I, for one, am finding it difficult to read parts of this site because of the bashing of the Stones for aging/changing with the years! Aren't we ALL aging minute by minute, second by second? Aren't we all changing to some degree?

Yes, the Stones were brilliant in their 20's, 30's and 40's. Their 50's weren't terrible either. They have withstood some hardships along the way. Hardships will age a person. Being under duress will show on any one of us.

So, why are *some* posters continually consumed with thoughts of the Stones ages/changes in performances? Please, take a look in the mirror - do you look and act (have the stamina you had 10 years past?) as you did long ago? I doubt it - however I could be very wrong.

Bottom line: Try not to judge the Stones so harshly. Doing so will come back and bite you in the rear.

There.......rant over!!



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-29 18:52 by Cocaine Eyes.

Quote
Cocaine Eyes
Doing so will come back and bite you in the rear.

I think it's OK now to say "ass."

Quote
Cocaine Eyes

Bottom line: Try not to judge the Stones so harshly. Doing so will come back and bite you in the rear.

How so?

of course we want our heroes to stay young! just like we want to stay young

Don't threaten people, Mick (um, excuse me, "cocaine eyes") ; )

We all get old, the alternative is even worse as Winston Churchill said, but if somebody cannot play anymore he should retire. This has nothing to do with bashing or lack of respect.

"Whatever you do don't grow old gracefully, it wouldn't suit you" -Pete Townsend inducting The Rolling Stones at The Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame.

Quote
windmelody
if somebody cannot play anymore he should retire.

Says who?

Surely retirement is a personal choice for the self-employed.

If they dont act or behave (like ron last year} like mature old man
everybody seems digust
it was terror for the family
but in the 70 ties or whatever there was just as much pain
you can say what you want but drugs and alcohol was such a big part of the stones and still is
might as well get juiced...its just goin through the motions of life with all the fear and presure...it is great to go to a r&r band to let it all go
but i think jagger can use a bit of anger when recording
i think he can!
stop that overacting of his own voice
like in the song ''down in the hole''
abb sounds empty to me but lots of tunes i really like and jagger sings reel good compared to his latest outputs
maybe a couple of beers and some horse would make it more dirty
i mean that was the first atraction for me all those years ago
the danger the urge the anger the sadness....the frustation...the country blues and r&r songs.....or fingerprint file says it all....thats the kind os song about today! Im not sayin Jagger cant do it
Mann continental drift is Magic!!!
my feelin about the last 6 years is that they not friendly..not social...it was always that gang thing in the stones even lennon said that
now they are 70 years old
its hard to be in a gang when one hits 70
i remember they wrote them of in 82!
most of the time artist get more blues and soul...when comming of age
in this case im waiting
i love them stones
and to see a 78 show complete is a dream come true!!!

to keep it fair, i've invited each of the rolling stones to come onto my fan site and bash me for not being what i once was....or even for never being what i could have been....or ever will be.

I believe the stones have gotten old somehow....and therefore, need this bashing.

Quote
StonesTod
to keep it fair, i've invited each of the rolling stones to come onto my fan site and bash me for not being what i once was....or even for never being what i could have been....or ever will be.

i see
yesterday someone said to me why dont they sit down in a bar and do ''waitin on a friend'' like they did in 81....last time i saw them they did sol....but that bar was fake and they didnt sit! (true story!)

Quote
Cocaine Eyes
Please, take a look in the mirror

Thanks, but no thanks

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Quote
Cocaine Eyes
I, for one, am finding it difficult to read parts of this site because of the bashing of the Stones for aging/changing with the years! Aren't we ALL aging minute by minute, second by second? Aren't we all changing to some degree?

Yes, the Stones were brilliant in their 20's, 30's and 40's. Their 50's weren't terrible either. They have withstood some hardships along the way. Hardships will age a person. Being under duress will show on any one of us.

So, why are *some* posters continually consumed with thoughts of the Stones ages/changes in performances? Please, take a look in the mirror - do you look and act (have the stamina you had 10 years past?) as you did long ago? I doubt it - however I could be very wrong.

Bottom line: Try not to judge the Stones so harshly. Doing so will come back and bite you in the rear.

There.......rant over!!

Are you sure the people who are bashing Stones for getting old are real fans...they might be just "tourists ?"

Quote
Cocaine Eyes
I, for one, am finding it difficult to read parts of this site because of the bashing of the Stones for aging/changing with the years! Aren't we ALL aging minute by minute, second by second? Aren't we all changing to some degree?

No. I age in increments. And only when I allow my cells to be replaced.

Perhaps your view of bashing the Stones for getting old is skewed? I don't think anyone is bashing them for getting old, it's possibly more in line with why can't they just make a decision to focus on the past instead of sinking the legacy even more with more touring with what we all know will be - nothing but a nostalgic set list that Mick Jagger comes up with even though he's always talking about 'moving forward' and not looking in the past with the newest song dating back to 1983. Or how about that even some of the 'true' fans would rather see them not tour and do archival releases.

It's not bashing. It's admitting, as Stones fans, that they aren't worth the price of the tickets for the performance, especially in the string department. That's not denial, it's reality. The occasional good show does not justify the price.

Maybe the bashing you're seeing is about No Spare Parts and that Don Was recorded bass on a track that was recorded in 1977 or 78. Or that Matt Clifford recorded on a track from 1977 or 78. That is most likely justified.

Remember before the internet what it was called? Now everything has a term. You like a sports team and they do really good and then they suck, you get pissed. Or whatever it is. That's the way it goes. The best athletes, the smart ones, hang it up when they know it's time. The greedy ones continue on. A good example of that would be John Elway vs Brett Favre.

In this case, the issue is the team can't play very good anymore. That is in no way a comparison to 1969-73 live Stones or even 1978 0r 1981-82. It's simply not very good, especially on the Bang tour.

What about over praising? You have a word for that? Like how some people think Streets Of Love and Winning Ugly are actually good songs and Dirty Work is a good album and the Bang tour the Stones played great? Talk about skewed.

Just curious. Not sure what it matters when it's a fan site for fans to express themselves. Giving someone grief about this or that is all in fun but if they state it's what they think, well, then there it is. If someone thinks the Stones stunk live on the Bang tour and suddenly a lot of people say that, well, since facts are based on observation... that's not bashing is it.

Is that what you meant?

Quote
seitan

Quote
Cocaine Eyes
I, for one, am finding it difficult to read parts of this site because of the bashing of the Stones for aging/changing with the years! Aren't we ALL aging minute by minute, second by second? Aren't we all changing to some degree?

Yes, the Stones were brilliant in their 20's, 30's and 40's. Their 50's weren't terrible either. They have withstood some hardships along the way. Hardships will age a person. Being under duress will show on any one of us.

So, why are *some* posters continually consumed with thoughts of the Stones ages/changes in performances? Please, take a look in the mirror - do you look and act (have the stamina you had 10 years past?) as you did long ago? I doubt it - however I could be very wrong.

Bottom line: Try not to judge the Stones so harshly. Doing so will come back and bite you in the rear.

There.......rant over!!

Are you sure the people who are bashing Stones for getting old are real fans...they might be just "tourists ?"

Oh, very true indeed! Or, thay could be trolls stirring the pot!!

Quote
DragonSky
Perhaps your view of bashing the Stones for getting old is skewed? Of course it could be!! I don't think anyone is bashing them for getting old, it's possibly more in line with why can't they just make a decision to focus on the past instead of sinking the legacy even more with more touring with what we all know will be - nothing but a nostalgic set list that Mick Jagger comes up with even though he's always talking about 'moving forward' and not looking in the past with the newest song dating back to 1983. Or how about that even some of the 'true' fans would rather see them not tour and do archival releases. True indeed! Open up the vaults!!

It's not bashing. It's admitting, as Stones fans, that they aren't worth the price of the tickets for the performance, especially in the string department. That's not denial, it's reality. The occasional good show does not justify the price.OK!

Maybe the bashing you're seeing is about No Spare Parts and that Don Was recorded bass on a track that was recorded in 1977 or 78. Or that Matt Clifford recorded on a track from 1977 or 78. That is most likely justified.

Remember before the internet what it was called? Now everything has a term. You like a sports team and they do really good and then they suck, you get pissed. Or whatever it is. That's the way it goes. The best athletes, the smart ones, hang it up when they know it's time. The greedy ones continue on. A good example of that would be John Elway vs Brett Favre. Sorry, I'm a female and not a sports person - so I'll agree with you because I'm certain you know more about Favre than I ever could!

In this case, the issue is the team can't play very good anymore. That is in no way a comparison to 1969-73 live Stones or even 1978 0r 1981-82. It's simply not very good, especially on the Bang tour.Very true.

What about over praising? You have a word for that? Like how some people think Streets Of Love and Winning Ugly are actually good songs and Dirty Work is a good album and the Bang tour the Stones played great? Talk about skewed. Sort of true - I really like 'Dirty Work'!

Just curious. Not sure what it matters when it's a fan site for fans to express themselves. Giving someone grief about this or that is all in fun but if they state it's what they think, well, then there it is. If someone thinks the Stones stunk live on the Bang tour and suddenly a lot of people say that, well, since facts are based on observation... that's not bashing is it.
Not really, I suppose.
Is that what you meant?

Partly that's what I meant but perhaps I'm overly involved/sensitive with Keith's arthritis situation. I've been struggling with arthritis for many years now, ever since childhood. I suppose I over react to comments about how Keith (due to his arthritis) doesn't play as he did years ago.

Apologies for stating my thoughts as I see it all.

Thanks for the critique of my post - I shall now change the title to something less negative!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-29 18:53 by Cocaine Eyes.

It wasn't a critique, I was just attempting to figure out just exactly was the bashing parts.

I've got the same issue Keith has so I am aware of how it has a negative impact on movement. That does not, however, excuse him for his bizarre soloing, especially the three note stranglers that he likes to dish out.

John Elway was a quarterback for the Denver Broncos in the NFL. They went to four Super Bowls and lost them all. He was relatively young then. Then a long time went by. They went back to the Super Bowl and won two in a row - the first one against Brett Favre's team, who had one the year before.

After the second victory Elway retired at the age of 38. Favre went on to play and finally played his last season in 2010 at the age of 42. Favre won the only Super Bowl of his career at the age of 27 in 1997 and after taking a massive beating by the New Orleans Saints in the NFC championship game in January 2010 he wondered why he came back for another season in 2010.

I have the same enthusiasm for the young Rolling Stones and the aging Rolling Stones as well, simply because I love them. And after all, aging is actually not changing that fast as before. In "Stones time" 1989 is one week ago. Try in comparison 1966 to 1975. It's a century apart.They were changing fast, they were young. What should I do? Punish them for getting older? For not giving me the Ya Ya's concert in 2050? I'm following their pace, and I respect them.

what's wrong with bashing them for getting old? there are RULES to bashing now?

Quote
StonesTod
what's wrong with bashing them for getting old? there are RULES to bashing now?

Depends on how old you are!

Quote
Kirk
I have the same enthusiasm for the young Rolling Stones and the aging Rolling Stones as well, simply because I love them. And after all, aging is actually not changing that fast as before. In "Stones time" 1989 is one week ago. Try in comparison 1966 to 1975. It's a century apart.They were changing fast, they were young. What should I do? Punish them for getting older? For not giving me the Ya Ya's concert in 2050? I'm following their pace, and I respect them.

That is completely different from confusing them with being great! Which seems to be the issue. However, perhaps your respect skin is very thick considering their ability to play regarding their performances on the Bang tour...

Quote
DragonSky

Quote
Kirk
I have the same enthusiasm for the young Rolling Stones and the aging Rolling Stones as well, simply because I love them. And after all, aging is actually not changing that fast as before. In "Stones time" 1989 is one week ago. Try in comparison 1966 to 1975. It's a century apart.They were changing fast, they were young. What should I do? Punish them for getting older? For not giving me the Ya Ya's concert in 2050? I'm following their pace, and I respect them.

That is completely different from confusing them with being great! Which seems to be the issue. However, perhaps your respect skin is very thick considering their ability to play regarding their performances on the Bang tour...

I see what you mean. And you make a point here. But then again, same confusion in the way you put it. Being great coincides with being young, or anyway younger than something, which eventually affects their ability to play. I'm not English or American so pardon my English here. Maybe it's all about putting standards, like independent variables and so on. And then judging in accordance. Might be that my respect skin is a little thick, but man, I'm 47 and I'm with them since I was 12.

Well certainly there is the aspect of 'still doing it', which they haven't since 2007. So that's not even debatable at this point.

The line of difference though is when does respect and thinking of being great/good separate based on ability, especially a lack of ability, that is reality? That's the jostle of it. 'Yeah they're still goin' strong!' or whatever wag it will be (if they go out again, of course) weighs out over the quality and price? So it's more important that they're "still doing it after all these years" even if it sucks. That's the charm.

I can't go with that. Meaning, I am not willing to pay the exorbitant price to find out if they can still play worth anything based on how the Bang tour went. If I had gone to a Bang tour show expecting to get a band that resembled the band that showed up on the Licks tour I would've been pissed. So that's a kind of losing of respect, at least for me.

Quote
Kirk

Quote
StonesTod
what's wrong with bashing them for getting old? there are RULES to bashing now?

Depends on how old you are!

that's age warfare

Well! Pete Townsend once said at the Rock and Roll Hall of fame introductory:
"Guys don't try to grow up gracefully because it wouldn't suit ya"

Some of the members try to do just that and some don't!
I guess you all know which members I'm talking about1

But let them have their time of change and follow that (I don't always get the hint about doing it). But as life changes, the Rolling Stones will change. For better or worse. Well I guess we can't tell!

The Rolling Stones, to me has been a marriage and that changes by the times!
The older it gets the less rebellious it gets I guess!

Been Stoned since 1964 and still am!

Quote
Fan Since 1964
Some of the members try to do just that and some don't!
I guess you all know which members I'm talking about1

i don't! please enlighten!

Well I guess Keith will at some extent be more a rebel and Ronnie too!
Charlie has always been the quiet rebel and Mick has become more of a celebraty in a more fashioned way.

Ronnie and Keith are more of the "junk" rebels in this band.
Still more earlier than "now a days"

Does this answer your question?

Been Stoned since 1964 and still am!

Quote
Fan Since 1964
Well I guess Keith will at some extent be more a rebel and Ronnie too!
Charlie has always been the quiet rebel and Mick has become more of a celebraty in a more fashioned way.

Ronnie and Keith are more of the "junk" rebels in this band.
Still more earlier than "now a days"

Does this answer your question?

me? i didn't ask a question...