Tell Me :
Talk
+ 1
Absolutely! Much more of that kind of guest-artists...and I'm not long from 60 either....
2 1 2 0
Well said.....I too posted earlier, that, yes she can sing.......all kinds of songs I never want to hear. Funny this is the same guy that when approaching 40, lamented about being disingenuous and being thankful My Generation wasn't his......which way is it?
There has always been good music around, the problem is that Jagger very rarely invites these "geniuses" and instead focuses on trivial contemporary (and in his mind "hip-by-association") BS or artists that are very much incompatible with the Stones' sound.
It's not age it's that she's a no-talent that does not belong on the stage with the Rolling Stones.
Yes if Louis Armstrong had her on stage 1964....
2 1 2 0
Exactly.
And do you think it would have been (considered) shameful on behalf of Satchmo, or artistically 'challenging', if he had done so?
Exactly!.....except she is young, like Marianne was and they are nearly 70.....but otherwise just the same.......
so it's exactly the same except for being totally different?
now there's a good point. first good point that anyone's made around here in about a week.
ok...time for a beer break everyone. GOOD WORK!
exactly. I applaud the choice of Adele, whose work I barey know but she is an artist, as much as i decry yesterday's joke.
How about marianne Faithfull to sing ATGB? That would have been something.
I didn't mean "...like THE STONES having Marianne Faithfull on stage in 1964" - (which I don't think ever happened, btw?!)
I meant that this Taylor Swift in '013 is very much like, definitely comparable to, (f.i.) Marianne in the early Sixties.
A young, georgeous, blonde popsweety; a bit enigmatic, no outrageaously brilliant vocal qualities, and significantly un-rock'n'roll (definitely targeting different audiences) - at first glance.
I didn't mean "...like THE STONES having Marianne Faithfull on stage in 1964" - (which I don't think ever happened, btw?!)
I meant that this Taylor Swift in '013 is very much like, definitely comparable to, (f.i.) Marianne in the early Sixties.
A young, georgeous, blonde popsweety; little bit enigmatic, no outrageaously brilliant vocal qualities, and significantly un-rock'n'roll (definitely targeting different audiences) - at first glance.
Oh my god, does Taylor know her star is fading? You better tell her before she continues her tour from tonight in the U.S. through Australia in December. And tell Billboard too, since she's on their cover this week for her 8 wins at the recent Billboard Music Awards. And she has the #22 song in the US on the Billboard charts. You better let her know her star is fading before she pockets all that money. Thank god we're here.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Attitudes towards newer or younger performers
Posted by:
mysticale
()
Date: June 4, 2013 09:48
Hello. First time posting here....thought I joined the Stones Fan Site long ago. Did not find any intro thread for newbies as yet, so forgive me if I am breaking any rules. Saw the opening show last Tues. - fabulous - and wished I could have seen the rest, but will hope they return in the fall.
I am compelled to post because I turned 60 recently and some of what has been said here regarding Taylor Swift and other younger musicians bothers me. It seems as though every generation, no matter how far back one goes, tends to favor the music of their teens and twenties most. I can certainly understand that the passion that music arouses in us, coupled with the dramatic changes we all undergo as we begin find ourselves as adults, often makes for lasting connections that invoke deep loyalty. What I detest is when I run into people my own age who seem to dismiss nearly all bands or artists as being inferior to their original rock "heroes",no matter how talented they actually are.
Why can't more of us admit that there are artists of each generation that have genius? Do you really believe that the Stones, or the Beatles, or Dylan, or whatever other bands of your youth floated your boat most were unparalleled and will never meet their match? Is it incomprehensible to you all to imagine that in another 20 years, there may be another group of bands that have managed to keep a fanbase for 50 years who are just as loyal?
I am not a fan of Taylor Swift, but I find it rather sad just how many here felt the need to completely trash her, without even having heard her perform. If she felt the need to dress provocatively tonight, is that not because most women feel compelled to do so in the hard rock arena, which is still a male dominated venue? Judging from the males here who cut her apart until they finally saw her tight ass, I feel my point has been made for me. Ironically, the first time I saw her perform (on TV) she wore a long granny-style gown. I recall her still because I found this highly unusual, given that the other females were all in much skimpier costumes. I also was impressed that she wrote her own songs and played an instrument rather than simply shaking her ass on stage with a bunch of boy-toy dancers grinding behind her.
I am a huge fan of the Rolling Stones, but lets be honest here. Ms. Swift was performing with a band whose hits have sometimes degraded women (Under my Thumb, Some Girls) and include songs about rape (Midnight Rambler), and once had their lead singer ride astride a giant rubber phallus on stage just to further entertain us. Many of the Stones have chosen to dress in provocative clothing themselves. Should we really be so quick to judge a young girl in her teens for trying to fit in with what she thought the Stones audience might like in the way of costumes...especially considering that it was the band who invited her?
As to the recent tape I saw of tonight's performance of As Tears Go By...it does
not compare to Marianne Faithfull's solo version, but I did not think Mick's performance of the song was really all that much better. Perhaps this is because Ms. Faithfull suffered so much that she began to own those Jagger/Richards lyrics. Taylor is a naive young girl who is still relatively sheltered. We celebrate males who write with confidence about their conquests. Mich was strutting the stage when younger than she is now, acting like the cock of the walk. The woman Jagger loved most in his youth, Marianne, inspired Wild Horses, and had a hand in writing Sister Morphine. I love those songs. Taylor may never compare, but if some of you know what Marianne eventually paid for her involvement with the Stones perhaps you would not wish that kind of life on this young performer, even if it means that her music will never be as powerful, or profound.
As to the Beebs....I really do hope they refrain from including him, but even so, I would never BOO anyone who was invited by the headlining band to perform with them.
I am compelled to post because I turned 60 recently and some of what has been said here regarding Taylor Swift and other younger musicians bothers me. It seems as though every generation, no matter how far back one goes, tends to favor the music of their teens and twenties most. I can certainly understand that the passion that music arouses in us, coupled with the dramatic changes we all undergo as we begin find ourselves as adults, often makes for lasting connections that invoke deep loyalty. What I detest is when I run into people my own age who seem to dismiss nearly all bands or artists as being inferior to their original rock "heroes",no matter how talented they actually are.
Why can't more of us admit that there are artists of each generation that have genius? Do you really believe that the Stones, or the Beatles, or Dylan, or whatever other bands of your youth floated your boat most were unparalleled and will never meet their match? Is it incomprehensible to you all to imagine that in another 20 years, there may be another group of bands that have managed to keep a fanbase for 50 years who are just as loyal?
I am not a fan of Taylor Swift, but I find it rather sad just how many here felt the need to completely trash her, without even having heard her perform. If she felt the need to dress provocatively tonight, is that not because most women feel compelled to do so in the hard rock arena, which is still a male dominated venue? Judging from the males here who cut her apart until they finally saw her tight ass, I feel my point has been made for me. Ironically, the first time I saw her perform (on TV) she wore a long granny-style gown. I recall her still because I found this highly unusual, given that the other females were all in much skimpier costumes. I also was impressed that she wrote her own songs and played an instrument rather than simply shaking her ass on stage with a bunch of boy-toy dancers grinding behind her.
I am a huge fan of the Rolling Stones, but lets be honest here. Ms. Swift was performing with a band whose hits have sometimes degraded women (Under my Thumb, Some Girls) and include songs about rape (Midnight Rambler), and once had their lead singer ride astride a giant rubber phallus on stage just to further entertain us. Many of the Stones have chosen to dress in provocative clothing themselves. Should we really be so quick to judge a young girl in her teens for trying to fit in with what she thought the Stones audience might like in the way of costumes...especially considering that it was the band who invited her?
As to the recent tape I saw of tonight's performance of As Tears Go By...it does
not compare to Marianne Faithfull's solo version, but I did not think Mick's performance of the song was really all that much better. Perhaps this is because Ms. Faithfull suffered so much that she began to own those Jagger/Richards lyrics. Taylor is a naive young girl who is still relatively sheltered. We celebrate males who write with confidence about their conquests. Mich was strutting the stage when younger than she is now, acting like the cock of the walk. The woman Jagger loved most in his youth, Marianne, inspired Wild Horses, and had a hand in writing Sister Morphine. I love those songs. Taylor may never compare, but if some of you know what Marianne eventually paid for her involvement with the Stones perhaps you would not wish that kind of life on this young performer, even if it means that her music will never be as powerful, or profound.
As to the Beebs....I really do hope they refrain from including him, but even so, I would never BOO anyone who was invited by the headlining band to perform with them.
Re: Attitudes towards newer or younger performers
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: June 4, 2013 14:03
Agree to a lot of what you say. I thought Taylow Swift was pretty good as well, and she strikes me as one of the hot (in both terms of the word) female artists that do stick to her music and not just wiggle her bum. Good decision of Jagger to invite her
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-04 14:04 by Erik_Snow.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-04 14:04 by Erik_Snow.
Re: Attitudes towards newer or younger performers
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 4, 2013 14:04
Quote
Erik_Snow
Agree to a lot of what you say. I thought Taylow Swift was very good as well, and she strikes me as one of the hot (in both terms of the word) female artists that do stick to her music and not just wiggle her bum. Good decision of Jagger to invite her
+ 1
Re: Attitudes towards newer or younger performers
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: June 4, 2013 14:10
A nice post to start a profile posting career here, which I hope will happen.
I already put my thoughts of "As Tears Go By" in the concert thread, so let me just say - while agreeing with the stance of the post - that when I was a young kid, I get to know all these great genres of black music - from Robert Johnson to James Brown and Peter Tosh - through The Rolling Stones. Now, these cats are teaching me what happens in America's pop charts...
Educational, all the same!><
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-04 14:14 by Doxa.
I already put my thoughts of "As Tears Go By" in the concert thread, so let me just say - while agreeing with the stance of the post - that when I was a young kid, I get to know all these great genres of black music - from Robert Johnson to James Brown and Peter Tosh - through The Rolling Stones. Now, these cats are teaching me what happens in America's pop charts...
Educational, all the same!>
<- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-04 14:14 by Doxa.
Re: Attitudes towards newer or younger performers
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: June 4, 2013 14:16
Quote
Erik_Snow
Agree to a lot of what you say. I thought Taylow Swift was pretty good as well, and she strikes me as one of the hot (in both terms of the word) female artists that do stick to her music and not just wiggle her bum. Good decision of Jagger to invite her
Absolutely! Much more of that kind of guest-artists...and I'm not long from 60 either....
2 1 2 0
Re: Attitudes towards newer or younger performers
Posted by:
Thrylan
()
Date: June 4, 2013 14:17
Quote
Doxa
A nice to post to start a profile posting career here, which I hope will happen.
I already put my thoughts of "As Tears Go By" in the concert thread, so let me just say - while agreeing with the stance of the post - that when I was a young kid, I get to know all these great genres of black music - from Robert Johnson to James Brown and Peter Tosh - through The Rolling Stones. Now, these cats are teaching me what happens in America's pop charts...
Educational, all the same!>
- Doxa
Well said.....I too posted earlier, that, yes she can sing.......all kinds of songs I never want to hear. Funny this is the same guy that when approaching 40, lamented about being disingenuous and being thankful My Generation wasn't his......which way is it?
Re: Attitudes towards newer or younger performers
Posted by:
fahthree
()
Date: June 4, 2013 14:22
Great post. It might make too much sense for some people!
Re: Attitudes towards newer or younger performers
Posted by:
rollmops
()
Date: June 4, 2013 14:35
Mysticale said :
"Why can't more of us admit that there are artists of each generation that have genius? Do you really believe that the Stones, or the Beatles, or Dylan, or whatever other bands of your youth floated your boat most were unparalleled and will never meet their match? Is it incomprehensible to you all to imagine that in another 20 years, there may be another group of bands that have managed to keep a fanbase for 50 years who are just as loyal?"
I believe that The Beatles, The Stones, Bob Dylan and few others have produced songs, music that exceptionally good and it is going to be difficult for new musicians to match the quality level achieved by those great artists working in the field of popular music. Why? I don't have an answer for that really. Why Shakespeare is the greatest poet in the English language. Why Van Gogh is the greatest impressionist? Of course some are going to deny those "titles" but the magority will probably agree.
I just would like to know who are the new "geniuses" in popular music.
But Mysticale I respect your point of view, mine is just different.
Rock and roll,
mops
"Why can't more of us admit that there are artists of each generation that have genius? Do you really believe that the Stones, or the Beatles, or Dylan, or whatever other bands of your youth floated your boat most were unparalleled and will never meet their match? Is it incomprehensible to you all to imagine that in another 20 years, there may be another group of bands that have managed to keep a fanbase for 50 years who are just as loyal?"
I believe that The Beatles, The Stones, Bob Dylan and few others have produced songs, music that exceptionally good and it is going to be difficult for new musicians to match the quality level achieved by those great artists working in the field of popular music. Why? I don't have an answer for that really. Why Shakespeare is the greatest poet in the English language. Why Van Gogh is the greatest impressionist? Of course some are going to deny those "titles" but the magority will probably agree.
I just would like to know who are the new "geniuses" in popular music.
But Mysticale I respect your point of view, mine is just different.
Rock and roll,
mops
Re: Attitudes towards newer or younger performers
Posted by:
TURB0
()
Date: June 4, 2013 14:53
Quote
mysticale
Why can't more of us admit that there are artists of each generation that have genius?
There has always been good music around, the problem is that Jagger very rarely invites these "geniuses" and instead focuses on trivial contemporary (and in his mind "hip-by-association") BS or artists that are very much incompatible with the Stones' sound.
Re: Attitudes towards newer or younger performers
Posted by:
RoughJusticeOnYa
()
Date: June 4, 2013 14:53
I think that having Taylor Swift on stage in 2013 is very much like having Marianne Faithfull on stage in 1964.
Also, I think that's why they picked ATGB for her to do.
Also, I think that's why they picked ATGB for her to do.
Re: Attitudes towards newer or younger performers
Posted by:
Rokyfan
()
Date: June 4, 2013 15:07
That's the point. The OP is total bull. They have had young performers like Johnny Lang. No problem, he fits. Lada Gaga, not so sure, but at least she is a musician with talent. The next step after last night is to just put a model out there and drop all pretense.Quote
TURB0Quote
mysticale
Why can't more of us admit that there are artists of each generation that have genius?
There has always been good music around, the problem is that Jagger very rarely invites these "geniuses" and instead focuses on trivial contemporary (and in his mind "hip-by-association") BS or artists that are very much incompatible with the Stones' sound.
It's not age it's that she's a no-talent that does not belong on the stage with the Rolling Stones.
Re: Attitudes towards newer or younger performers
Posted by:
Aquamarine
()
Date: June 4, 2013 15:07
I agree with mysticale totally, and I'm pretty ancient, too. When I'm not watching the Stones, I'm watching contemporary artists, some of whom I consider geniuses and others very talented (not naming names here as it would be a bit off-topic and I don't want to get into an argument about individual artists). What's now called classic rock was great, but it would be awful if music never evolved.
Re: Attitudes towards newer or younger performers
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: June 4, 2013 15:11
Quote
RoughJusticeOnYa
I think that having Taylor Swift on stage in 2013 is very much like having Marianne Faithfull on stage in 1964.
Also, I think that's why they picked ATGB for her to do.
Yes if Louis Armstrong had her on stage 1964....
2 1 2 0
Re: Attitudes towards newer or younger performers
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: June 4, 2013 15:20
Quote
Come OnQuote
RoughJusticeOnYa
I think that having Taylor Swift on stage in 2013 is very much like having Marianne Faithfull on stage in 1964.
Also, I think that's why they picked ATGB for her to do.
Yes if Louis Armstrong had her on stage 1964....
Re: Attitudes towards newer or younger performers
Posted by:
Jackglfc
()
Date: June 4, 2013 15:23
Does she write her own songs?
After some reading on Wikipedia, most of her singles feature a co writer. Her first number one was written by Max Martin. Max is a pretty successful song writer, maybe the stones are looking at using him
If they are using the guests to sell tickets, why not give them a support slot?
After some reading on Wikipedia, most of her singles feature a co writer. Her first number one was written by Max Martin. Max is a pretty successful song writer, maybe the stones are looking at using him
If they are using the guests to sell tickets, why not give them a support slot?
Re: Attitudes towards newer or younger performers
Posted by:
RoughJusticeOnYa
()
Date: June 4, 2013 15:24
Quote
Come OnQuote
RoughJusticeOnYa
I think that having Taylor Swift on stage in 2013 is very much like having Marianne Faithfull on stage in 1964.
Also, I think that's why they picked ATGB for her to do.
Yes if Louis Armstrong had her on stage 1964....
Exactly.
And do you think it would have been (considered) shameful on behalf of Satchmo, or artistically 'challenging', if he had done so?
Re: Attitudes towards newer or younger performers
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: June 4, 2013 17:15
what has happened to my beloved fellow stones fans? it's a sad thing to behold.
Re: Attitudes towards newer or younger performers
Posted by:
Munichhilton
()
Date: June 4, 2013 17:25
Well I'm only 12 and I thought she was horrible...
Re: Attitudes towards newer or younger performers
Posted by:
Thrylan
()
Date: June 4, 2013 18:36
Quote
RoughJusticeOnYa
I think that having Taylor Swift on stage in 2013 is very much like having Marianne Faithfull on stage in 1964.
Also, I think that's why they picked ATGB for her to do.
Exactly!.....except she is young, like Marianne was and they are nearly 70.....but otherwise just the same.......
Re: Attitudes towards newer or younger performers
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: June 4, 2013 18:38
Quote
ThrylanQuote
RoughJusticeOnYa
I think that having Taylor Swift on stage in 2013 is very much like having Marianne Faithfull on stage in 1964.
Also, I think that's why they picked ATGB for her to do.
Exactly!.....except she is young, like Marianne was and they are nearly 70.....but otherwise just the same.......
so it's exactly the same except for being totally different?
Re: Attitudes towards newer or younger performers
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: June 4, 2013 18:47
Hm well ... people (even Stones fans!) can be quite open to new/young artists
without wishing to hear them in the middle of a Stones show.
without wishing to hear them in the middle of a Stones show.
Re: Attitudes towards newer or younger performers
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: June 4, 2013 18:52
Quote
with sssoul
Hm well ... people (even Stones fans!) can be quite open to new/young artists
without wishing to hear them in the middle of a Stones show.
now there's a good point. first good point that anyone's made around here in about a week.
ok...time for a beer break everyone. GOOD WORK!
Re: Attitudes towards newer or younger performers
Posted by:
DoomandGloom
()
Date: June 4, 2013 19:09
It's not a matter of open mindedness. People are excited for Adele. Swift was a reach. It is fair to criticize her. She is a product of the music industry. In 2011 she gave a great performance at the Grammies but her star is fading as is Katy Perry. Jagger is out of touch with who is actually contemporary, it's amusing.
Re: Attitudes towards newer or younger performers
Posted by:
angee
()
Date: June 4, 2013 19:17
rollmops, thank you, had to be said.
There are stand-out performers of every age, of course, and writers. However some, like the ones you mention,
and before that classic blues and jazz artists, and also great pop singers and songwriters, not to mention composers of classical music are far better than the rest, Sometimes time alone proves which
ones stand the test.
That said, as others have noted, it's not age that is the most important variable in people's judgements.
~"Love is Strong"~
There are stand-out performers of every age, of course, and writers. However some, like the ones you mention,
and before that classic blues and jazz artists, and also great pop singers and songwriters, not to mention composers of classical music are far better than the rest, Sometimes time alone proves which
ones stand the test.
That said, as others have noted, it's not age that is the most important variable in people's judgements.
~"Love is Strong"~
Re: Attitudes towards newer or younger performers
Posted by:
Rokyfan
()
Date: June 4, 2013 19:22
Quote
DoomandGloom
It's not a matter of open mindedness. People are excited for Adele. Swift was a reach. It is fair to criticize her. She is a product of the music industry. In 2011 she gave a great performance at the Grammies but her star is fading as is Katy Perry. Jagger is out of touch with who is actually contemporary, it's amusing.
exactly. I applaud the choice of Adele, whose work I barey know but she is an artist, as much as i decry yesterday's joke.
How about marianne Faithfull to sing ATGB? That would have been something.
Re: Attitudes towards newer or younger performers
Posted by:
RoughJusticeOnYa
()
Date: June 4, 2013 19:29
Quote
ThrylanQuote
RoughJusticeOnYa
I think that having Taylor Swift on stage in 2013 is very much like having Marianne Faithfull on stage in 1964.
Also, I think that's why they picked ATGB for her to do.
Exactly!.....except she is young, like Marianne was and they are nearly 70.....but otherwise just the same.......
I didn't mean "...like THE STONES having Marianne Faithfull on stage in 1964" - (which I don't think ever happened, btw?!)
I meant that this Taylor Swift in '013 is very much like, definitely comparable to, (f.i.) Marianne in the early Sixties.
A young, georgeous, blonde popsweety; a bit enigmatic, no outrageaously brilliant vocal qualities, and significantly un-rock'n'roll (definitely targeting different audiences) - at first glance.
Re: Attitudes towards newer or younger performers
Posted by:
RoughJusticeOnYa
()
Date: June 4, 2013 19:30
Quote
ThrylanQuote
RoughJusticeOnYa
I think that having Taylor Swift on stage in 2013 is very much like having Marianne Faithfull on stage in 1964.
Also, I think that's why they picked ATGB for her to do.
Exactly!.....except she is young, like Marianne was and they are nearly 70.....but otherwise just the same.......
I didn't mean "...like THE STONES having Marianne Faithfull on stage in 1964" - (which I don't think ever happened, btw?!)
I meant that this Taylor Swift in '013 is very much like, definitely comparable to, (f.i.) Marianne in the early Sixties.
A young, georgeous, blonde popsweety; little bit enigmatic, no outrageaously brilliant vocal qualities, and significantly un-rock'n'roll (definitely targeting different audiences) - at first glance.
Re: Attitudes towards newer or younger performers
Posted by:
DoomandGloom
()
Date: June 4, 2013 19:31
You won't see Marianne, it will make Mick look old.... I'd like to hear someone who is actually a rising star. Gary Clarke Jr. was the only guest that has fit that category. He's the best guest they've had by miles.Quote
RokyfanQuote
DoomandGloom
It's not a matter of open mindedness. People are excited for Adele. Swift was a reach. It is fair to criticize her. She is a product of the music industry. In 2011 she gave a great performance at the Grammies but her star is fading as is Katy Perry. Jagger is out of touch with who is actually contemporary, it's amusing.
exactly. I applaud the choice of Adele, whose work I barey know but she is an artist, as much as i decry yesterday's joke.
How about marianne Faithfull to sing ATGB? That would have been something.
Re: Attitudes towards newer or younger performers
Posted by:
latebloomer
()
Date: June 4, 2013 19:38
I don't think Marianne was taken seriously at Taylor Swifts age either. It wasn't until Broken English, when Marianne was in her 30's that she was considered an artist. I don't hear anything in Swift's work now that I think will be remembered, but she is still quite young. I do see that she has talent, so it remains to be seen how she grows into that.
Re: Attitudes towards newer or younger performers
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: June 4, 2013 20:24
Quote
DoomandGloom
It's not a matter of open mindedness. People are excited for Adele. Swift was a reach. It is fair to criticize her. She is a product of the music industry. In 2011 she gave a great performance at the Grammies but her star is fading as is Katy Perry. Jagger is out of touch with who is actually contemporary, it's amusing.
Oh my god, does Taylor know her star is fading? You better tell her before she continues her tour from tonight in the U.S. through Australia in December. And tell Billboard too, since she's on their cover this week for her 8 wins at the recent Billboard Music Awards. And she has the #22 song in the US on the Billboard charts. You better let her know her star is fading before she pockets all that money. Thank god we're here.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1059
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10