The aggressions! That used to be their role in rock. Today its not. Its just a museum. Am i wrong? And dont gimmie crap about how they always just wanted to play Berry riffs. They used to be dangerous you know! And they could very well light that fire in the audience if they want to. That's what a Stones concert should be about cause thats what their music was about. Aggressions. They started it, not me. They are like a dysfunctional family trying to come to terms with eachother now. But why would I pay hish ticket prices to see that? Man i miss the provocing angry Stones. They could do that if they let themselves grow up and give the old songs new meanings. If Mick believes what he's singing. And of course: kick Chuck once and for all. Listen to the fans.

Danger? Agression? Come on, they were and are only a rock and roll band!

C

Just a band? No, I dont agree. Mick himself said that violence was the most significant part in their music. And setting free the aggressions in the audience. Liberating the audience and presenting a lifestyle. That's what their songs are all about. Sex, drugs, and violence. And Micks daughter.

?

C

??

The medium is their message;
in this case the attitude and
sound speaks louder than words
which is why back in the day many
folk considered the Stones the
devil incarnate. Is the violence
and aggression taken to it's
rock and roll musical extreme.

To play the devils advocate, no pun
intended, this peaked as a deliberate
strategy at Altamont, were the Stones
lost control of their muse to the mob,
sort of a modern day Frankenstein
story. Afterwards turned inward on
themselves for awhile, at least in
Keiths case, on auto destruct with
the drugs. Now, they are trying to
uncomfortably adjust to the creeping
years, and perhaps are more hooked
on the big bucks, thereby tempering
their message..................

Davido, what a piece of art!

- Doxa

The Stones are and will always be the greatest posers rock has ever known. No one can live up to their image.....not even them!

"The aggressions! That used to be their role in rock." - "the greatest posers rock has ever known. No one can live up to their image.....not even them!"

Almost polar opposite views here. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between. I know where LA Forum is coming from when he says they used to be dangerous but apart from Keith lashing out at stage invaders & harbourmasters occasionally they themselves were never physically violent. On the other hand why were they so consistently demonised: it wasn't just down to a surly demeanour, slightly longer hair than the Beatles and some clever Clockwork Orange pr work by Andrew Oldham. The violence and darkness that was projected upon them springs I think from the music itself, partly the spooky sinister wellspring of the blues and partly the wildness of the electric guitars, rawness and aggression of Jagger's voice and later on the nastiness of the lyrics. There is something about this combination that does have the power to ignite audiences, something primal, ecstatic & orgiastic. This is not just a pose.

"Mick himself said that violence was the most significant part in their music." He has also said he can't understand the violence and that the music just makes him feel sexual.

What I meant by "posers" is that they portrayed a VERY strong image that was manufactured for them and by them. They were "acting" violent and sounding violent but in real life (post recording int he studio or after a show) they weren't. They went back to their decent hotels and got hammered and laid.I mean, there is nothing wrong with that. It made 99% love them.

There is no question that a song like Midnight Rambler can get you going and send an audience in many different directions but it is JUST an act.

A DAMN GOOD ONE!

Tseverin! Youre absolutely right,I read that too. I wish they would give interviews like that again. BUt its over Im afraid and has been for some time. Maybe they need a fresh Ham.