I personally could care less about the age of a performer in music, but what I don't understand is when The Stones announce a tour, the media goes batsh&t about their age. How come people like Paul Mccartney or Eric Clapton etc. don't get this kind of treatment?

They don't?

I think it's because collectively the Stones are considered "old", meaning everyone in the band is pushing 70. As with Macca and Clapton, it's just them, so it's not as if the whole band is old.

Ronnie is not old! Just 64....and Tayolor only 62..just kidz...

2 1 2 0

I just hope they haven't turned into arthritic monkeys!!

I think it's because guys like Clapton and McCartney are solo acts, and they primarily just stand there and play. McCartney isn't without energy, but it's mostly headshakes and a general enthusiasm for what he's doing that comes across in his manner. Clapton has always just stood there. I think at one show in the 70's he may have actually shook his leg a little.

The Stones on the other hand still try and present themselves as a band that puts on a high energy rock show, where most of the members move about a lot, and some flat out run laps around the stage. They've always been that kind of band, at least in Jagger's case, and I think that's why the media question it more with each tour. More so than the others, I think a lot of it is based on Jagger's longstanding rep as a rather manic performer.

No one is ever too old to stand and play, as long as they are physically able to. But there comes a time when running around like a kid just doesn't work like it once did.

Quote
JohnnyBGoode
I personally could care less about the age of a performer in music, but what I don't understand is when The Stones announce a tour, the media goes batsh&t about their age. How come people like Paul Mccartney or Eric Clapton etc. don't get this kind of treatment?

Probably because the Stones were originally seen as embodying the anti-establishment attitudes of sixties youth; far more so than the Beatles. The Stones have always traded on this image of youthful rebellion; they still do. Just look at Mick in the new Fort Worth DVD, desperately trying to remain relevant as the musical landscape shifts around him. And that was 33 years ago.

The problem of trading so heavily on the image you had when you were young is, of course, that you have to continually live up to it as you get older. This is the conundrum that the Stones have long found themselves in. They can't grow old gracefully because their audience won't let them. The older the band gets, the more ridiculous they appear; hence the age-related media coverage....

It´s all about their image. The only one in the Stones who´s growing old with some dignity is Charlie. No wonder they get ridiculed.

I remember the local press calling them "wrinkly rockers" when they played Glasgow in 1990!

Its mainly because the concept of being in a 'gang' when youre pushing 70 is a bit unique. There arent many groups of that age. Additionally, the Stones were originally seen to symbolise youthful rebellion.

However, theyre hardly alone in being pasted for growing old. Madonna has been getting that sort of press for the last few years and even today in the Daily Express there's a point/counterpoint 2-page piece debating whether its dignified for someone of her age to be dressing scantilly. And she's only 53.

The tabloid press (and news medias in general) havent really got past the 60s and 70's mentality that rock/pop music is the sole preserve of people under 30. Around then, being musically active and in your 40's seemed ridiculous and was almost unheard of because the genre had only been around for a generation. Most people with any appreciation of listening to music on it's own merits as opposed to being part of a fad or a fashion statement have come to terms with the concept that older people can and should be able to have a career into middle age.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-11-15 15:05 by Gazza.

The Stones have been very old since 1973. I think that is the crucial year when they suddenly were seen as "past their prime", and not being the hottest thing in town any longer. A new generation of acts like David Bowie or Slade had taken the lead, and made them look "old-fashionable". That year Jagger and Richards turned out to be 30 which was very old age for a teenager idol. I just watched the other day old NME - or was it Melody Maker? - when the Stones performed in England '73, and the way they were discussed there, was as a kind of "elder statesmen", and there was a caricature picture of them looking really old... It is almost funny to think it now. Probably a hit like "Angie" and a smooth sounding album like GOATS HEAD SOAP had also something to that do with that the days of rebellion were over for them. Next year, IT'S ONLY ROCK&ROLL was already a statement of them being just a music act from the past and nothing more, and "Time Waits For No One", as Jagger heart-crying out loud noticed.

Thats' been their burden ever since. Being bloody old. Funnily, it was reported some time ago that the reason why TEXAS 1978 LIVE aka "Ladys & Gents" was originally postponed was that they looked too old.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-11-15 15:52 by Doxa.

If you read Greenfield's 'STP' book on the '72 tour, there's a feeling throughout it which suggests that - with Jagger approaching 30 - they must surely be close to the end as a performing unit.

Quote
Gazza
If you read Greenfield's 'STP' book on the '72 tour, there's a feeling throughout it which suggests that - with Jagger approaching 30 - they must surely be close to the end as a performing unit.

Yeah, I remember that. I suppose that magical number 30 might had been quite a tough place for Jagger at the time. To seriously reflect his young man's game, and his status as an icon of his generation. Additionally, in the following yaers I think Jagger wrote his most mature, 'serious', reflective songs ever (to be found in GOATS HEAD SOUP, ITS ONLY ROCK&ROLL, BLACK&BLUE, and the songs in TATTOO YOU.) Also his making almost a caricature of himself, both in acting and singing, in 1975/76 tour reflected I think a kind of 'age crisis', or how to deal with his own image and status. Funnily, in a way a punk movement indirectly showed him a way out of it, a licence just to be wit and funny, and a birth of new fresh Jagger persona. a

Anyway, he would have - as his whole 60's generation - the next 'age/cultural crisis' during the 80's, when they actually turned old (and finally nostalgic). A a result of the latter Jagger made this athletic "peter pan" character that defies the age he is known ever since.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-11-15 16:13 by Doxa.

Quote
matsumoto33

Quote
JohnnyBGoode
I personally could care less about the age of a performer in music, but what I don't understand is when The Stones announce a tour, the media goes batsh&t about their age. How come people like Paul Mccartney or Eric Clapton etc. don't get this kind of treatment?

Probably because the Stones were originally seen as embodying the anti-establishment attitudes of sixties youth; far more so than the Beatles. The Stones have always traded on this image of youthful rebellion; they still do. Just look at Mick in the new Fort Worth DVD, desperately trying to remain relevant as the musical landscape shifts around him. And that was 33 years ago.

The problem of trading so heavily on the image you had when you were young is, of course, that you have to continually live up to it as you get older. This is the conundrum that the Stones have long found themselves in. They can't grow old gracefully because their audience won't let them. The older the band gets, the more ridiculous they appear; hence the age-related media coverage....

It's somewhat funny that they were seen as the anti-establishment yet...over the years they've charged more and more money and have set the new (compared to then) industry standard for touring etc. They established a new establishment, at least for the touring business. Now they're getting old and the musicianship has gone down while the ticket prices have gone up. That's a funny way of doing things but it works.

As far as their age and being a band, it's not like they're digging trenches. They play music. The only thing to question now is the quality control of it.

Chuck Berry and BB King are touring in their 80's.

Stones are more fragile because of all the drugs.