John r, you are right about the retirement.. the argument based on those great 'play until you drop' blues artists is convincing.. but...
But I think that as a musical unit or 'artist', the Stones do belong to a different league, or at least are a bit more complex to be easily compared to those solo artists. If the Stones will split up, why should that a musician and individual called Keith Richards also disappear? Why can not he carry on doing music, and being artist called "Keith Richards" like all his heroes he is referring? Jimmy Rogers made his name being a guitar player in the "original" Muddy Waters r&b band in the 50s in Chigago; Hubert Sumlin was Howlin' Wolf's partner. Johnnie Johnson was for years only a sound in Chuck Berry records, now a name of its own..
Maybe Keith and the rest of the Stones really reflect themselves being a part of the bigger entity called "The Rolling Stones" and not really a personal, individual musicians or artists. Not a bad thought, though
At least Keith seems to define himself in terms of 'being a Stone"; Mick unwillingly seems to be fated to have that stigma (although he seems to enjoy the fruits of it), for Charles it seems to be a good day work. Ronnie, the luckiest bastard in the world, made the deal with devil, and is paying his musical creativity for that..
I don't know how in future, when all is said and done (not very far!), the legacy of the Stones will look like... maybe this endless massive touring and milking out their first 20 years will look like a herous act, or will be neglected totally (despite the fact that the most of material available comes from these late years tours). But at the moment I keep insisting that it would have been braver and more stylish and would have left of them a better image if they would have call it off around 1983.. But in that case I would never had a change to see my heroes live... I don't know..a dilemma..
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2005-02-17 10:50 by Rorty.