Gazza posted this article in Rocks Off. He hasn't posted it here, but I hope he doesn't mind that I do. Just like to see your opinions...

----------------------------------------------------------------

From the Winston-Salem "Relish"

(Check out the writer's last name. If you were a gay porn star, you'd kill for a name like that...)



These Stones are a downright fuzzy gray-green
Thursday, May 5, 2005

By Ed Bumgardner

relish staff writer



The deep thinker who coined the phrase "a rolling stone gathers no moss" obviously has not seen the Rolling Stones in the past few years.

The Stones are preparing to tour this year, or so say insiders. Suddenly the old "Steel Wheelchair Tour" jokes that followed the band on tour in 1989 - 16 years ago - seem less wry than apropos.

It's not the fact that priggish singer Mick Jagger will turn 62 in July - that's Sir Mick Jagger to all the snickering little people, and "Brenda" to guitarist Keith Richards, Jagger's sparring partner and fellow fading Glimmer Twin.

A consummate showman, Jagger stays in tip-top physical shape. He has not yet begun to ... creak.

Age isn't a factor. Nor is appearance. Drummer Charlie Watts is 64, and he plays better than when he was 24. Richards, who also responds to "Keef," "The Human Riff" and "Who's the dead guy?" began living his life in dog years in 1969. This puts his age at nearly 500, give or take a century. He is comfortable with that. He wears his weathered countenance with pride and all the drunken dignity he can muster, which is considerable.

The creases and crags in his face are the battle scars of a pirate's life. Yo ho ho. He has served, and served well. He is the guitar-grinding embodiment of rock 'n' roll.

Richards and Watts, though aging, remain vital, expressive musicians. They are not alone. B.B. King is nearly 80. Buddy Guy is 69. Bob Dylan is 64. David Bowie is 58. Bruce Springsteen is 56. John Mellencamp is 54. All still create new, potent work, music that matters. Any debate about age and musical validity is now little more than minor antler-butting between factions in which sense is far from common.

What this means, on a personal level, is that for the first time in my life, I have no interest in seeing the Stones perform again. It's not that I don't care for the Stones. I no longer have the capacity to still care about a static band that no longer cares about its legacy, that no longer takes chances, that has turned disciplined self-preservation into an art form.

Such is the rational indifference of a realist. The Rolling Stones, once proclaimed the Greatest Rock 'n' Roll Band on Earth, have devolved into a voodoo lounge band. It's hard to admit, but it's true.

And it's sad, because it doesn't have to be that way.

There is more than a whiff of despair in the air when pondering the manifest musical state of the Stones. At heart is the realization that the vast majority of the musical heroes of my youth have withered and turned toxic, or worse, musically impotent.

Any argument that surrounds the continued musical import of the Stones as a contemporary musical juggernaut is romanticism of a most ugly and unsupported myth. The Stones were at best a solid singles band from 1964 to 1967. Their fame was less a matter of sustained musical ingenuity than the shrewd manipulation of reputation and image, that of a gang of unkempt rogues who boldly spit in the face of contemporary mores.

Between 1968 and 1972, the band released five exceptional albums - Beggar's Banquet (1968), Let It Bleed (1969) Get Your Ya-Ya's Out (1970), Sticky Fingers (1971) and Exile on Main Street (1972).

These discs tower over the musical pantheon as one of the grand sustained periods of defining productivity in rock 'n' roll history. They captured the sound of a unified band at a creative pinnacle, a musical Panzer division that crushed everything in its path. To listen to these discs is to immediately understand why the Stones are icons. And in a bit of converse logic, those albums also reveal the hard truth of why the band is no longer important beyond its status as old gods almost dead.

The Stones camp has been in turmoil for 20 years. There hasn't been a cohesively strong album since Tattoo You in 1981. To be fair, no band should have to sustain the level of its highest creativity for perpetuity. It's an unreasonable, unrealistic demand. Dodgy albums by great bands should be expected and accepted. Progress is pain. Bungee jumps of faith are required. It's part and parcel of creative ambition.

The problem with the Stones is that, beyond the odd glint of creative potency, the band hasn't shown signs of real growth in more than 20 years. It seems content to essentially be an oldies act - albeit a good one.

For the most part, the band's recent studio albums pander to myth. Its tours sustain myth. But what really sparks personal indifference is the fact that the band seems not to care. It appears content to shake the money tree by caving to the lucre of nostalgia and cranking out "Honky-Tonk Women" on tour, ad nauseam, replete with inflatable floozies.

Richards has made it plain that he is frustrated. Jagger openly admits that he is in it for the money. He merely plays the role of Mick Jagger. He can't grow old gracefully, as Richards and Watts are doing, because he refuses to grow up, much less grow old.

King, Guy, Dylan, Springsteen, Mellencamp, Bowie - there is no resting on laurels with them. It's why they matter. And it's why the Stones no longer do.

Listen to Exile on Main Street. Then listen to Bridges to Babylon from 1997. The proof is in the grooves.

Styx and Stones...
-------------------------------------------------------

Sad but true, innit????? I think it's a honest article.

[There'll be no wedding today...]

OK, the Stones haven't made another Exile. Big news, huh? I think he slags their studio stuff a little too gleefully. And, BB King and Buddy Guy have "grown" but the Stones haven't? Say what?

BTW, I could use a good Bumgardner. I've been having trouble keeping up with the weeds. :-)


Karl

I dont think its a bad article. He acknowledges that because their past work is so great, its hard to live in the shadow of it.

he at least acknowledges the Stones are still a "good" oldies act. And thats what they are.

they are certainly resting on their laurels and pandering to a certain affluent nostalgia-orientated market that has more to do with generating large amounts of cash at the expense of inspiring them creatively

Amen.

For what it's worth, my opinion is that this article is simply a slightly more eloquent and articulate version of our own constant whinging and whining on this board, but still it contains the essence of the truth ...

So let's hear the new album and THEN judge, but I personally ain't holding my breath anymore....

Gazza Wrote:
>
> they are certainly resting on their laurels and
> pandering to a certain affluent
> nostalgia-orientated market that has more to do
> with generating large amounts of cash at the
> expense of inspiring them creatively


I'll buy that. Well put (as usual Mr. Gaz)

Karl

I go for a walk in the park almost every Sunday. The same park every week. I always enjoy it although sometimes more than others. It's not the same place that it used to be - years ago it had tennis courts and mini golf and family's used go there and the place was always busy. Now it's run down and doesn't have the same feel like it used to do, but I still enjoy going there. Even although it never changes I sometimes spot something different that I'd never noticed before. I hate the people who don't respect it by leaving litter or spraying graffiti. Still I keep going there - even if it's not the place it used to be, I hope they never close the park down.

I think I've bust a button on my trousers....

Nice comparison, skelly.

[There'll be no wedding today...]

That is the worst part nowadays - the feeling that the Stones really don't care.

and if your park is so crap nowadays I sure hope you're not paying up to 1000$ to go in through its gates?????

To say that Bridges is not a great album is BS. I don't rank it up there with Exile but it does blow away everything since Tattoo You and perhpas even is better than that.

Oh, and yes, Mick is in it for the money..PARTLY. To say it is only for the money is rubbish. He loves being on stage and the star of the show. I don't know that he really is in it for the music...but it is not just for the money.

jostorm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> and if your park is so crap nowadays I sure hope
> you're not paying up to 1000$ to go in through its
> gates?????


mmmmmm, good point!

The park still holds a little piece of my heart though. I'm sure one day soon they will build a supermarket and a bowling alley on top of the park and then everyone who took it for granted will miss it.


I think I've bust a button on my trousers....

As to this article....if only we could all make money stating the obvious!
Yes, the article rings true but so what? I don;t think they are trying to be the Greatest Rock n Roll Band. They aren't the 68-73 band anymore which is probably a good thing for most people because we would get bored and we couldn't read the wonderful MT vs. Woody debates

I think Mick is in it for the ego trip as much as the money. Ditto Keith. Ditto McCartney, etc. They don't really need the money.

I can think of a hundred or more (500?) groups from the 60´s - reunited or playing ever since - that care much less than the Stones; and, in particular, that are a lot more sad than the Stones are (who imho not are sad but full of life). RS: They are wandering miracles all of them. God bless these blokes. I´m sure they have jokers, as well as aces & wild cards for us up their sleeves. Energy level will be similar to that of 1981-82.

skelly Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jostorm Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > and if your park is so crap nowadays I sure
> hope
> > you're not paying up to 1000$ to go in
> through its
> > gates?????
>
>
> mmmmmm, good point!
>
> The park still holds a little piece of my heart
> though. I'm sure one day soon they will build a
> supermarket and a bowling alley on top of the park
> and then everyone who took it for granted will
> miss it.
>
>
> I think I've bust a button on my trousers....


its hard to take something for granted when its robbing you blind, though.

I totally disagree!

Tours: My first tour was in 1990. For the press they were only old farts even then, and they were in only for the money. My feeling before the first concert was "of course this is going to be embarassing: 5 old men acting as if they were 20 ... ". If this had been the case I would not have had any problem admitting it. It would have been normal. Instead they totally blew me away!!! I had exactly the same feeling before every single tour thereafter. And, you bet, every time I was proved to be wrong. At the 2003 MSG gig I truly could not believe my eyes.

All this to say that they might even be old farts, but sure they know how to rock. Not once I was disapointed. Not once. On my record this is more than enough. Who cares if they don't play how they did in the '70. I only add that in the time being I've seen all the big names in r'n'r, the oldies (Page, Plant, Waters, Berry, Clapton, Iggy Pop, Lou Reed, etc. etc.), the new ones (GnR, Cult, Ben Harper, Peral Jam, Black Crows, RHCP, Kravitz, etc.), and the in between (Springsteen, AC DC, Sting, etc). Who knows how may I missed! Honestly I can't say that the stones are under-par or somehow embarrasing if compared to any of them!

Studio work: Since Tattoo You, I have seen: Undercover, one of my personal favs; Dirty Work, all in all a very good album (only too short); steel wheels, used to hate it, but it ain't that bad after all (maybe too long); voodoo, this, I admit, I never liked; B2B, the best since Undercover; the Paris new singles: mmmm, let me say, so and so. Sum it up, it makes one excellent album (U), two strong ones (DW and B2, one with its strong moments (SW), one bad (VL, but many disagree). Only 5 albums in 24 years? So what?

C

C

Ed Bumgardner can kiss my big white ...
If REM, BONO, or some other critically acclaimed band had produced or performed any of the albums since Tatto You. The press and critics would have said what a great album it was, how groundbreaking, and eclectic the music was. Critics are like News Pundits they have thier favorites and spew thier biased and sometimes ignorant opinions. Let some media darling band like Everclear or Emeniem (sp) release the same albulm and no one would complain. I've said it before and I will say it again. The Exile, Let it Bleed Run is over and was a snap shot of a great band that has some other unbelivable awesome albums that would be regarded as such if it weren't for the overpowering legendary status of that run. I agree that sometimes the best songs get left of albums (ie honest man) but the Stones are still Kicking and Taking Names. Especially for Sixty Year Olds. Go ahead and names someone who is a third Keith's age that has put out an album as good as B2B or VL, or Forty Licks bonus tracks. I Haven't found one. Doesn't mean that thier aren't any good younger artists out thier, They are just not as good as Keith and the boys. Sorry but that's the Facts. You may Disagree and that is okay but that is how I see it.

The Militant Rolling Stones' Fan
Ps ...and Ed BUmgardner can bite keith's boney, wrinkled, probably decreped.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................fingers.

@#$%& wrote:

"Go ahead and names someone who is a third Keith's age that has put out an album as good as B2B or VL, or Forty Licks bonus tracks"
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Chris and Rich Robinson, maybe?


[There'll be no wedding today...]

I'm addicted to the stones since 1982, when I first saw them in the munich olympic stadium, and the rocked my mind away. Never will forget the hot summer day with blue sky, no clouds, and the colorful stage with all these balloons.

Since then (more than 20 years now!!!) it's always the same: first all magazines write that it's time for them to stop, they're only in it for the money, they're too old, a bunch of old farts aso. All concert reviews after the gigs always where enthusiastic, and told us, they're still the greatest live act in the world, even if they're not young any more (how could they?).

Every new release got compared to exile, and judged as not as good, but not one got really bad critics.

After Tattoo You we got killer songs like
- She was hot
- Too tough
- All the way down
- It must be hell
- One hit
- dirty work
- had it with you
- sleep tonight
- Almost hear you sigh
- highwire
- love is strong
- you got me rocking
- sparks will fly
- moon is up
- out of tears
- i go wild
- brand new car
- blinded by rainbows
- thru and thru
- and all 13 songs of Bridges, which are outstanding, and for me absolutely modern, fresh, and on the same level as exile or tattoo, but without the big hits. But: today it's not possible to get a single hit with rock music. Even if satisfaction, brown sugar, start me up oder jjf would be released (new) today, they would never touch the top 20!
- and many more on the about 10! solo records of Keith, Mick and Ronnie
- cool "real" music with keith and wingless angels

This is much more than most of all bands get together in their whole career!

And we got killer videos like
- undercover
- she was hot
- one hit (full of power)
- harlem shuffle
- love is strong
- out of tears
- Anybody seen my baby?
- Saint of me
- Out of control
- and loads of cool live and back stage stuff like Flicks, which is really great!

And we got loads of never or only long before played live songs like
- Wanna hold you
- Nearness
- Saint of me
- Out of control
- Never Fade Away
- Connection
- Some Girls
- Worried About You (Mick on e-piano)
- Dance
- Heartbreaker
- If you can't rock me
- Ain't too proud to beg
- Can't you hear me knocking
- You got the silver
- Dead Flowers
- The last time
- 19th nervous breakdown
- Like a rolling stone
- @#$%&
- Memory Motel (Mick on e-piano)
- When the whip comes down
- Don't stop
- Shine a light
- No Expectations
- Sweet Virginia
- Don't look back
- Loving Cup
- Rip this joint
- Mannish boy
- the best ever heard versions of monkey man and gimmie shelter (with Lisa)
- thats how strong my love is
- going to a gogo
- Waiting on a friend
- Black limousine
- Factory Girl
- Parachute Woman
- 2000 light years
- She's a rainbow
- Moonlight mile
- All about you
- Salt of the earth
- Play with fire
- Out of tears
- Rocks off
- Hot stuff
- Heart of stone
- Torn & Frayed
- Ruby Tuesday
- Hand of fate
I wrote all that down, 'cause so many here and out there seem to hardly remember any of that.


We got outstanding, cooking shows in stadiums, arenas, and especially small venues like Circus Krone, or Circus Stockholm. Could we've dreamt of this 20 years ago?
We got...
We got...
We got...

For me there's nothing more to want, except them carry on as long as they can. They're great because of what they were, but also of what they are, and all we got and get is a present for all real fans. Who always compares them to what they were and did in the 60ies, 70ies, 80ies makes a big mistake: he loses what's going on now, since then. Keep the old years with all the memories, cds and dvds, but be open to whats coming, and compare them to what you can get by other bands, today!!! And, for sure, if there soon would be a great new album with some killer tracks on it, you will never read such an article like this on rocksoff again for years! Be sure: an ass kicking tour is coming up, with great concepts and ideas. Always was in the last 20 years, and so often they started things others copied afterwards (video screens, b-stage, catwalk, backup video sequences, ...). And so it'll be this time!

Totally agree!.....

Sad but a lot of truth in it. But nevertheless I´m going to see them again one last time and I know what will happen to me when the lights go down.

It`s better to burn out than just to fade away....


http://www.feelinggood24.de/page-rauchstop.html';]

[/url]

Thanks, Micawber. You're right on time.

I agree Micawber, couldn't have said it better my self. Chris and RIch Robinson have written some good stuff but I feel a little to cliche sounding. Just my opinion.

And by the way why did Keith Name his guitar micawber?

Liddas - I question your judgement on that MSG show from 2003. That's the one
that made it on HBO right? I along with alot of my "Stones Fans" friends were
very disappointed with what was produced "musically" on that stage!!!
The boot I heard from Boston was light-years better!!! MLC

nankerphlege Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
---
> And by the way why did Keith Name his guitar
> micawber?


I´m with Micawber too. Time to support the guys.
They are no Greek gods, but (in-? no: )human beings.

Keefster had that question once (or lots of times); from what I remember he just said that its gotta have name and it could as well be Micawber.

" Liddas - I question your judgement on that MSG show from 2003. That's the one
that made it on HBO right? I along with alot of my "Stones Fans" friends were
very disappointed with what was produced "musically" on that stage!!!
The boot I heard from Boston was light-years better!!! "

MLC

Right, that was the HBO one. I have not heard the Boston show, and I believe you when you say that MSG could not have been a peak. Nevertheless, although not the best of the tour, you have to agree that it was one hell of a show!!! When I put 4F on, I know that this is no BS. As I said, that was my first oncert of the tour and I had no expectations whatsoever (apart form the reviews on IORR, which are always enthusiatic, anyway, the only anticipation I had was Mick and Keith at the 9/11 concert - which did not impress me at all ...)

C

Micawber's got it right...what have fans who adore the Beatles or the Who received over the past 20 years as compared to us Stones fans? I love both those groups, but has McCartney or the Who produced any better songs over the past 20+ years than the Stones? How many bands from the 60's or 70's have?

I liked that park analogy, but maybe this one's better...

You start a lifelong love affair with a beautiful woman. 20 years later, she may not be the hot girl that she once was...but you still know she's got it and quite frankly she still can draw much attention. 40 years later, she's a senior citizen, an old woman in fact. But you LOVE her...the affair continues based on what once was and because she is the only one for you...and because she is loyal.

The Stones charge big fees in order to continue the affair...that's always a part of the deal...who wouldn't pay a premium??? At least they've never left us...even when some of us left them.

I for one will continue the affair...and until death will we part!

I've just had a great idea!

Maybe The Stones could play a FREE concert in my park! :-)

The Stones "Clean up the Park" benefit gig.


I think I've bust a button on my trousers....

Harsh. Very harsh.

Tattoo You was not the 'last great Stones album'. Voodoo was fantastic.

I'd say he has some very valid points but at the same time he's attempting to undermine the Stones for what they have been. Example: He loves the Beggars-Exile time period, then he'd be the same person pissing and moaning about the boys cranking out Miss You, just because it sounds like a disco tune. The Stones have never produced the same album twice. Goats Head Soup doesnt sound like IORR which doesnt sound like Emotional Rescue which doesnt sound like Bridges to Babylon which doesnt sound like Between the Buttons etc...

Like I said on another post, I was born in 81. I wasnt around to hear the 'GREAT' Stones albums released. Every time I bought an album it was something completely new to me, and I DID NOT BUY THEM IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER. The first album ever given to me was Let It Bleed by my dad. That got me hooked at age 4. I blasted those tunes on a Fisherprice record player. From there I went on and was given more albums, but not in order. I listened to Sticky Fingers before Aftermath. I heard Undercover before Some Girls. Etc...

If you cant appreciate each album for what its worth, then I say you're not a fan, you just like a couple of albums. Granted some are better than others, and its a rare day for me to throw a needle on Black n Blue, but I still like the record.

My first show was St. Louis 97 and it was a good show. Granted I could do without all the hotrocks, but they're catering to the largest fanbase in the world.

If this tour is a nonstop hotrocks barrage then maybe there is alot of truth to the fact that they'll never cater to the hardcore fans, but I'm not placing any bets yet...

Drake

nankerphlege Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree Micawber, couldn't have said it better my
> self. Chris and RIch Robinson have written some
> good stuff but I feel a little to cliche sounding.
> Just my opinion.
>
> And by the way why did Keith Name his guitar
> micawber?



Mr Micawber is a character in one of Charles Dickens' novels