For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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?
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.
Quote
matsumoto33Quote
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....