we have our enthusiasm for R& roll, we might wear long hair,
we wear stones outfit from time to time, like tounge t-shirts, we talk music

why are we like that?
cause we like it.

we dont see ourselves.
other people do.

are we funny in their eyes ?



best
Dýri the profound

Animal, who are the "we" you refer to? Is it the aging baby-boomers, like me, who thought we would take over the world and then became part of the "establishment" we railed against?

No, my generation is now part of the status quo that fight with their children over the same issues that we fought with OUR parents. It never changes, even if we view ourselves as more understanding and tolerant and supportive than our parents were.

The Stones were not completely of the baby-boomer era--they came from the WWII era and the very beginning of the boomer demographic, which is commonly defined as those born between 1946 and 1964. They and the Beatles were icons to my generation, but the age difference was not that great. Books have been written about this generation, as they now close in on retirement age. We did indeed change the world, but not in the way we intended it, just as our fathers, the arguable "Greatest Generation", couldn't anticipate how their children would deal with the world they fought to save.

I can't really talk about the boomers' legacy too much, as I'm part of it, born in the middle of it, in 1957. The only only thing I can safely say is that my generation saw a huge transformation in how the world communicates, and a quantum leap in technological advancements overall. We have been blessed with witnessing miracles just in the last 40 years. For example, when I was born, the Russians launched Sputnik into the atmosphere. When I was 12, we landed on the moon. When I was 19, we had live pictures from a probe above Mars.

Now, in 2005, the universe is the limit, most of us boomers are still here, as are the Stones, and it's a great time to be alive. What more needs to be said?

Mornin´(At least here in C.E.T)...

Tryin bein philosphical or slightly scientific at 7 in the mornin... I might give it a tiny try.

Base man, I find you reasonable in all your post. But this baby boomers talk is a kliché, trust me. Baby booms occured in my country:

cirka 1942-1947

cirka 1962-68

cirka 1989-1993 (as anyone who work in a school can se)

As I get it baby booms are almost all the same everywhere. They seem to follow the sun activity; huge solar flare activity is seen with a cycle of in average 11 years. Noted years/periods are ab 1945, 1956, 1967, 1979, 1990 and 2002.
Im born in 1963, thus a real boomer. Stones minus Wyman also. Taylor a case of boundary. You, Base, are a non-boomer.

Donnow if there are some peculiar sociologists (or, rather, gossip mag´editors) that printed this boom talk. But booms are not to be mixed up.

Read High Fidelity by Nick Hornby, maybe you find yourself as one of them. Good book and I saw much of myself there. Then I began to read Feverpith by the same author and I did find other simular pieces in that book. He has sold a lot of those books. So there is a lot of us...or a lot of people who think we are a unny group of people.
Much better that people laugh about us than being angry at us.

Of course in North America recent baby booms have occured
as a result of folks settling down to have families as
the guys returned home from war in 1945, with a ripple
effect since, as each generation comes of age
and settles down and has their own children.
There may be other reasons but this is
the main one. A lot of the societal
emphasis on attitudes and interests
reflects this. Rock and roll's initial
appeal would've reflected the youthful
rebellion of the boomers, corresponding
with their teen to young adult years. And now,
as a greying populataion is perhaps more sedimentary.
And so on................

Hi; Yeah;
...This is Slippin´Away...
This discussion is getting far too americanized.
Just one thing, davido: What, really, baby booms in England and the rest of Europe documented during years 1942, 1943 etc - what kind of connection do you see between these booms ´round the old world and the ones after 1945 you mentioned. PLease lift your eyes above L´America´s horizon...
"baby boomers" aint - though highly doubtable and strongly unrecommended in using - a term specifically accustomed or originated to or from the US.
Is rock 'n' roll a isolated American phenomenon... ? Let go the first big artists came from this continent; but havent you heard of one or two rock groups from non-American nations...

My point (and I do admit I myself left the focus in my last post) is that the people born in the 50´s - one of the smallest "decade generation" on the planet speaking of the Western Hemisphere - oughtnt speak about themselves as baby boomers... But still, they (you: Bass) are truly fascinating... The 50´s generation are those who were the first fans of Stones, generally (Ok, I know a guy here in Sweden who is ab 57, thus born in 1948 or s.l.t). They revolted against the dying crap-borgeois establishment.
My last word here: "Run, Rudolph, Run... "

"Mick should stop trying to be Peter Pan. I don't see the point of trying to be 25 when you're not-he's obsessed with his age."

As hardcore Stones fans, we probably seem a little strange to those who don't get it. But to each other we form a close knit group of people who share a common interest, although we probably won't ever meet each other.

Animal, who are the "we" you refer to?

ok baby boomer or not. that is not really what I ment.
just the, maybe fifties and sixties borns, that by now should be established and respected members of society, but refuse to age gracefully and from time to time flip in front of their grandchildren playin luft guetar. Most of the time to the amusement of everyone, but sometimes to nonagreement of selfrespectful middle aged co-citicens.


best
Dýri

Hey,y´all;
Couldnt we agree on one thing:
- All those who dont like the Stones can go f*** themselves! Right?

Ho Baboon!

You can explain the Euro boom for us.
I really wouldn't know, am Canadian, speak
of the North American context. And of course
rock originated here in the fifties, in correlation
to the boom. I don't doubt it has been a quite different
experience elsewhere, and of course am always
interested in learning more.

Ok, Animal, I see your point, and yes, I'm still a teenage rock n' roller at heart. It is sometimes funny that some of my contemporaries, who now listen to country music, sound just like my parents when they ask, "When are you gonna grow up?"

My reply: "I AM grown up, but I will never grow OLD". (wink)

Yeah;

I´m in short and long term beginning to take a closer look on this.

On one hand; one would bee able to say: "The only boom I know ´bout is Boom Boom Boom by John Lee Hooker, or the "Boom-Tah! Boom-Tah"-canon firing Charlie´s doing in "I´m Going Down" or why not in "Jumping Jack Flash".
But one the other hand in this issue dwells a serious no-bullshit thing on How The West Was Won... Sorry: ...changed.

Let´s take a short look on the rock 'n' rollers: Diddley, in a neighbouring thread, was born in 1928. Chuckster Berry, quite involved in Rock History, born in 1926. Bill Haley, thus no heavy rocker one of the absoluetly first, born in 1925. Eddie Cochran, 1938. Buddy Holly, 1936. Mr Elvis Aaron Presley was born in 1935. Not a boomer as far as I can see; O.K., the so-called boomers were dancin on their gigs, no doubt.
The rock history, only in itself is but far more complicated then speaking og birth dates or booms. Slavery is a corner-stone here; or, as Keith likes to put it: We all come from Africa, man... I´m just a black man in disguise (and stuff like that). Note my signature here...
The rock didnt get dangerous before it came out of the English amplifiers!
....But that´s not my point either; ´cause rock history is a ping-pong game where at times England (and more and more, Europe) are in the avantgarde, and other times USA/America... In this dialectic movement I believe (besides) that there is time for a European initiative now, after 15-20 years of US-rap and stuff; - Hey! Now I have gotten into some heavier stuff... When music is changing the world... The new-romantics in the 80´s changed the looks of the pople born in the early 70´s; like punx and heavy metal band formed us born in the 60´s... But there are deeper dimensions here, more crucial values:

This is how I see it: The Rolling Stones is a kind of rock 'n' Rolls dadaists.
But more; far more; it´s like when Jimmy Phelge perform for his roommates Brian, Mick, and Keith when they´re coming back from a gig... With nothing on but his underpants... On his head... And another night; what did he do? I´m not gonna tell you (if I did, I ´d ruin the pleasure of reading his book "Nankering With The Stones")... Thing is; Phelge was always one step ahead. I mean: What can one do? What should one do? What must one do? (etc)
Summary: The Rolling Stones changed the world. They´re as important for us in the West as Islam has been in the Oriental outback (once the cradle of culture).
If you doubt: Picture the world in the early 60´s. Then look at it now? What was going on in-between? How did it happen?
If Beatles created a ephemeral, superficial image of Happy Youngsters Dancing; all those youngsters now are screwing this globe we´re living at up; they are the politicians, the establishment, the business men, the crap (98% of´em). Stones´ impact is of a tremendously, uncomparably more far-reaching, deep-going and general as well as soulful nature. Stones is SOUL!
What about us now in our 40´s-50´s... ? Right; we´re no heroes. But damn me, if we´re not quite a decent bit better (more progressive, that is; and with an average rise in empathy, respect for fellow-man and awareness which expand beyond the day you turn 25 y o... ?) than the older generation.
...And, if so, how can we thank Stones for this? Well; they started to question it all. And they played and play a hell of rock 'n' roll... What if we could invent a time machine and go to the Crawdaddy Club all of us that´s on-line now...
Tell all your children to start playing rock 'n' roll!

I´m happy...

Baboon, the actual term "baby boomer" is
a specific North American reference, to
the demographic population growth here
after World War Two, tho no doubt
similiar phenomenum have occured
elsewhere throughout the ages.

American rock and roll was very dangerous
in the fifties, because it's country
and blues roots crossed racial barriers,
and made this okay for white middle class
kids. As such it was on the leading edge
of much more wider social change to come,
which may or may not make much sense in
the Europeon context, but was one of the
most defining changes in American culture
during the last half century or so.

It may have had much more widespread meaning
elsewhere in signifying change, but it's
genesis was here. Please explain:
why think it didn't become dangerous
until an Englishman put underware on
his head?

Inquiring minds need to know!