Tell Me :
Talk
"Cool" is just so damn subjective.
JFD I don't think it's as bad as all that.Maybe it is a North American thing.
The Rolling Stones
Wasn't the rebellious thing done already in 1972? I think Mick *the Devil* incarnation was the last provocative thing they did.After that it was showbiz.
Yes, I have to agree with you and disagree with Bliss on that one.
C'mon.....lyrics like 'I was awful bad/awful sad' etc are just appalling. Compare them to the imagery created in SFTD, Midnight Rambler, etc.
I wasn't referring to their flirtation with devil worship; it was the aggressive sexuality and revolt against the constraints of bourgeois society in their lyrics that is truly incongruous with their current status. Whereas a black blues guy can sing the same blues at 70 with the same authenticity as at 25, provided he hasn't become a fat cat multimillionaire in the intervening years.
Poor black guy who must be without money and hungry all his life to be authentic...
Really, the typical blues singers were never poor out asts on the country side. They were smart dressers, eager to earn money and women in the big cities.
Everyone's written bad lyrics. The most prolific songwriter ever, Paul McCartney has written some of the worst lyrics ever.
You point to some 'awful bad' lyrics Bliss, but so what does that prove?
It proves my point that ABB damaged their legacy because it was so far below the standard of their earlier work.
hardly 'proof' of anything.
Really? Are you saying that ABB enhanced their reputation, made them even bigger stars?
If someone had never heard their earlier work, only ABB, would they be impressed?
Would they think this is the greatest band in the history of rock music?
Really? Are you saying that ABB enhanced their reputation, made them even bigger stars? Don't think they needed to 'enhance' their reputation after 40 years, but I liked the album and it was a credible effort overall.
If someone had never heard their earlier work, only ABB, would they be impressed? That would depend on their take of the album now, wouldn't it. We'll never know the answer to that sort of hypothetical question, but if you're insinuating that ABB isn't as good as Let It Bleed, you may have a number of people including myself that agree with you. Having said that, you haven't come close to proving a point, just proving your own irritation.
Would they think this is the greatest band in the history of rock music?
That's obviously important to you for some reason...I'm not exactly sure why, it really doesn't matter to me...they happen to be my favourite, and even though they've had a dog or two along the way, (Dirty Work), doesn't mean that I feel the legacy has been damaged.
I think you need to ask yourself why to you, one bad album (and I happen to like ABB, but whatever) would sink the legacy of a band with such stellar highs, albums and live shows. They've been in the biz for 50 years, always on top, the biggest draw in music, if not entertainment.
You're going to have to convince an awful lot of people that because their legacy is damaged, it isn't worth going to see some shows in 2013, if we happen to be lucky enough to get them.
Seems to me that for you, 'bliss' is a state you're currently not entirely in sync with.
ABB was just an interception early in the fourth quarter. The game isn't over yet.
You are making your point quite clearly I think Bliss, insofar as I don't think I misunderstand what you're saying.
I just happen to disagree that there is any 'damage' to the legacy as a result of ABB...in fact, I see it as a step up from most of their post-80s work. Dangerous Beauty for example is brilliant...Under The Radar, on the 'deluxe' version of the CD, is fantastic. There are 6 or so songs that should have been edited out...that would put it on a level playing field with most of their other releases.
I'd say there is far more potential damange to the legacy, from LIFE and all the pettiness exhibited there, or the Mick 'solo' SNL appearance (and hopefully that doesn't come true) than from ABB. Even those things though, will blow over in the long run.
If I were to agree with you that it was an 'awful bad' album, which I don't, a lot of people like it very much. Streets of Love, and that line in particular shouldn't have been on ABB, most certainly not a single, but with as many songs as there on on that album, I can get past it.
The whole 'peace' thing is a bit overdone, so I'm not going to go there...how about, 'truce!'?
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Reflection: Stones Legacy... won't have that 'cool' factor after all?
Posted by:
doubledoor
()
Date: May 6, 2012 05:31
Working with kids I can tell you that yes the Stones are losing their cool, but so is everyone else. But that is their problem that they don't listen to the Beatles or Floyd or Stones, not ours. Cool is for the young, and the Stones are all hitting 70. What did you expect, deification? Elvis, Muddy, and Chuck are not cool or relevant anymore either, but they sure are a hell of a lot fun to listen to. And so are the Stones.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-06 05:34 by doubledoor.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-06 05:34 by doubledoor.
Re: Reflection: Stones Legacy... won't have that 'cool' factor after all?
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: May 6, 2012 08:11
The Stones will always be cool to me and really that is all that matters to me about them. Young kids don't listen to them and listen to Katie Perry that is their loss not mine.
Re: Reflection: Stones Legacy... won't have that 'cool' factor after all?
Posted by:
CherokeeStone
()
Date: May 7, 2012 11:37
Hey! Ronnies the man
Re: Reflection: Stones Legacy... won't have that 'cool' factor after all?
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: May 8, 2012 19:07
absolute rubbish.the stones are more highly regarded today than any of those old bands and anyone who doesnt see it just isnt paying attention.
they a constant on the pop culture landscape, whether its keith appearing in the pirate movies and hanging with johnny depp or mick being name checked in multiple popular songs for his "jagger swagger" and bringing down the house at the grammy awards.
i was in a casino in vegas awhile back and they played alot of classic rock songs in the place mixed with todays hits,a sort of something for everybody kinda thing.
around four am people started wandering in from a night at the clubs and at various times i saw three drunk guys in the early 20s standing next to a roulette table singing in unison "i cant get no!! satisfaction!! and later during get off my cloud i looked around and sure enough people young and old singing along.
what DID sound dated and was robert plants shrieks and wails,ahh ahh oooooo. too hippy trippy and it got no reaction.i laughed to myself about that one,thinking about ol robert flipping his hair and posing-really no match for moves like jagger.
record sales mean nothing,people just download individual songs now and all those huge sales numbers put up by those old bands were from years ago.anyone wanna compare BOX OFFICE NUMBERS from the last 20 years?
they a constant on the pop culture landscape, whether its keith appearing in the pirate movies and hanging with johnny depp or mick being name checked in multiple popular songs for his "jagger swagger" and bringing down the house at the grammy awards.
i was in a casino in vegas awhile back and they played alot of classic rock songs in the place mixed with todays hits,a sort of something for everybody kinda thing.
around four am people started wandering in from a night at the clubs and at various times i saw three drunk guys in the early 20s standing next to a roulette table singing in unison "i cant get no!! satisfaction!! and later during get off my cloud i looked around and sure enough people young and old singing along.
what DID sound dated and was robert plants shrieks and wails,ahh ahh oooooo. too hippy trippy and it got no reaction.i laughed to myself about that one,thinking about ol robert flipping his hair and posing-really no match for moves like jagger.
record sales mean nothing,people just download individual songs now and all those huge sales numbers put up by those old bands were from years ago.anyone wanna compare BOX OFFICE NUMBERS from the last 20 years?
Re: Reflection: Stones Legacy... won't have that 'cool' factor after all?
Posted by:
MightyStonesStillRollin50
()
Date: May 9, 2012 05:00
Quote
jamesfdouglas
I understand that this will get me lambasted for sure here by many. But we all know how difficult it is being a fan of The Rolling Stones - that's no secret. It's been a frustrating experience being a follower of them for sure. We've all invested our hearts, sweat and tears (and cash) for these guys for decades - that's no secret either.
We also know that some artists are considered 'timeless' due to their legacies. This is always carried over by younger generations, the creme rises to the top. Certain bands/artists have that 'cool' factor that keeps them in the ears and hearts of music fans for future generations. Yong people today STILL love The Beatles, Zeppelin, Pink FLoyd, The Doors, etc. During the youth of Generation X, The Stones were also VERY MUCH part of that elite bunch of classic groups. From what I see (as a musician and DJ), this is no longer the case, and hasn't been at all since the recession.
It's hard for hardcore fans to believe much less accept, but we're the only ones left who remember or care that they were once "The World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band". Today's youth are aware that a) they've been calling themselves that the whole time and b) they exist to be a Cash Cow Band - just like KISS.
The Beatles remain hugely popular, kids today drool over Zeppelin and Floyd as well with religious fervour. I feel that The Stones slipping out of this view is something brought upon themselves. Now since the Stones have sizeable resources, would they be aware of this? Do they sense the scoffing at their ticket prices? Their lack of good material in 30 years?
Their image now, to be frank, is a bunch of old, fruity millionaires who can't stand each other. Older people get off on the ridiculous soap opera, but for the newbie, it's a huge, HUGE turn-off - maybe that's it? Younger fans are choosing to not support a group that has no connection to reality whatsoever.
I'd like to hear some thoughts, especially from those who know what I'm talking about (the hard-cores will offer their Austin Powers "but that's rock and roll baby, yeaaaahhhhh", "Keef is the man, good to be gold rings anywhere" or "Jagger's highly prolific", etc - you can save those; I've heard them all).
Maybe it's a North American thing?
"Cool" is just so damn subjective.
Re: Reflection: Stones Legacy... won't have that 'cool' factor after all?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: May 10, 2012 04:24
Quote
lem motlow
absolute rubbish.the stones are more highly regarded today than any of those old bands and anyone who doesnt see it just isnt paying attention.
they a constant on the pop culture landscape, whether its keith appearing in the pirate movies and hanging with johnny depp or mick being name checked in multiple popular songs for his "jagger swagger" and bringing down the house at the grammy awards.
i was in a casino in vegas awhile back and they played alot of classic rock songs in the place mixed with todays hits,a sort of something for everybody kinda thing.
around four am people started wandering in from a night at the clubs and at various times i saw three drunk guys in the early 20s standing next to a roulette table singing in unison "i cant get no!! satisfaction!! and later during get off my cloud i looked around and sure enough people young and old singing along.
what DID sound dated and was robert plants shrieks and wails,ahh ahh oooooo. too hippy trippy and it got no reaction.i laughed to myself about that one,thinking about ol robert flipping his hair and posing-really no match for moves like jagger.
record sales mean nothing,people just download individual songs now and all those huge sales numbers put up by those old bands were from years ago.anyone wanna compare BOX OFFICE NUMBERS from the last 20 years?
Re: Reflection: Stones Legacy... won't have that 'cool' factor after all?
Posted by:
SurfinStonesDude
()
Date: May 10, 2012 05:27
Quote
jamesfdouglas
I understand that this will get me lambasted for sure here by many. But we all know how difficult it is being a fan of The Rolling Stones - that's no secret. It's been a frustrating experience being a follower of them for sure. We've all invested our hearts, sweat and tears (and cash) for these guys for decades - that's no secret either.
We also know that some artists are considered 'timeless' due to their legacies. This is always carried over by younger generations, the creme rises to the top. Certain bands/artists have that 'cool' factor that keeps them in the ears and hearts of music fans for future generations. Yong people today STILL love The Beatles, Zeppelin, Pink FLoyd, The Doors, etc. During the youth of Generation X, The Stones were also VERY MUCH part of that elite bunch of classic groups. From what I see (as a musician and DJ), this is no longer the case, and hasn't been at all since the recession.
It's hard for hardcore fans to believe much less accept, but we're the only ones left who remember or care that they were once "The World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band". Today's youth are aware that a) they've been calling themselves that the whole time and b) they exist to be a Cash Cow Band - just like KISS.
The Beatles remain hugely popular, kids today drool over Zeppelin and Floyd as well with religious fervour. I feel that The Stones slipping out of this view is something brought upon themselves. Now since the Stones have sizeable resources, would they be aware of this? Do they sense the scoffing at their ticket prices? Their lack of good material in 30 years?
Their image now, to be frank, is a bunch of old, fruity millionaires who can't stand each other. Older people get off on the ridiculous soap opera, but for the newbie, it's a huge, HUGE turn-off - maybe that's it? Younger fans are choosing to not support a group that has no connection to reality whatsoever.
I'd like to hear some thoughts, especially from those who know what I'm talking about (the hard-cores will offer their Austin Powers "but that's rock and roll baby, yeaaaahhhhh", "Keef is the man, good to be gold rings anywhere" or "Jagger's highly prolific", etc - you can save those; I've heard them all).
Maybe it's a North American thing?
JFD I don't think it's as bad as all that.Maybe it is a North American thing.
The Rolling Stones
Re: Reflection: Stones Legacy... won't have that 'cool' factor after all?
Posted by:
msw2525
()
Date: May 10, 2012 05:49
Its my experience that a lot of people have found out about the stones music and how good and inspiring it is later than with the other bands. I am 26 and have been a fan since I was 13 and most of the people I know never really "heard" the stones until I introduced the real stones to them. By this I mean listening to them in the whole context of a album and live. A lot, and I mean a lot of people believe they know the stones from hearing JJF, Start Me Up, Satisfaction, and the other war horse type songs they have heard one too many times on the radio. It's only later these seem people come back to me after my pushing them to listen to exile, or some girls, let it bleed, beggars, early stuff, etc etc that they then truly understand them and have a reverence for them. I can't tell you how many times this has happened and more than often these same people then believe the stones are second to none. I talk about this with people all the time and I think it holds to be very true.
Re: Reflection: Stones Legacy... won't have that 'cool' factor after all?
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: May 10, 2012 10:15
Some excellent insights here by many. I think the main problem is that the quality of the RS' output has diminished significantly. The RS simply aren't the same composers and lyricists they were 40 years ago, and I doubt whether ABB would succeed on any level if it was released by a new band. I maintain that the last good new material they had was B to B, back in 1997. They did some serious damage to their legacy by releasing ABB, especially when contrasted with the Golden Era.
Another aspect is the stance they initially took when they started - the rebellious aspect of rock they espoused - is ridiculous when taken by mega-rich men pushing 70. They painted themselves into a corner, because there was no room for them to grow. A folk singer, country singer, jazz band, easy listening, and lots of other genres wouldn't have the same problem.
But as has been said, when they are gone, their legacy of their best days will shine, and their decline will fade from memory.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-10 10:18 by Bliss.
Another aspect is the stance they initially took when they started - the rebellious aspect of rock they espoused - is ridiculous when taken by mega-rich men pushing 70. They painted themselves into a corner, because there was no room for them to grow. A folk singer, country singer, jazz band, easy listening, and lots of other genres wouldn't have the same problem.
But as has been said, when they are gone, their legacy of their best days will shine, and their decline will fade from memory.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-10 10:18 by Bliss.
Re: Reflection: Stones Legacy... won't have that 'cool' factor after all?
Posted by:
vertigojoe
()
Date: May 10, 2012 12:42
That's what you get for selling out.
Re: Reflection: Stones Legacy... won't have that 'cool' factor after all?
Posted by:
Bärs
()
Date: May 10, 2012 13:09
Quote
Bliss
Another aspect is the stance they initially took when they started - the rebellious aspect of rock they espoused - is ridiculous when taken by mega-rich men pushing 70.
Wasn't the rebellious thing done already in 1972? I think Mick *the Devil* incarnation was the last provocative thing they did.After that it was showbiz.
Re: Reflection: Stones Legacy... won't have that 'cool' factor after all?
Posted by:
noughties
()
Date: May 10, 2012 14:37
bârs wrote:
"Wasn't the rebellious thing done already in 1972? I think Mick *the Devil* incarnation was the last provocative thing they did.After that it was showbiz."
Yeah, when Mick married Bianca, he was through. He wore a big Christian cross at the wedding.
bliss wrote:
"hey did some serious damage to their legacy by releasing ABB"
ABB was full of fillers. The obvious ones: Back of My Hand, She Saw Me Coming, This Place is Empty, Infamy. The less obvious ones: Look What The Cat Dragged In, Driving Too Fast.
"Wasn't the rebellious thing done already in 1972? I think Mick *the Devil* incarnation was the last provocative thing they did.After that it was showbiz."
Yeah, when Mick married Bianca, he was through. He wore a big Christian cross at the wedding.
bliss wrote:
"hey did some serious damage to their legacy by releasing ABB"
ABB was full of fillers. The obvious ones: Back of My Hand, She Saw Me Coming, This Place is Empty, Infamy. The less obvious ones: Look What The Cat Dragged In, Driving Too Fast.
Re: Reflection: Stones Legacy... won't have that 'cool' factor after all?
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: May 10, 2012 16:05
The only album that really damages the legacy is Dirty Work and every band has bad albums and as much as I don't like DW some bands would love to have that one in their own catalog. ABB did nothing to hurt the legacy I like it it's the most listenable album of the last 25 years at least to my ears.
Re: Reflection: Stones Legacy... won't have that 'cool' factor after all?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: May 10, 2012 17:22
Quote
slew
The only album that really damages the legacy is Dirty Work and every band has bad albums and as much as I don't like DW some bands would love to have that one in their own catalog. ABB did nothing to hurt the legacy I like it it's the most listenable album of the last 25 years at least to my ears.
Yes, I have to agree with you and disagree with Bliss on that one.
Re: Reflection: Stones Legacy... won't have that 'cool' factor after all?
Posted by:
GJV
()
Date: May 10, 2012 17:52
One of the other problems is that which the cd age the albums becoming to long and they put to much tracks on it, which normaly wouldn't be on the records to begin with, if you only could put ten or eleven songs on it.
Voodoo Lounge, Bridges to Babylon and A Bigger Bang would have been better albums if there were only the ten best tracks on it.
I mean tracks like Sweet Neo Con, Suck on the Jugular, Sweet hearts together (Stones trying to be Amigo's, but sounding like gringo's). Come on!
Voodoo Lounge, Bridges to Babylon and A Bigger Bang would have been better albums if there were only the ten best tracks on it.
I mean tracks like Sweet Neo Con, Suck on the Jugular, Sweet hearts together (Stones trying to be Amigo's, but sounding like gringo's). Come on!
Re: Reflection: Stones Legacy... won't have that 'cool' factor after all?
Posted by:
filstan
()
Date: May 10, 2012 18:53
I'll throw my 2 cents in on this one. I am commenting based on the fact that as a father of children ranging from 40-24 years of age I have a good perspective of what the younger people think about the Stones. It is worth noting that ALL of the kids in my family get what the Stones are about musically as well as what they meant to the culture as it came out of the 60's. Within this context my kids still view the Rolling Stones as being cool and play the albums. Sure the records made after Some Girls get less play, but I play the newer stuff less frequently too. Much of the awareness my kids have about the Stones is because of what they expreienced musically growing up. First it was the records, then cd's, vhs video and now dvd's that dad kept playing all the time. They appreciate the different dynamics of what Brian, Mick Taylor, and Ron Wood brought to the band. They got this from the music and the videos. Brian as messed up as he became was a cool guy. The kids know the Stones had that swagger that most bands never got close to. The Stones were hip and they were for over 30 years a very very good live band. People who have been into music at all realize how great the Rolling Stones were/are. The fact that they are still around keeps them off the mythology charts of some people, but the minute they hang it up they are right up there in the top 5. Their legacy is cemented though via the music and the attitude they brought to the game. It does not matter that they are diminished from where they were at their peak. Beatles, Zep, Doors, CCR, The Who, Old Fleetwood Mac have been gone for so long. As we all know absence makes the heart grow fonder and the legends more storied. It would great if the Stones could get a documentary made that encompassed their entire career where there are 6 plus dvd's totalling 6 plus hours. I believe it will get made someday. Seen in its entirety the output and career of the Rolling Stones have few if any peers in the business. The Stones will always be viewed as cool to those who have been following music since the early 60's. Their music still stands up and that's all that counts in the end.
Re: Reflection: Stones Legacy... won't have that 'cool' factor after all?
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: May 10, 2012 20:18
Dear JFD, with all due respect, could you be the problem?
"we all know how difficult it is being a fan of The Rolling Stones - that's no secret".
Difficult? Why? You can easily find their whole catalog in any record store you want at bargain prices. Easy to find news on the internet. Easy to find boots (although not openly, the Stones are a boot friendly band). They even tour quite alot for a band of their age!
"It's been a frustrating experience being a follower of them for sure. We've all invested our hearts, sweat and tears (and cash) for these guys for decades - that's no secret either"
Frustrating? Only twice in 25+ years I'm following them around the world. In 1990 I drove all the way from Milan (Italy) to London (UK) only to learn on the spot that the concert was postponed because Keith hurt his finger. B2B tour Milano - they told me that the concert was canceled at 7 p.m. in front of the gates!
"We also know that some artists are considered 'timeless' due to their legacies. This is always carried over by younger generations, the creme rises to the top. Certain bands/artists have that 'cool' factor that keeps them in the ears and hearts of music fans for future generations. Yong people today STILL love The Beatles, Zeppelin, Pink FLoyd, The Doors, etc. During the youth of Generation X, The Stones were also VERY MUCH part of that elite bunch of classic groups. From what I see (as a musician and DJ), this is no longer the case, and hasn't been at all since the recession"
Beatles are loved because they are lovable, not because they are "cool". It is "cool" to say that the Doors are cool, but only 10% of those who say that the Doors are "cool" actually listen to their music. PF have a large following, but generally I wouldn't say that they do so because PF are "cool". LEd Zeppelin who?
"It's hard for hardcore fans to believe much less accept, but we're the only ones left who remember or care that they were once "The World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band". Today's youth are aware that a) they've been calling themselves that the whole time and b) they exist to be a Cash Cow Band - just like KISS".
Personally I don't give a shit. And in any case the stones are in great company. Think of all the giants of jazz, blues and soul of the 60s. All niche stuff today.
"I feel that The Stones slipping out of this view is something brought upon themselves. Now since the Stones have sizeable resources, would they be aware of this? Do they sense the scoffing at their ticket prices? Their lack of good material in 30 years?"
Here in Europe ticket prices were high, but not that much if compared to comparable acts. Last time I saw Roger Waters (not even PF) I paid even more than the most I paid for a single stones ticket!
Os for their output, its just a matter of tastes. Personally I love all the post Tattoo You works, save Voodoo. Might not be relevant any more. But rock and roll in general is not culturally relevant anymore. So what?
"Their image now, to be frank, is a bunch of old, fruity millionaires who can't stand each other".
For what matters, in the 70s it was the same.
"Older people get off on the ridiculous soap opera, but for the newbie, it's a huge, HUGE turn-off - maybe that's it? Younger fans are choosing to not support a group that has no connection to reality whatsoever".
I am only 43 years old, but do you think that my personal tastes/ideas/etc. are somehow connected to the reality of the teens living today in Italy? Let alone the whole world.
The stones in the 60 were part, although an important part, of a huge, international, cultural movement. It was not only rock and roll. That movement today is gone.
C
"we all know how difficult it is being a fan of The Rolling Stones - that's no secret".
Difficult? Why? You can easily find their whole catalog in any record store you want at bargain prices. Easy to find news on the internet. Easy to find boots (although not openly, the Stones are a boot friendly band). They even tour quite alot for a band of their age!
"It's been a frustrating experience being a follower of them for sure. We've all invested our hearts, sweat and tears (and cash) for these guys for decades - that's no secret either"
Frustrating? Only twice in 25+ years I'm following them around the world. In 1990 I drove all the way from Milan (Italy) to London (UK) only to learn on the spot that the concert was postponed because Keith hurt his finger. B2B tour Milano - they told me that the concert was canceled at 7 p.m. in front of the gates!
"We also know that some artists are considered 'timeless' due to their legacies. This is always carried over by younger generations, the creme rises to the top. Certain bands/artists have that 'cool' factor that keeps them in the ears and hearts of music fans for future generations. Yong people today STILL love The Beatles, Zeppelin, Pink FLoyd, The Doors, etc. During the youth of Generation X, The Stones were also VERY MUCH part of that elite bunch of classic groups. From what I see (as a musician and DJ), this is no longer the case, and hasn't been at all since the recession"
Beatles are loved because they are lovable, not because they are "cool". It is "cool" to say that the Doors are cool, but only 10% of those who say that the Doors are "cool" actually listen to their music. PF have a large following, but generally I wouldn't say that they do so because PF are "cool". LEd Zeppelin who?
"It's hard for hardcore fans to believe much less accept, but we're the only ones left who remember or care that they were once "The World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band". Today's youth are aware that a) they've been calling themselves that the whole time and b) they exist to be a Cash Cow Band - just like KISS".
Personally I don't give a shit. And in any case the stones are in great company. Think of all the giants of jazz, blues and soul of the 60s. All niche stuff today.
"I feel that The Stones slipping out of this view is something brought upon themselves. Now since the Stones have sizeable resources, would they be aware of this? Do they sense the scoffing at their ticket prices? Their lack of good material in 30 years?"
Here in Europe ticket prices were high, but not that much if compared to comparable acts. Last time I saw Roger Waters (not even PF) I paid even more than the most I paid for a single stones ticket!
Os for their output, its just a matter of tastes. Personally I love all the post Tattoo You works, save Voodoo. Might not be relevant any more. But rock and roll in general is not culturally relevant anymore. So what?
"Their image now, to be frank, is a bunch of old, fruity millionaires who can't stand each other".
For what matters, in the 70s it was the same.
"Older people get off on the ridiculous soap opera, but for the newbie, it's a huge, HUGE turn-off - maybe that's it? Younger fans are choosing to not support a group that has no connection to reality whatsoever".
I am only 43 years old, but do you think that my personal tastes/ideas/etc. are somehow connected to the reality of the teens living today in Italy? Let alone the whole world.
The stones in the 60 were part, although an important part, of a huge, international, cultural movement. It was not only rock and roll. That movement today is gone.
C
Re: Reflection: Stones Legacy... won't have that 'cool' factor after all?
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: May 10, 2012 21:04
Quote
slew
The only album that really damages the legacy is Dirty Work and every band has bad albums and as much as I don't like DW some bands would love to have that one in their own catalog. ABB did nothing to hurt the legacy I like it it's the most listenable album of the last 25 years at least to my ears.
C'mon.....lyrics like 'I was awful bad/awful sad' etc are just appalling. Compare them to the imagery created in SFTD, Midnight Rambler, etc.
I wasn't referring to their flirtation with devil worship; it was the aggressive sexuality and revolt against the constraints of bourgeois society in their lyrics that is truly incongruous with their current status. Whereas a black blues guy can sing the same blues at 70 with the same authenticity as at 25, provided he hasn't become a fat cat multimillionaire in the intervening years.
Re: Reflection: Stones Legacy... won't have that 'cool' factor after all?
Posted by:
Bärs
()
Date: May 10, 2012 21:38
Quote
BlissQuote
slew
The only album that really damages the legacy is Dirty Work and every band has bad albums and as much as I don't like DW some bands would love to have that one in their own catalog. ABB did nothing to hurt the legacy I like it it's the most listenable album of the last 25 years at least to my ears.
...Whereas a black blues guy can sing the same blues at 70 with the same authenticity as at 25, provided he hasn't become a fat cat multimillionaire in the intervening years.
Poor black guy who must be without money and hungry all his life to be authentic...
Really, the typical blues singers were never poor out asts on the country side. They were smart dressers, eager to earn money and women in the big cities.
Re: Reflection: Stones Legacy... won't have that 'cool' factor after all?
Posted by:
Elmo Lewis
()
Date: May 10, 2012 21:48
I'd rather 'em still be playing than doing something "really cool" like going down in Flight 505 on the 1972 tour or Keith and Anita being like Sid and Nancy.
Re: Reflection: Stones Legacy... won't have that 'cool' factor after all?
Posted by:
filstan
()
Date: May 10, 2012 23:45
Even if they hang it up it doesn't matter. We have seen the best from these guys and maybe they haven't got anything left in the tank. It doesn't matter. They have nothing to prove.
Re: Reflection: Stones Legacy... won't have that 'cool' factor after all?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: May 11, 2012 06:17
Quote
BlissQuote
slew
The only album that really damages the legacy is Dirty Work and every band has bad albums and as much as I don't like DW some bands would love to have that one in their own catalog. ABB did nothing to hurt the legacy I like it it's the most listenable album of the last 25 years at least to my ears.
C'mon.....lyrics like 'I was awful bad/awful sad' etc are just appalling. Compare them to the imagery created in SFTD, Midnight Rambler, etc.
I wasn't referring to their flirtation with devil worship; it was the aggressive sexuality and revolt against the constraints of bourgeois society in their lyrics that is truly incongruous with their current status. Whereas a black blues guy can sing the same blues at 70 with the same authenticity as at 25, provided he hasn't become a fat cat multimillionaire in the intervening years.
Everyone's written bad lyrics. The most prolific songwriter ever, Paul McCartney has written some of the worst lyrics ever.
You point to some 'awful bad' lyrics Bliss, but so what does that prove?
Re: Reflection: Stones Legacy... won't have that 'cool' factor after all?
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: May 11, 2012 08:26
Quote
treaclefingers
You point to some 'awful bad' lyrics Bliss, but so what does that prove?
It proves my point that ABB damaged their legacy because it was so far below the standard of their earlier work.
Re: Reflection: Stones Legacy... won't have that 'cool' factor after all?
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: May 11, 2012 08:36
If there would have been computers 1978 with fan-sites like this, I wouldn't have been on this site then....
Stones was the coolest band 1964, 1968, 1972, 1981, 1997....and summed over the last 50 years....
2 1 2 0
Stones was the coolest band 1964, 1968, 1972, 1981, 1997....and summed over the last 50 years....
2 1 2 0
Re: Reflection: Stones Legacy... won't have that 'cool' factor after all?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: May 11, 2012 16:23
Quote
BlissQuote
treaclefingers
You point to some 'awful bad' lyrics Bliss, but so what does that prove?
It proves my point that ABB damaged their legacy because it was so far below the standard of their earlier work.
hardly 'proof' of anything.
Re: Reflection: Stones Legacy... won't have that 'cool' factor after all?
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: May 11, 2012 17:21
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
BlissQuote
treaclefingers
You point to some 'awful bad' lyrics Bliss, but so what does that prove?
It proves my point that ABB damaged their legacy because it was so far below the standard of their earlier work.
hardly 'proof' of anything.
Really? Are you saying that ABB enhanced their reputation, made them even bigger stars?
If someone had never heard their earlier work, only ABB, would they be impressed?
Would they think this is the greatest band in the history of rock music?
Re: Reflection: Stones Legacy... won't have that 'cool' factor after all?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: May 11, 2012 18:04
Quote
BlissQuote
treaclefingersQuote
BlissQuote
treaclefingers
You point to some 'awful bad' lyrics Bliss, but so what does that prove?
It proves my point that ABB damaged their legacy because it was so far below the standard of their earlier work.
hardly 'proof' of anything.
Really? Are you saying that ABB enhanced their reputation, made them even bigger stars?
If someone had never heard their earlier work, only ABB, would they be impressed?
Would they think this is the greatest band in the history of rock music?
Really? Are you saying that ABB enhanced their reputation, made them even bigger stars? Don't think they needed to 'enhance' their reputation after 40 years, but I liked the album and it was a credible effort overall.
If someone had never heard their earlier work, only ABB, would they be impressed? That would depend on their take of the album now, wouldn't it. We'll never know the answer to that sort of hypothetical question, but if you're insinuating that ABB isn't as good as Let It Bleed, you may have a number of people including myself that agree with you. Having said that, you haven't come close to proving a point, just proving your own irritation.
Would they think this is the greatest band in the history of rock music?
That's obviously important to you for some reason...I'm not exactly sure why, it really doesn't matter to me...they happen to be my favourite, and even though they've had a dog or two along the way, (Dirty Work), doesn't mean that I feel the legacy has been damaged.
I think you need to ask yourself why to you, one bad album (and I happen to like ABB, but whatever) would sink the legacy of a band with such stellar highs, albums and live shows. They've been in the biz for 50 years, always on top, the biggest draw in music, if not entertainment.
You're going to have to convince an awful lot of people that because their legacy is damaged, it isn't worth going to see some shows in 2013, if we happen to be lucky enough to get them.
Seems to me that for you, 'bliss' is a state you're currently not entirely in sync with.
Re: Reflection: Stones Legacy... won't have that 'cool' factor after all?
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: May 11, 2012 18:49
TF, I really don't know why I am not succeeding in making my very simple point - that, in my opinion, ABB should not have been released because of its' noticeably poor quality relative to the RS' earlier work. To me, even more than Dirty Work, in terms of their studio releases, it is the low point in their career.
It will not sink their legacy - their solid 50 year body of work will see to that - but it does diminish it, because by comparison to their earlier work, it emphasises the degree to which their abilities have evidently declined. I find it hard to understand, because Mick and Keith are such seasoned composers and lyricists. Surely they do not think awful sad/awful bad is an example of great lyric writing.
But if anyone enjoys ABB, that's fine with me. As someone else would say - peace
It will not sink their legacy - their solid 50 year body of work will see to that - but it does diminish it, because by comparison to their earlier work, it emphasises the degree to which their abilities have evidently declined. I find it hard to understand, because Mick and Keith are such seasoned composers and lyricists. Surely they do not think awful sad/awful bad is an example of great lyric writing.
But if anyone enjoys ABB, that's fine with me. As someone else would say - peace
Re: Reflection: Stones Legacy... won't have that 'cool' factor after all?
Posted by:
MightyStonesStillRollin50
()
Date: May 11, 2012 19:31
Quote
BlissQuote
treaclefingers
You point to some 'awful bad' lyrics Bliss, but so what does that prove?
It proves my point that ABB damaged their legacy because it was so far below the standard of their earlier work.
ABB was just an interception early in the fourth quarter. The game isn't over yet.
Re: Reflection: Stones Legacy... won't have that 'cool' factor after all?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: May 11, 2012 21:24
Quote
Bliss
TF, I really don't know why I am not succeeding in making my very simple point - that, in my opinion, ABB should not have been released because of its' noticeably poor quality relative to the RS' earlier work. To me, even more than Dirty Work, in terms of their studio releases, it is the low point in their career.
It will not sink their legacy - their solid 50 year body of work will see to that - but it does diminish it, because by comparison to their earlier work, it emphasises the degree to which their abilities have evidently declined. I find it hard to understand, because Mick and Keith are such seasoned composers and lyricists. Surely they do not think awful sad/awful bad is an example of great lyric writing.
But if anyone enjoys ABB, that's fine with me. As someone else would say - peace
You are making your point quite clearly I think Bliss, insofar as I don't think I misunderstand what you're saying.
I just happen to disagree that there is any 'damage' to the legacy as a result of ABB...in fact, I see it as a step up from most of their post-80s work. Dangerous Beauty for example is brilliant...Under The Radar, on the 'deluxe' version of the CD, is fantastic. There are 6 or so songs that should have been edited out...that would put it on a level playing field with most of their other releases.
I'd say there is far more potential damange to the legacy, from LIFE and all the pettiness exhibited there, or the Mick 'solo' SNL appearance (and hopefully that doesn't come true) than from ABB. Even those things though, will blow over in the long run.
If I were to agree with you that it was an 'awful bad' album, which I don't, a lot of people like it very much. Streets of Love, and that line in particular shouldn't have been on ABB, most certainly not a single, but with as many songs as there on on that album, I can get past it.
The whole 'peace' thing is a bit overdone, so I'm not going to go there...how about, 'truce!'?
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.