After reading the bitterness and whining and all...

Let's put it into perspective my friends...

Being purist....a real fan is a fan who knew the Stones since the sixties....

Those who get on the wagon from the 80's onwards....would not not really fans then. It does not matter if they got on the wagon becouse of biological reasons (you were born in late sixties or seventies...). I mean,..if by the time Undercover was released you were in kindergarten.....you lost everything related to stones....every piece of the real thing.

Subsequently the being a fan issue stems from reading books,watching videos, hearing recordings, bootlegs and more importantly imagination and fantasy (and experiences like writing in IORR!)....but not from real life...

So the concept FAN must be revised....and all people here giving lessons, lectures and telling of others....chill out...please.

Most of people who write (myself perhaps....who knows...AND OF COURSE most of the respected "experts" who think they are entitled to give lessons) here have not idea of NOTHING, NO F IDEA. nothing, nihil, nada, no (swear word here) IDEA....No one's to blame....but the longevity of this band and biology.The best ever existed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-21 13:55 by emotionalbarbecue.

There is no such thing as a real fan. ><

My impression is that some or even many of those later become fans vastly surpass many of the elder fans in ability and interest of seeking information, facts and understanding of the Stones.

And if it had not been for fans of various younger ages, the Stones would have been in danger of drying up as much more and earlier a nostalgia act than the fan base has compelled the band to be as it has been.

And, "Las Vegas period"-theorists of various dates of becoming fans, this implicates, not the whole, but an important part of the mechanism on that score. (I don't support the relevance of that label though.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-21 14:22 by Witness.

i agree,

after all the anger to get tix and all the waiting and....and ..and..

since i got a fan with 14 ( 30 years are gone now), my whole life turns around the rolling stones (beside my family)

every day from waking up to going to bed, there are the stones,records,books,bootlegs,talking...and the red tongue is everwhere..

we met so many nice fans, have been to many countries, cities....stadiums,arenas,clubs...

we don`t give up,we`re looking forward to see them again.....

and the day is coming and they`re gone, but all the memories will stay

Hmmm.. you Emotionalbarbeque come and say stoppong the fight over fanhood, and then you claim that most of us are not 'real fans'. Very diplomatic.

But that said, I think you have a point. Quite many of us didn't have chances for 'authentic' first-hand fan experiences, when the Stones actually made history and dictated the zeitgeist. It is like reading history books now.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-21 14:24 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
Hmmm.. you Emotionalbarbeque come and say stoppong the fight over fanhood, and then you claim that most of us are not 'real fans'. Very diplomatic.

But that said, I think you have a point. Quite many of us didn't have chances for 'authentic' first-hand fan experiences, when the Stones actually made history and dictated the zeitgeist. It is like reading history books now.

- Doxa

No, their recorded music can be experienced as something completely new and of the moment right now even if it was recorded in, for example, 1968.

That is just as real and potentially life changing as hearing it for the first time in 1968. We cannot experience them as a stones 1968 live in front of you band, but neither could a lot of people at the time.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-21 14:38 by His Majesty.

You have fans and those who are addicted and I don't talk about those which are around 60 years old and still cry when they go on Brian Jones grave as it was yesterday.

Quote
emotionalbarbecue
Being purist....a real fan is a fan who knew the Stones since the sixties. Those who get on the wagon from the 80's onwards....would not not really fans then.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
all people here giving lessons, lectures and telling of others....chill out...please.

Now who is giving lessons here ?
So I am not a real fan ? OK

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

Quote
emotionalbarbecue
Most of people who write (myself perhaps....who knows...AND OF COURSE most of the respected "experts" who think they are entitled to give lessons) here have not idea of NOTHING, NO F IDEA. nothing, nihil, nada, no (swear word here) IDEA.....

and then there's me....

Quote
StonesTod
and then there's me....

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

Quote
Witness
My impression is that some or even many of those later become fans vastly surpass many of the elder fans in ability and interest of seeking information, facts and understanding of the Stones.

And if it had not been for fans of various younger ages, the Stones would have been in danger of drying up as much more and earlier a nostalgia act than the fan base has compelled the band to be as it has been.

And, "Las Vegas period"-theorists of various dates of becoming fans, this implicates, not the whole, but an important part of the mechanism on that score. (I don't support the relevance of that label though.)

Good insights.

Some of us 'younger' Stones nerds - who were not there when "Satisfaction" exploded the world or EXILE ON MAIN STREET defined what a great rock and roll really is all aboout, etc - might have an incredible fact knoweldge concerning even most idiotic and irrelevant details, and even, as you suggest, better understanding of the Stones (in some sense of the word). But I think that over-all that 'theoretical kowlsdge' is rather different thing than having gone actually through all of that; the Stones offering a definitive soundtrack to one's life in which to grow up (with them), while the world actually rapidly changing around as well. Those things can't be separeted, and one needs to have the whole context to really 'get it', to really understand what the Stones once were all about (which surely was partly fictional already then, but personally 'real' as well). Some people say that if you remember the 60's, you weren't there - and I think there is some wisdom in that line.

Likewise I think "Las Vegas era -theorists" (a great expression!) actually accept the fact that the "real thing" is not any longer with us, in any significant sense of the word. Many people are nostalgic about things they only have second-hand experiences. Of things, songs and times they have created ideas by studing teh matter and using imagination. So it is not only 'baby-boomers' going top their concerts having flashbacks of their youth; it is also people who have learned all that not by being there, but 'by heart'. The history of the Stones - Keith's myth, etc - starts be such a familiar and common 'culture historical story' that it is rather easy to learn by anyone. CROSSFIRE HURRICANE wouldn't make things worse in that sense either, right?

Actually the story was completed and well-known already then when I became a fan during the early 80's. Despite the Stones being the coolest band in the world (still) then, I also remember trying fancy what it had been like seeing them in London r&b club circuit, hanging around in the scene of Swingin' Sixties, hippie times, counter culture, seeing and reflecting them in Hyde Park or America Tour 1969 or 1972, etc. - when the band really was a voice of a young generation, and ruled the scene.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-21 15:13 by Doxa.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Doxa
Hmmm.. you Emotionalbarbeque come and say stoppong the fight over fanhood, and then you claim that most of us are not 'real fans'. Very diplomatic.

But that said, I think you have a point. Quite many of us didn't have chances for 'authentic' first-hand fan experiences, when the Stones actually made history and dictated the zeitgeist. It is like reading history books now.

- Doxa

No, their recorded music can be experienced as something completely new and of the moment right now even if it was recorded in, for example, 1968.

That is just as real and potentially life changing as hearing it for the first time in 1968. We cannot experience them as a stones 1968 live in front of you band, but neither could a lot of people at the time.

I get your point, but I don't totally agree.

Yeah, great music can be experienced authentically no matter the context. And it can change one's life forever. But to me BEGGARS BANQUET is like a recording of Robert Johnson. I never really can know - only imagine - what that was the function of that music in its heyday. That is something which goes beyond the grasp of anyone who was not there.

With Johnson, it is totally different context, and I don't even try to pretend what it was like being in black America those days, partying in jukejoints, what was the experience of his original audience like, etc.. With The Stones, it is much more than seeing them live - quite a few actually had that during their prime. But they were everywhere, defining the zeitgeist, talked by if not everybody, but by at least teens, heard in radio or seen (rarely) in television (if one had one). I think even trying to mentally cosnstruct the music/pop scene of those days, and what kind of function - all that projected 'rebellion' and 'freedom', etc. - had in people's lifes then is rather hard to do now. That personal experience being part of that movement and scene.

It's like if some 110 years old black dude from Mississippi comes to tell me, after showing him my Robert Johnson record and´book collection, that "white boy, you really don't know a shit what Robert Johnson was all about", and I could but agree with him.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-21 15:41 by Doxa.

Quote
His Majesty
There is no such thing as a real fan. ><

Well, there have been circulating two different defintions for "real fan" today. The one by Emotionalbarbecue stating that those are as the ones that were following the band during their heyday, and then there is one by Superreavy which claims that 'real fans' are the (post 1989) casual fans who are the target audience of The Stones giving them millions.

Funnily controversial and provocative definitions both! For me the term 'real' is such an artificial, meaningless notion that both of them are alright with me!

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-21 16:06 by Doxa.

There are differant definitions of what we call a fan.Real fan,true fan, die-hard fan are all fans.Fanatical about a certain thing is definition of a 'fan' I guess.On this site we are all fans ranging from #1 to #10. I would call myself about #5 but on the last few tours have been about #8.The pricing fiasco of these 4 gigs have driven my rating down. #1 is someone who likes Rolling Stones music and has seen them live or would like to.#10 is someone who lives for the Stones and would go anywhere and pay anything if they had the money,to see them play live.Their whole world revolves around The Rolling Stones.Most of us are somewhere between that.That's my opinion of what a fan is.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Witness
My impression is that some or even many of those later become fans vastly surpass many of the elder fans in ability and interest of seeking information, facts and understanding of the Stones.

And if it had not been for fans of various younger ages, the Stones would have been in danger of drying up as much more and earlier a nostalgia act than the fan base has compelled the band to be as it has been.

And, "Las Vegas period"-theorists of various dates of becoming fans, this implicates, not the whole, but an important part of the mechanism on that score. (I don't support the relevance of that label though.)

Good insights.

Some of us 'younger' Stones nerds - who were not there when "Satisfaction" exploded the world or EXILE ON MAIN STREET defined what a great rock and roll really is all aboout, etc - might have an incredible fact knoweldge concerning even most idiotic and irrelevant details, and even, as you suggest, better understanding of the Stones (in some sense of the word). But I think that over-all that 'theoretical kowlsdge' is rather different thing than having gone actually through all of that; the Stones offering a definitive soundtrack to one's life in which to grow up (with them), while the world actually rapidly changing around as well. Those things can't be separeted, and one needs to have the whole context to really 'get it', to really understand what the Stones once were all about (which surely was partly fictional already then, but personally 'real' as well). Some people say that if you remember the 60's, you weren't there - and I think there is some wisdom in that line.

Likewise I think "Las Vegas era -theorists" (a great expression!) actually accept the fact that the "real thing" is not any longer with us, in any significant sense of the word. Many people are nostalgic about things they only have second-hand experiences. Of things, songs and times they have created ideas by studing teh matter and using imagination. So it is not only 'baby-boomers' going top their concerts having flashbacks of their youth; it is also people who have learned all that not by being there, but 'by heart'. The history of the Stones - Keith's myth, etc - starts be such a familiar and common 'culture historical story' that it is rather easy to learn by anyone. CROSSFIRE HURRICANE wouldn't make things worse in that sense either, right?

Actually the story was completed and well-known already then when I became a fan during the early 80's. Despite the Stones being the coolest band in the world (still) then, I also remember trying fancy what it had been like seeing them in London r&b club circuit, hanging around in the scene of Swingin' Sixties, hippie times, counter culture, seeing and reflecting them in Hyde Park or America Tour 1969 or 1972, etc. - when the band really was a voice of a young generation, and ruled the scene.

- Doxa

Yes, it is a privilege to have lived through those years, though not to boast oneself of. (With the cost of earlier having used up more of one's allotted time, too.) However, there was another dimension of distance to music and to the reception of Stones music than distance of time. That was, as it is also now and always will be, geographical space and the implicated cultural distance. And even when it is all around you in time and space, one might be blind for some dimension of it. (Maybe, I myself remember too much of the '60s.) Probably, we all have to compensate in some respects.

And when we listen to the music of the near or more distant past, now from other motives than nostalgia, we contribute ourselves to the reception conditions, in which we listen to the music, at the same time as both we and the outer world are in change, gradually and some times in leaps and bounds. The reception conditions are changing, too, when the music is recreated for us the listeners during the new listenings.

On the other hand, do we permit the Stones to be of now or of later years, doing something that might be a little different from "then"? (Not saying that we shall not critically assess their newer material, however, I hope not too harshly, but with some more generosity.)

(Last edit: correction of language.)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-21 18:36 by Witness.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Doxa
Hmmm.. you Emotionalbarbeque come and say stoppong the fight over fanhood, and then you claim that most of us are not 'real fans'. Very diplomatic.

But that said, I think you have a point. Quite many of us didn't have chances for 'authentic' first-hand fan experiences, when the Stones actually made history and dictated the zeitgeist. It is like reading history books now.

- Doxa

No, their recorded music can be experienced as something completely new and of the moment right now even if it was recorded in, for example, 1968.

That is just as real and potentially life changing as hearing it for the first time in 1968. We cannot experience them as a stones 1968 live in front of you band, but neither could a lot of people at the time.

I get your point, but I don't totally agree.

Yeah, great music can be experienced authentically no matter the context. And it can change one's life forever. But to me BEGGARS BANQUET is like a recording of Robert Johnson. I never really can know - only imagine - what that was the function of that music in its heyday. That is something which goes beyond the grasp of anyone who was not there.

With Johnson, it is totally different context, and I don't even try to pretend what it was like being in black America those days, partying in jukejoints, what was the experience of his original audience like, etc.. With The Stones, it is much more than seeing them live - quite a few actually had that during their prime. But they were everywhere, defining the zeitgeist, talked by if not everybody, but by at least teens, heard in radio or seen (rarely) in television (if one had one). I think even trying to mentally cosnstruct the music/pop scene of those days, and what kind of function - all that projected 'rebellion' and 'freedom', etc. - had in people's lifes then is rather hard to do now. That personal experience being part of that movement and scene.

It's like if some 110 years old black dude from Mississippi comes to tell me, after showing him my Robert Johnson record and´book collection, that "white boy, you really don't know a shit what Robert Johnson was all about", and I could but agree with him.

- Doxa

Being in the 1968 world at the time Beggars Banquet was released and a fan doesn't mean you "get it" anymore than the person who discovers Beggars Banquet for the first time and becomes a fan in 2012.

Different experiences of the music, all just as valid and real as the other.

It is often the case that when something happens it rushes over those who are in the same time, it's the passing of time which gives things it's deeper context and meaning.

The intended function of the music is in the stones heads, regardless of their intention the function of the music is in the listener and that function, for example a bridge to feeling free, can be felt in 1968 all the way through, up to and past 2012.

The only thing to "get" in music is to connect with it. Either you connect with it in some way or you don't. You don't need to know anything about an artist for that to happen, so the old fart informing you that you know nothing about that artist is just blowing hot air because all you really, truly need to know is the connection that you made with that artists music.

PS: Maybe the artist hated the guy that claims to know what they were all about and at the time wished he'd just fuckk off.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-21 18:00 by His Majesty.

His Majesty, in all due respect to the important subjective dimension, I do think though that it is of value to the listening to songs to have some mental picture of how one song performed in time. To have a sense of its place in a development and of what was contemporary to a set of songs.

Emotionalbarbecue, trying to read your first post (a bit of a challenge, no offense, due to broken English). But I think, according to your logic, Mozart, Beethoven, Van Gogh, and even Jesus Christ have no 'real' fans since all of their 'true, pure' fans are dead. And that leaves the rest of us with no right to claim fandom of any of them.

[thepowergoats.com]

After reading all this, I'm not sure if I'm a fan or not

Quote
2000 LYFH
After reading all this, I'm not sure if I'm a fan or not

I'm sure I'm not. I resign.

Quote
Witness
His Majesty, in all due respect to the important subjective dimension, I do think though that it is of value to the listening to songs to have some mental picture of how one song performed in time. To have a sense of its place in a development and of what was contemporary to a set of songs.

There is a great value to that, but there is a great value to so many other ways of experiencing the same music with or with out that kind of mental picture, inside and/or outside the times in which it was created.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-21 19:52 by His Majesty.

A Fan is An Enthiousiastic Admirer!

Doesn't say nothing about the Age

Doens't say nothing about how many concerts you visited

Doesn't say nothing about how many records you got



Cheers

Make your choice !



































All credits to Joseph SZABO

HMN

Honestman, Thanks

I made my choice photo nr 5 the Lady with long hair

Honestman - Nice photos as always, but certainly no fans in any of those pictures. Keep trying, the true fan is out there somewhere, but where?

Quote
2000 LYFH
Honestman - Nice photos as always, but certainly no fans in any of those pictures. Keep trying, the true fan is out there somewhere, but where?

2000 LYFH,

No fans but how would you like to call them?

And how does a fan look like then towards you?

Quote
2000 LYFH
Honestman - Nice photos as always, but certainly no fans in any of those pictures. Keep trying, the true fan is out there somewhere, but where?

here's a fan, going by emotionalbbq's defination

...the guy on the left





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-21 22:08 by Erik_Snow.

So you can only like them if you were around to have watched them on Ed Sullivan? But when you went to see them in concert in the mid-60s and were screaming so violently that you were wetting yourselves, you couldn't even hear the music anyway....

emotionalbarbecue, you are cooked....

Quote
runaway

Quote
2000 LYFH
Honestman - Nice photos as always, but certainly no fans in any of those pictures. Keep trying, the true fan is out there somewhere, but where?

2000 LYFH,

No fans but how would you like to call them?

And how does a fan look like then towards you?

I know what they are not, but I don't know what they are! What was the question?

Emotional Barbeque said: "After reading the bitterness and whining and all...

Let's put it into perspective my friends...

Being purist....a real fan is a fan who knew the Stones since the sixties....

Those who get on the wagon from the 80's onwards....would not not really fans then. It does not matter if they got on the wagon becouse of biological reasons (you were born in late sixties or seventies...). I mean,..if by the time Undercover was released you were in kindergarten.....you lost everything related to stones....every piece of the real thing.

Subsequently the being a fan issue stems from reading books,watching videos, hearing recordings, bootlegs and more importantly imagination and fantasy (and experiences like writing in IORR!)....but not from real life...

So the concept FAN must be revised....and all people here giving lessons, lectures and telling of others....chill out...please.

Most of people who write (myself perhaps....who knows...AND OF COURSE most of the respected "experts" who think they are entitled to give lessons) here have not idea of NOTHING, NO F IDEA. nothing, nihil, nada, no (swear word here) IDEA....No one's to blame....but the longevity of this band and biology.The best ever existed".


Thank God you're not in charge. You mean I've wasted all these years listening to Stones music going to Stones concerts and now I can't be a "real" fan just because you said so? Your old ass needs to get over its self. Being a Stones fan is very personal and means different things to different people of all ages. Peace.