only Paul McCartney rivals Stones in excitement, ticket demand, history..and he's doing kisses on the bottom...

there's no band who has the charisma of the rolling stones

its up to them to get into that next gear...they will control and deliver as they see fit, and always have. the success rate is overwhelming in their case.

Well, in a little more than 2 weeks I'm going to see The Who do the Quadrophenia album in its entirety. Excitement and charisma? Pete Townshend has that in abundance. A couple of weeks ago I saw Townshend being interviewed on his book tour at the Berklee Performance Center. Tickets sold out in less than 24 hours, 1215 people excited just to hear him speak for an hour. Oh, he also played 4 songs on acoustic guitar as a closer.

Maybe the original Guns n' Roses line-up will get back together...or not...

Ticket sales have nothing do if a band rocks or is exciting. There are many truly great bands out there who deliver the goods night after night whom many have never heard of. Bands like the Stones, Beatles, et al are the exception, not the the rule...

As far as I am concerned Bruce Springsteen and The E Street Band are a much more exciting act at the moment putting 3 hour 30 min shows every night, drawing upon a large catalogue of top notch material, performing each song as well as it was recorded originally...

Quote
stones_serb
As far as I am concerned Bruce Springsteen and The E Street Band are a much more exciting act at the moment putting 3 hour 30 min shows every night, drawing upon a large catalogue of top notch material, performing each song as well as it was recorded originally...

Absolutely. I could agree that they aren't the "rockers" the OP is talking about, but Bruce Springsteen is one of the most consistent acts out there today, giving you every bang for your buck possible. $100 for a 3 to 3 and a half hour show, doing about 1/3 to 50% of a different setlist each night? Totally worth it. And he's one of the last "legends" from the 70s still out there consistently. But as has been mentioned, the Who of what's left is still out there putting on very exciting shows. I know what the OP means about straight ahead rock and roll and being of that "older, classic rock" category, and I'm sure there are more but at the moment I can't really think about others aside from the Stones still doing it, and doing it well.

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
stones_serb
As far as I am concerned Bruce Springsteen and The E Street Band are a much more exciting act at the moment putting 3 hour 30 min shows every night, drawing upon a large catalogue of top notch material, performing each song as well as it was recorded originally...

Absolutely. I could agree that they aren't the "rockers" the OP is talking about, but Bruce Springsteen is one of the most consistent acts out there today, giving you every bang for your buck possible. $100 for a 3 to 3 and a half hour show, doing about 1/3 to 50% of a different setlist each night? Totally worth it. And he's one of the last "legends" from the 70s still out there consistently. But as has been mentioned, the Who of what's left is still out there putting on very exciting shows. I know what the OP means about straight ahead rock and roll and being of that "older, classic rock" category, and I'm sure there are more but at the moment I can't really think about others aside from the Stones still doing it, and doing it well.

Bruce IS classic, exciting rock'n'roll.

Just because he doesn't sing lascivious, sleazy rock songs like the Stones doesn't mean he's some stodgy, dowdy folk rocker.

Okay, so he's a few years younger than the Stones. His band will be functional and touring after the Stones have retired, I can guarantee that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-29 07:06 by keefriff99.

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
stones_serb
As far as I am concerned Bruce Springsteen and The E Street Band are a much more exciting act at the moment putting 3 hour 30 min shows every night, drawing upon a large catalogue of top notch material, performing each song as well as it was recorded originally...

Absolutely. I could agree that they aren't the "rockers" the OP is talking about, but Bruce Springsteen is one of the most consistent acts out there today, giving you every bang for your buck possible. $100 for a 3 to 3 and a half hour show, doing about 1/3 to 50% of a different setlist each night? Totally worth it. And he's one of the last "legends" from the 70s still out there consistently. But as has been mentioned, the Who of what's left is still out there putting on very exciting shows. I know what the OP means about straight ahead rock and roll and being of that "older, classic rock" category, and I'm sure there are more but at the moment I can't really think about others aside from the Stones still doing it, and doing it well.

Bruce IS classic, exciting rock'n'roll.

Just because he doesn't sing lascivious, sleazy rock songs like the Stones doesn't mean he's some stodgy, dowdy folk rocker.

Okay, so he's a few years younger than the Stones. His band will be functional and touring after the Stones have retired, I can guarantee that.

Hey, you don't have to convince me . I'm a hardcore Bruce fan till the end. Seen him live tons of times. Just saying I understand the OP meaning rock and roll in terms of classic gritty, blues based rock and roll. Bruce is just alittle different as he's more of a songwriter as opposed the cliche "rock star" image. He is a rock star, there's no doubt about that. But I think the OP mean in terms of the that classic bad boy, sex, drugs and alcohol "rock star" image, the Stones are the last real ones out there, which I can agree with on a level. But yes, no question Bruce and his band are still in top form in terms of playing and greatly outweigh the Stones in that area. But they are also very different forms of rock in my mind.

Bruce is great, but it's not rock'n'roll. The current tour is less rock and more soul-flavoured, imo.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Bruce is great, but it's not rock'n'roll. The current tour is less rock and more soul-flavoured, imo.

Bruce is as rock n roll as the Stones.

The same mix of rock/country/blues.. same genre.

Actually.. Bruce never did disco.

Quote
GravityBoy

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Bruce is great, but it's not rock'n'roll. The current tour is less rock and more soul-flavoured, imo.

Bruce is as rock n roll as the Stones.

The same mix of rock/country/blues.. same genre.

Actually.. Bruce never did disco.

Dancing In The Dark comes close though.

Quote
GravityBoy

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Bruce is great, but it's not rock'n'roll. The current tour is less rock and more soul-flavoured, imo.

Bruce is as rock n roll as the Stones.

The same mix of rock/country/blues.. same genre.

Actually.. Bruce never did disco.

The guitars are even more absent than in today's Stones.

Lofgren had ONE guitar solo during the almost 4 hrs long show I catched, and Little Steven was barely audible - the same with the two other guitarists.

Great horns and keyboards, but not rock'n'roll, imo.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-29 11:30 by DandelionPowderman.

Bob Dylan said somewhere that The Rolling Stones is the first and the last rock'n'roll band



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-29 12:02 by 1962.

Don't forget ACDC and their career of decades !

Rock n Roll is Chuck Berry. It is rock n roll if you are playing like Keith or Edmunds. If you play otherwise, it may be rock, or the person may be a "rocker", but it's not rock n roll. It has to be Chuck Berry licks for rock n roll.

Agree with Mr Dylan on that one and as far as Springsteen goes he ain't no rock'n'roller though he tries to be.

Quote
Carnaby
Rock n Roll is Chuck Berry. It is rock n roll if you are playing like Keith or Edmunds. If you play otherwise, it may be rock, or the person may be a "rocker", but it's not rock n roll. It has to be Chuck Berry licks for rock n roll.

Perhaps a bit narrow definition?

I would say that Angus Young, famous for blending in BB King-licks in his music, qualifies for being a "real" rocker

That said, Young has knicked a few Berry-licks as well...

LEMMY " MOTÖRHEAD is definitely a "real"rocker!

Quote
stonesnow
Well, in a little more than 2 weeks I'm going to see The Who do the Quadrophenia album in its entirety. Excitement and charisma? Pete Townshend has that in abundance. A couple of weeks ago I saw Townshend being interviewed on his book tour at the Berklee Performance Center. Tickets sold out in less than 24 hours, 1215 people excited just to hear him speak for an hour. Oh, he also played 4 songs on acoustic guitar as a closer.

yep i'm going to see The Who on the 9th one mile from my house...i got great seats for 75 bucks...my only complaint will be something they can't help...2 of them not being alive...

Townshend plays like he still has something to prove...i choose to forget those lousy 1989 shows...and "Endless Wire" i thought was a great record...no phoning it in...he writes like he cares...

i like Zak Starkey on drums...but the Pino dude can go to hell...

Arcade Fire. I mean, it's up there with Ladies and Gentlemen.





You got the Sun, You got the Moon,
and you've got
The Rolling Stones

I agree that Stones are probably the last great rock'n'roll band left. ACDC are great but nobody knows if they will tour again. For me, Springsteen, Who or Dylan are not rock'n'roll.

Quote
yorkey
Arcade Fire. I mean, it's up there with Ladies and Gentlemen.

I love your sarcasm...

ac/dc
zz top
both are still at it

Blitzen Trapper! Reviving rock and roll one soulful rocker at a time...

i will not tolerate any more bruce discussion on this thread.

Quote
StonesTod
i will not tolerate any more bruce discussion on this thread.

I lost all interest in him after he left General Hospital.

I would still buy action figures of 2013 Rolling Stones.
They would be harder to make cause of the detail involved
with all those wrinkles, so they'll probably be as expensive
as tickets...er, maybe I'll pass on the buying.
But yeah...no one can match the perfect rocker image
of the Stones.

Finally....my Chuuck Leavell bobble head has surpassed $4 on eBay.
My Chuck Leavell throw is still stuck at $2

Quote
Munichhilton
Finally....my Chuuck Leavell bobble head has surpassed $4 on eBay.
My Chuck Leavell throw is still stuck at $2

I have the official Chuck Leavell Beard and Mustache Grooming Kit from Braun, still sealed.

I think it's prolly worth over $500 now.

There is some truth in that. However their "rock" kind of stagnated around 94/95. Since then it has been the same rock and roll we have listened to, albeit with different names. The snippets I've heard from Paris sounds like a continuation of the 2007 tour, which sounds like the 2003 tour and so on...