they are 72 years old give or take. they don't owe me you or anyone else anything. they gave it all. they still enjoy playing live. they still enjoy us enjoying them. they have given so many people so much pleasure over 53 years. some people on here seem jealous because they are rich. well they earned it pal .
you dont know who i am and i will be gone for a while.
there are some lovely people on here but too many nasty ones for me to handle.
i know i am a bit blunt and lack empathy sometimes and i probably asked for it.
i just don't know why people cant like all the stones. why the keith and mick camps. keef is my man but jagger is a genius. he is super human. i love the guy..
sorry im rambling a bit..
Re: The Rolling Stones are a very productive band. Why do people sometimes suggest otherwise?
Posted by:
Rollin' Stoner
()
Date: June 23, 2015 23:02
I wasn't doing the math fanboy....pay attentionQuote
keefriffhardsQuote
LongBeachArena72Quote
keefriffhardsQuote
Rollin' Stoner
5 studio albums in almost 30 years......prolific
they are 72 years of age. 30 years ago they were 52 years of age. way past the peak of any songwriter. but look at what they did in the 22 years before that.
are you sure your a stones fan ????
Not to split hairs, but 72 minus 30 is 42. Just sayin'
Plus, you can be a fan of the band, play their records on a regular basis, and just have little to no interest in their current incarnation.
Criticism does not connote dislike; in fact, criticism is often a sign of passion and love.
ok rollin stoner very clever you can add up better than me, well done mate. ok at 42 most artists are cooked by that time. maybe not bob dylan and a host of others.
the point i am trying to make on 2 posts today is that they are 72 years old give or take. they don't owe me you or anyone else anything. they gave it all. they still enjoy playing live. they still enjoy us enjoying them. they have given so many people so much pleasure over 53 years. some people on here seem jealous because they are rich. well they earned it pal .
you dont know who i am and i will be gone for a while.
there are some lovely people on here but too many nasty ones for me to handle.
i know i am a bit blunt and lack empathy sometimes and i probably asked for it.
i just don't know why people cant like all the stones. why the keith and mick camps. keef is my man but jagger is a genius. he is super human. i love the guy..
sorry im rambling a bit..
Re: The Rolling Stones are a very productive band. Why do people sometimes suggest otherwise?
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: June 23, 2015 23:18
Quote
Rollin' StonerI wasn't doing the math fanboy....pay attentionQuote
keefriffhardsQuote
LongBeachArena72Quote
keefriffhardsQuote
Rollin' Stoner
5 studio albums in almost 30 years......prolific
they are 72 years of age. 30 years ago they were 52 years of age. way past the peak of any songwriter. but look at what they did in the 22 years before that.
are you sure your a stones fan ????
Not to split hairs, but 72 minus 30 is 42. Just sayin'
Plus, you can be a fan of the band, play their records on a regular basis, and just have little to no interest in their current incarnation.
Criticism does not connote dislike; in fact, criticism is often a sign of passion and love.
ok rollin stoner very clever you can add up better than me, well done mate. ok at 42 most artists are cooked by that time. maybe not bob dylan and a host of others.
the point i am trying to make on 2 posts today is that they are 72 years old give or take. they don't owe me you or anyone else anything. they gave it all. they still enjoy playing live. they still enjoy us enjoying them. they have given so many people so much pleasure over 53 years. some people on here seem jealous because they are rich. well they earned it pal .
you dont know who i am and i will be gone for a while.
there are some lovely people on here but too many nasty ones for me to handle.
i know i am a bit blunt and lack empathy sometimes and i probably asked for it.
i just don't know why people cant like all the stones. why the keith and mick camps. keef is my man but jagger is a genius. he is super human. i love the guy..
sorry im rambling a bit..
you still said excuses excuses, your still taking the piss. your the same as him.
you want so much from the stones you lot, you want them to bleed for you.
Re: The Rolling Stones are a very productive band. Why do people sometimes suggest otherwise?
Posted by:
Rollin' Stoner
()
Date: June 23, 2015 23:20
no I meant it...excuses, excuses...I only want Iggy to bleed for meQuote
keefriffhardsQuote
Rollin' StonerI wasn't doing the math fanboy....pay attentionQuote
keefriffhardsQuote
LongBeachArena72Quote
keefriffhardsQuote
Rollin' Stoner
5 studio albums in almost 30 years......prolific
they are 72 years of age. 30 years ago they were 52 years of age. way past the peak of any songwriter. but look at what they did in the 22 years before that.
are you sure your a stones fan ????
Not to split hairs, but 72 minus 30 is 42. Just sayin'
Plus, you can be a fan of the band, play their records on a regular basis, and just have little to no interest in their current incarnation.
Criticism does not connote dislike; in fact, criticism is often a sign of passion and love.
ok rollin stoner very clever you can add up better than me, well done mate. ok at 42 most artists are cooked by that time. maybe not bob dylan and a host of others.
the point i am trying to make on 2 posts today is that they are 72 years old give or take. they don't owe me you or anyone else anything. they gave it all. they still enjoy playing live. they still enjoy us enjoying them. they have given so many people so much pleasure over 53 years. some people on here seem jealous because they are rich. well they earned it pal .
you dont know who i am and i will be gone for a while.
there are some lovely people on here but too many nasty ones for me to handle.
i know i am a bit blunt and lack empathy sometimes and i probably asked for it.
i just don't know why people cant like all the stones. why the keith and mick camps. keef is my man but jagger is a genius. he is super human. i love the guy..
sorry im rambling a bit..
you still said excuses excuses, your still taking the piss. your the same as him.
you want so much from the stones you lot, you want them to bleed for you.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-23 23:24 by Rollin' Stoner.
Re: The Rolling Stones are a very productive band. Why do people sometimes suggest otherwise?
Posted by:
Brstonesfan
()
Date: June 23, 2015 23:23
Obviously there creative peak was 65-81 which is a great run.
They certainly have been productive touring the past 25 years.
However, it would be disingenuous to say that the limited studio
recordings post 81 have been anything special. Voodoo Lounge was
the closest we got to anything above average
They certainly have been productive touring the past 25 years.
However, it would be disingenuous to say that the limited studio
recordings post 81 have been anything special. Voodoo Lounge was
the closest we got to anything above average
Re: The Rolling Stones are a very productive band. Why do people sometimes suggest otherwise?
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: June 23, 2015 23:28
you mean at 72 its not a good enough reason to not make an album.
even though they tour all the time, don't you want them to have any life.
most rock stars that age are dead or in care homes.
its not just there age they done some miles haven't they.
Keith's got an album to bring our after this and maybe a winos tour.
is that not creative enough for you..
even though they tour all the time, don't you want them to have any life.
most rock stars that age are dead or in care homes.
its not just there age they done some miles haven't they.
Keith's got an album to bring our after this and maybe a winos tour.
is that not creative enough for you..
Re: The Rolling Stones are a very productive band. Why do people sometimes suggest otherwise?
Posted by:
Rokyfan
()
Date: June 23, 2015 23:34
People say that because they have done one album of new music in however many years it has been, and because as a live band, the abandon their new music and have become an oldies act. They play one song - Doom and Gloom - so people can't say that the newest thing in their set is 30 years old. Those are facts. (personally, I wish they had kept a lot of the newer stuff in the set and developed it, but they did not)
Some fans wish they had done more on the creative side rather than just cranking out the greatest hits tours. That doesn't mean anyone is not a fan, or can't recognize that they are still they best at what they do and that they have the best catalog in rock and roll. But they have not been a creative entity for decades.
Some fans wish they had done more on the creative side rather than just cranking out the greatest hits tours. That doesn't mean anyone is not a fan, or can't recognize that they are still they best at what they do and that they have the best catalog in rock and roll. But they have not been a creative entity for decades.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Dan , DandelionPowderman , dimtim , drwatts , gastonl74 , keefmick , LeonidP , letitloose6 , makustone , MingSubu , MisterDDDD , MrGuiness , okenny , perkmo , RayHongus , roryg , tinnitus , TumblinDice76 , Woz
Guests:
886
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10