Bono is now 52, but nobody seems to take note. No one is out there calling U2's last tour the "360 years old tour" or any of that crap. Mick was 47 when people were saying "Steel Wheelchairs" The Stones have to take all the age insults to pave the way for others. Eventually, all these snarky commentators will realize that people who play music play it their entire lives, and its not a big deal.

At every age, the Stones were considered old to be doing what they were doing because they were the oldest people doing it. They paved the way in that regard, proving every time out that rock and roll has no age limit.

Dylan, Reed, Status Quo, Kiss and The J. Geils Band come to mind...

The Stones are pioneers.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Dylan, Reed, Status Quo, Kiss and The J. Geils Band come to mind...

...Iggy Pop, Alice Cooper, Patti Smith,

Good thread. The Stones were 'old' in 1978....considered dinosaurs...
Funny isn't?
I don't see Pearl Jam stopping.
No one had ever taken rock and roll to middle age. It had always been a youthful thing: band, band breaks up and retires or whatever. The Stones, as a band, were the first to carry on as a unit.
Yeah, and still they get the 'old' jokes....

Quote
seitan

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Dylan, Reed, Status Quo, Kiss and The J. Geils Band come to mind...

...Iggy Pop, Alice Cooper, Patti Smith,

Iggy gets his share of "wrinckle rock"-comments in the press, though.

Quote
Send It To me
Bono is now 52, but nobody seems to take note. No one is out there calling U2's last tour the "360 years old tour" or any of that crap. Mick was 47 when people were saying "Steel Wheelchairs" The Stones have to take all the age insults to pave the way for others. Eventually, all these snarky commentators will realize that people who play music play it their entire lives, and its not a big deal.

And most geezers who play music aren't quite as adept as courting constant media coverage for anything and everything they do.

It's strange though isn't it that when it comes to the blues the amount of reverence you are held in only seems to increase as you age.

John Lee Hooker
Muddy Waters
BB King
Howlin Wolf

You never heard anyone saying any of these acts were "too old".

BB King was recording when the Stones were still in the infants school - no one says BB is too old - he is regarded (quite rightly) as a cultural treasure.

In other genres too - Tony Bennett and Willie Nelson never get stick for being too old.

Perhaps it is because the Stones sang "what a drag it is getting old" and the Who sang "hope I die before I get old", and rock/pop music is more ageist than other genres. Often in rock music image and how you look seems more important than the actual music - apparently the Stones realised this which I believe is why Stu was kept in the background in the early days - he didn't "look the part".

I remember the NME publishing a list of stars who were 30 years old. At that time (1972) many people (including me) thought of 30 as old.

The grunge people - those still alive - are in their 40s now, same age as Tattoo-era Stones.

Muddy Waters was 65 when I saw him in 1980 and he seemed as old as the hills. Hard to believe Mick is older than that now.

Reason the Stones always get mentioned is because no one has been around as long as they have! I remember in 81, news articles were mentioning the Stones being too old and Mick being over the hill at age 38!
Just saw McCartney on Sunday and Bruce last night, both shows were 3 hours long and they both rocked! McCartney is now 70 and Bruce is 63.

It's strange seeing older shows and realizing you're older than the Stones at that time. As far as r'n'r age pioneers,however, there seems to be guy named Chuck Berry and some guys called the Beach Boys still doing their thing, so I wouldn't call the Stones the first to do this even in their musical genre.

Quote
roryg
It's strange seeing older shows and realizing you're older than the Stones at that time. As far as r'n'r age pioneers,however, there seems to be guy named Chuck Berry and some guys called the Beach Boys still doing their thing, so I wouldn't call the Stones the first to do this even in their musical genre.

I know. I thought they were ancient in 1978, which is natural enough, since I was 19 and Mick was 35, but now, of course, I look at photos from '78 and can't believe how young they look. Shit, I have a stepson who's almost the same age the Stones were in '78. Beach Boys and Stones are contemporaries, and yeah, the BBs have been on the receiving end of their fair share of "Shouldn't they be calling themselves Beach Men by now?" jokes, but Bill Wyman, born in 1936, is five years older than the oldest Beach Boy.

No one ever says of a black performer, "Will you look at that old fool? Why doesn't he just retire and save himself from further embarrassment." Why is that? Thirty years ago, white college kids like myself, who were thrilled at the prospect of seeing old bluesmen like Muddy Waters and John Lee Hooker, could not even begin to imagine that Paul McCartney and Mick Jagger would one day be performing at those same ages, let alone that we would still be going to see them. I think it had something to do with our stereotypical notions that black people age more gracefully than white people, and are therefore never too old for anything. We just didn't think it was possible to be an old white man and still be cool. Until now.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-28 04:55 by tatters.

Quote
tatters

Quote
roryg
It's strange seeing older shows and realizing you're older than the Stones at that time. As far as r'n'r age pioneers,however, there seems to be guy named Chuck Berry and some guys called the Beach Boys still doing their thing, so I wouldn't call the Stones the first to do this even in their musical genre.

I know. I thought they were ancient in 1978, which is natural enough, since I was 19 and Mick was 35, but now, of course, I look at photos from '78 and can't believe how young they look. Shit, I have a stepson who's almost the same age the Stones were in '78. Beach Boys and Stones are contemporaries, and yeah, the BBs have been on the receiving end of their fair share of "Shouldn't they be calling themselves Beach Men by now?" jokes, but Bill Wyman, born in 1936, is five years older than the oldest Beach Boy.

No one ever says of a black performer, "Will you look at that old fool? Why doesn't he just retire and save himself from further embarrassment." Why is that? Thirty years ago, white college kids like myself, who were thrilled at the prospect of seeing old bluesmen like Muddy Waters and John Lee Hooker, could not even begin to imagine that Paul McCartney and Mick Jagger would one day be performing at those same ages, let alone that we would still be going to see them. I think it had something to do with our stereotypical notions that black people age more gracefully than white people, and are therefore never too old for anything. We just didn't think it was possible to be an old white man and still be cool. Until now.

Well, the old black dudes did it in part because they had to. They needed the work.
To us, they were cool. To them, they were paying their bills the way they know how,
as well--of course--as reclaiming the buzz of performing before a [usually] appreciative
audience.

Then again...another thought is people like Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett were of the
generation before the Stones and they played into their later years.

So, maybe it's not "cool" that old white men keep playing, it's that they are as meaningful
to us, in the way Frank Sinatra etc were to the older generations.

And, of course, now looking back, those guys were cool as shit.

I loved your post before this one, tatters, because you really did nail it there, too.
I didn't mind the Stones being older than me when I was really little because, well,
everyone was older than me. But when I got to be 14 or 15. friends were starting bands,
we were sneaking into The City (i.e., NY) to witness and partake in the insane scene
unfolding there, and we were identifying with a totally different musical and cultural
scene than the Baby Boomers. Furthermore, our parents thought they had finally
figured out the rock n roll landscape, but when punk and new wage and then hip hop
emerged it was once again OUR bastion, where they could not follow us and we could
explore our teenage glory and angst unfettered - inscrutably to adults. At that
point, Mick Jagger suddenly became "ancient" to me - and irrelevant - as did all of
the Stones at that point, by association. What a laugh, eh?! How arrogant we are in
adolescence

I remembered the following story when driving down to Los Angeles from San Francisco
for the filming of fan-video interview. Mick was at a party I was at, the summer I was 15,
and he was apparently in an antisocial mood, and my friend and I thought he was behaving
ridiculously, but when he walked by at one point I tapped him on the back or tugged
on his jacket, and wheeled around and made a face at us and stuck his tongue out in a
non-friendly manner, and we just LAUGHED because he seemed like a Mr Grumpy Pants, when
everyone else was having a blast. He was not the only or even the biggest celebrity
there that night, arguably. It was NY theatre/fashion/literary world party in the Hamptons.
Today, I wouldn't tug on Mick Jagger's coat tails, and if he made a face and pretended
to vomit at us, I would be totally devastated, but at that time we just saw it as further
evidence of his being lame, and we were the cool ones.

And to us cool at that time meant going to see and listen to bands that none of the [older]
Rolling Stones-type fans had ever heard of. Something new and uniquely OURS. And at that
point Mick suddenly morphed more into, like, one of my Dad's younger brothers than someone
I identified with, or would cast youthfully lustful eyes upon, as a young teenaged girl is wont to do.

I had to separate from the Stones in my mid-teens because there was so much new going
on I didn't care about the past. So, I loved Tattoo You, but it was almost like "wow,
can you believe those old guys did something we like this much!"

I'm so glad I grew out of that and was able to return to the Stones. In the same way as when
in post-adolescence you start liking your parents again, and actually see them as
pretty fricking cool!

- swiss



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-28 05:55 by swiss.

The Red Hot Chili Peppers are the same age as The Stones on Voodoo Lounge. Ridiculous. They took the fall for everybody, but Dylan is older.

[www.non-filters.com]

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
seitan

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Dylan, Reed, Status Quo, Kiss and The J. Geils Band come to mind...

...Iggy Pop, Alice Cooper, Patti Smith,

Iggy gets his share of "wrinckle rock"-comments in the press, though.

I've been on a Iggy & The Stooges-show this summer, and he were still as fantastic as 30 years ago...same voice, same everything..Great Show...Just as The Rolling Stones Show were a couple of days ago of course...

Quote
DGA35
Reason the Stones always get mentioned is because no one has been around as long as they have! I remember in 81, news articles were mentioning the Stones being too old and Mick being over the hill at age 38!

Back in 1973 an article stated that the Tour of Europe in September-October was supposed to be their last tour before they would grow too old!

They are possibly the only group where it is acceptable to make ageist remarks. I noticed someone called them "raisin faced" earlier this week. It's beyond cliched and its boring. People who make those kind of comments are dullards who have nothing interesting to say.

I think that nowadays the Older Rockers are accepted cause there shows are still Worth going to!

John Mayal
Eric Clapton
Jack Bruce
Ginger Baker
Jeff Beck
Pete Townsend
Roger Daltry
Ringo Starr
The Pretty Things
Ozzy Osbourne
Lemmy

Quote
nonfilter
The Red Hot Chili Peppers are the same age as The Stones on Voodoo Lounge. Ridiculous. They took the fall for everybody, but Dylan is older.

[www.non-filters.com]

All the legendary 1960s rockers are pretty much the same age. Dylan is nine days older than Charlie (and five years younger than Bill).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-28 15:46 by tatters.

Quote
swiss

Quote
tatters

Quote
roryg
It's strange seeing older shows and realizing you're older than the Stones at that time. As far as r'n'r age pioneers,however, there seems to be guy named Chuck Berry and some guys called the Beach Boys still doing their thing, so I wouldn't call the Stones the first to do this even in their musical genre.

I know. I thought they were ancient in 1978, which is natural enough, since I was 19 and Mick was 35, but now, of course, I look at photos from '78 and can't believe how young they look. Shit, I have a stepson who's almost the same age the Stones were in '78. Beach Boys and Stones are contemporaries, and yeah, the BBs have been on the receiving end of their fair share of "Shouldn't they be calling themselves Beach Men by now?" jokes, but Bill Wyman, born in 1936, is five years older than the oldest Beach Boy.

No one ever says of a black performer, "Will you look at that old fool? Why doesn't he just retire and save himself from further embarrassment." Why is that? Thirty years ago, white college kids like myself, who were thrilled at the prospect of seeing old bluesmen like Muddy Waters and John Lee Hooker, could not even begin to imagine that Paul McCartney and Mick Jagger would one day be performing at those same ages, let alone that we would still be going to see them. I think it had something to do with our stereotypical notions that black people age more gracefully than white people, and are therefore never too old for anything. We just didn't think it was possible to be an old white man and still be cool. Until now.

Well, the old black dudes did it in part because they had to. They needed the work.
To us, they were cool. To them, they were paying their bills the way they know how,
as well--of course--as reclaiming the buzz of performing before a [usually] appreciative
audience.

Then again...another thought is people like Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett were of the
generation before the Stones and they played into their later years.

So, maybe it's not "cool" that old white men keep playing, it's that they are as meaningful
to us, in the way Frank Sinatra etc were to the older generations.

And, of course, now looking back, those guys were cool as shit.

I loved your post before this one, tatters, because you really did nail it there, too.
I didn't mind the Stones being older than me when I was really little because, well,
everyone was older than me. But when I got to be 14 or 15. friends were starting bands,
we were sneaking into The City (i.e., NY) to witness and partake in the insane scene
unfolding there, and we were identifying with a totally different musical and cultural
scene than the Baby Boomers. Furthermore, our parents thought they had finally
figured out the rock n roll landscape, but when punk and new wage and then hip hop
emerged it was once again OUR bastion, where they could not follow us and we could
explore our teenage glory and angst unfettered - inscrutably to adults. At that
point, Mick Jagger suddenly became "ancient" to me - and irrelevant - as did all of
the Stones at that point, by association. What a laugh, eh?! How arrogant we are in
adolescence

I remembered the following story when driving down to Los Angeles from San Francisco
for the filming of fan-video interview. Mick was at a party I was at, the summer I was 15,
and he was apparently in an antisocial mood, and my friend and I thought he was behaving
ridiculously, but when he walked by at one point I tapped him on the back or tugged
on his jacket, and wheeled around and made a face at us and stuck his tongue out in a
non-friendly manner, and we just LAUGHED because he seemed like a Mr Grumpy Pants, when
everyone else was having a blast. He was not the only or even the biggest celebrity
there that night, arguably. It was NY theatre/fashion/literary world party in the Hamptons.
Today, I wouldn't tug on Mick Jagger's coat tails, and if he made a face and pretended
to vomit at us, I would be totally devastated, but at that time we just saw it as further
evidence of his being lame, and we were the cool ones.

And to us cool at that time meant going to see and listen to bands that none of the [older]
Rolling Stones-type fans had ever heard of. Something new and uniquely OURS. And at that
point Mick suddenly morphed more into, like, one of my Dad's younger brothers than someone
I identified with, or would cast youthfully lustful eyes upon, as a young teenaged girl is wont to do.

I had to separate from the Stones in my mid-teens because there was so much new going
on I didn't care about the past. So, I loved Tattoo You, but it was almost like "wow,
can you believe those old guys did something we like this much!"

I'm so glad I grew out of that and was able to return to the Stones. In the same way as when
in post-adolescence you start liking your parents again, and actually see them as
pretty fricking cool!

- swiss

swiss, good post. I'll try to respond to it later, after I've had some coffee

It is pretty funny that a lot of big bands from the '90s - Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Stone Temple Pilots, Alice In Chains, Red Hot Chilli Peppers - are now in their mid 40s like Mick and Keith were when they launched Steel Wheels in '89. Yet these bands are still considered relatively young and hip, whereas the Stones were roundly called dinosaurs starting in '89 (if not before). Once again, the Stones are trailblazers.

Although, one difference is that the average 46-year-old in 1989 looked a lot older than the average 46-year-old does now in 2012. In general, people in their 30s and 40s are looking a lot younger now than they ever did. I remember seeing the pictures of Mick and Keith in Rolling Stone in 1989 and thinking "Jesus, they look old!" Of course, I was 20 at the time. I saw some Steel Wheels pictures not too long ago and thought "wow, they were so young then!" And they were, compared to now, just not compared to the '60s and '70s. Just goes to show it's all relative. The important thing is if you're still breathing and relatively healthy. Or as a wise man once said "I'm glad to be here. I'm glad to be anywhere!"

Nice story swiss!