Quote
hbwriter
Partly, anyway, in my opinion, is that they are brutally unsentimental. Like a shark, they just always push ahead, they may circle back once in awhile just see what they missed or how to get something out of previously covered ground, but in the end they have always been about what's next, vs. what's passed.

Sorry for the mid-afternoon philosophizing. But where else would I go with this but here?

love the analogy about the shark,and "that they are brutally unsentimental".so true .also they dont take any prisoners .

Quote
rollmops
The rolling stones have survived because of their huge and consistant success... Mops

Very true . If they hadn't continued to pull the audiences and defend their continued status as the "Greatest Rock N Roll band in the world" . they would likely have split a long time ago.

If their popularity had wained but they did stay together, the irony is that they might now be more akin to the band that a lot folks around here would like them to be.

In terms of their modern era modus operendi, they're very much victims of their own success.

The mixture of personalities, the music and the awareness of things happening around them.

I think in this case the sum is equal to its parts. Bottomline, The Rolling Stones are a great band. We can nitpick all we want about who's the best musician, the best song, the best album, the best era; but they're just a great band with equally as great a leader. The analogy of a shark is perfect, and the shark in this case is Jagger. Deftly navigating the dangerous and murky waters of the music business (how corny is that ). Seriously, he is a a very smart, tough, canny person without which the band wouldn't even have survived the seventies. That's only part of it. A very colorful cast of characters in the band and associated with the band, both past and present...I don't think anyone could have made this stuff up. Truly rock and roll even as they age, and they're doing it very well. Plus, the fans have to share the credit, whether you're a casual fan such as myself or an avid one, they've showed their appreciation time and time again. It's great, it really is!

Because of the music first off. @#$%&' good music. Second, their story. Real, or myth, it is alluring.

My opinion? they survived into the 80s for whatever reason they did and.... after The Who, Yes, Led Zeppelin, John Lennon and several other "British R&R dinosaurs" perished , or beter said "ended their original bloodline" it was "The RS =The longest survivng RR band" status for them. The RS became to live Rock what JJF is for the live RS event: The highlight even though we know there aint be no surprises there.... BTW Imserius in thinking both MJ and KR take this into consideration!

I also believe that, whilst ever the market demand has enabled it, it's psychologically been easier for them to keep doing it than to stop.

Stopping would be a sign that they're old and retiring on a pension ...

Nobody likes to accept that they're getting old...so if you have the means to pretend you're not...you take it

THis largely depends on how 'survived' is defined. THe name the Rolling Stones exists and survives and the machine turns out merchandise etc etc...there are still 3 of the original line up alive, 2 not really on speaking terms. THey get together every few years (this gap has got progressively longer, to tour and essentially play a set list of very old songs. THe rest of the time they live very different lives on very different continents. Not so sure about survived being the appropriate word...more like 'continue', and the answer to that is fame and fortune. THey enjoy being Rolling Stones and they enjoy the wealth which comes with that status.

Quote
crumbling_mice
...They enjoy being Rolling Stones and they enjoy the wealth which comes with that status.

That just about sums it up I think



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-13 12:38 by Spud.

I disagree with some of what has been said above.

1. They would not survive if their music (made long time ago) would not be so good, so outstanding, so clearly recognisable. I guess this is why WE love them.

2. A good business mind (Jagger) is important, but even he could not sell something nobody likes.

3. They are part of lives of at least two generations, who then pass it on to their children. So it became part of a commonly shared "culture" (Keith has recently called it "part of the furniture").

4. While they may be irrelevant as a band today, their music, and the music of their contemporaries, is the basis of most of what young people listen to today, whether they know it or not.

5. Finally, I think it is irrelevant whether they are "a band" anymore. Isn't it naive to expect 70-year olds to hang together like teenagers?

^

Don't know if Brian Jones has an idea...
No the stones aren't a band now, just a big company which starts something bigger and bigger when anniversaries times are coming.

Quote
greenriver
Don't know if Brian Jones has an idea...

He's dead so zero awareness of anything.

Because it's their preferred option.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-14 19:30 by Deluxtone.

Quote
latebloomer
Not so sure about the unsentimental part. To be seen as nostalgic and sentimental clashes with their well crafted image. But if you listen to or read some of their interviews in the past year, there are glimpses of wistfulness. The Rolling Stones is a huge corporation, but it's CEO's are still just a few guys, heading into their twilight years.

All that money does make the ride a lot more comfortable, though.

hindsight. recently sounds like they're looking back over their lives.
do miss their original days!

1. They were good (and still are)
2. They started to write their own songs (who got the credit and who didn´t etc is a story of its own)
3. There were lots of good bands around, who didn´t write anything - Manfred Mann, Animals, Searchers and so on - but they didn´t survive, let alone playin´at nostalgia events and doin´their 60´s set over and over again.
4. They created something original and (ever)lasting
5. They made enough money to decide to go on or to call it an early afternoon.
6. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, whether you like it or not, still can create something that´s more than an oldies act.
7. For many of us born in the fifties and even sexties, they are a part of our lives.
8. Surprisingly, for many of those born in the seventies AND even in the eighties, it seems to be the same thing.
9. They live up to their original heroes - I don´t have to name them, everybody knows who they are. "Bop till you drop"
10. If the audiences had called it a day, the Stones would have retired. It´s hard to imagine them doin´pub-gigs and the kind playin´Satisfaction, Last Time, Breakdown, Black - you name ´em!
11. They were built to last

I've cracked it .........

it's because they haven't broken up.

Next question ............

It truely is a mystery why their still around. I wouldn't pay for a ticket to see them anymore as I refuse to pay 10 times what I paid when they were actually good. And I wouldn't waste time or money buying anything new by them as they haven't writen anything good since 1981 or so and I've heard all the old stuff way too often already. Sorry not much of a fan anymore it seem's. Still, I keep coming here to this site? They've got me and I can't let go I quess?

Quote
hbwriter
Partly, anyway, in my opinion, is that they are brutally unsentimental. Like a shark, they just always push ahead, they may circle back once in awhile just see what they missed or how to get something out of previously covered ground, but in the end they have always been about what's next, vs. what's passed.

Sorry for the mid-afternoon philosophizing. But where else would I go with this but here?

No - stones survive cause they dont do anything...no, they play it safe, they are not about what's next..instead, they are ancient institution that never takes any risk and they dont expirement at all - they are not moving forward in any direction, they are only lookin at their past with reissues and greatest hits compilations and instead being relevant - they are nostalgia jukebox that plays hits of yesterday and they dont even do that very often.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-16 00:43 by seitan.

Quote
MartinB
4. While they may be irrelevant as a band today, their music, and the music of their contemporaries, is the basis of most of what young people listen to today, whether they know it or not.

Bands like the Beatles, Stones, Who, Kinks, and so on, having set the template for bands playing modern rock and roll, continue to be an influence on new and emerging musicians/bands, and bands are still covering the music as well, like this new version of Citadel just a year ago.





Bands like The Stones will always be relevant for as long as new bands keep emerging to play rock and roll.

I have to agree with MartinB. And i think there is one additional reason why the Stones survive: their moves and decisions are not depending on what some so called "hardcore fans" want from them. You know, fans like the guys who always demand "no more JJF live, please, i have heard the song 500 times" (just an example)...

Quote
stonehearted
Bands like The Stones will always be relevant for as long as new bands keep emerging to play rock and roll.

It's certainly true that that the Stones,either directly or indirectly, continue to provide the template for very many young emerging "guitar bands".

It's also the case that, despite changing musical fashions, this type of rough and ready Rock n Roll always survives and retains a healthy fan base.

It's arguable that the Stones almost single handedly created and perpetuated this whole sub genre of rock music.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-16 11:23 by Spud.

How can we say seriously that their unsentamentil when all they've been playing for how many years now is their old stuff? If any band has ever relied on the past it's the Rolling Stones, and I can't hardly understand how people can actually go for that old bs that they aren't sentimental?

They're a great live band. They put on a great show. As they roll, they pick up more fans, like a snowball rolling downhill. Mick keeps it all going and is the most dedicated to his craft. Which craft, did I say??

they survived because the girls love Mick, and the boys love Keith. so that's the market sewn up. Oh, the songs were pretty good too.

Artistically, or creatively they haven't really survived that long. They stagnated in the late 70s. Which is only a natural process. They stayed on top for a much longer period than almost any other band. Live though, they have survived only because they put the ship on auto-pilot since the late 80s and stayed away from each other long enough to steer clear of severe internal conflicts.

- when every tour is nostalgia reunion it always makes news, but it has very little if anything to do with survival - if they were on tour every year, and if they kept releasing new music - people would have to face the quality of the shows and songs without hype - now they survive, cause they are dead band doing reunion tours, they milk it for all it's worth, they beat the dead horse untill it's dust - and they dont have to worry about it, cause they are greedy multi millionaires picking your pockets - they just cash in for all it's worth.


Did they survive as a creative force, no they did not. Artist like Iggy Pop and Patti Smith are still writing new songs and being creative and working on new music - The Stones creativity is long gone - now Stones are nostalgia act, just old has-been's and retro jukebox for yesterdays old hits, and that has nothing to do with survival in terms of being creative musicians. Lack of new songwriting is the proof. They are dead band cashing in by playing old songs.That's not survival - that's old fans emptying their pockets to re-live their youth, when the band gives nothing new.

In terms of creativity - Paul McCartney and Iggy Pop are survivors with new music and Stones are has-beens on rip off reunion tour.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-30 01:12 by seitan.

Helps that they were so damn good to begin with. Then as age takes it's inevitable toll, there is weak competition from new bands the last 30 years to allow us to forget about them

"When every tour is nostalgia reunion it always makes news, but it has very little if anything to do with survival - if , and if they kept releasing new music - people would have to face the quality of the shows and songs without hype..."

"Reunion tours"? "If they were on tour every year"? Seitan, in the last 25 years the Stones had 14 tour years -partly of fully. Speaking about a whole quarter of a century, we can only count 3 + 4 running years being without Stones gigs (1991, 1992, 1993 + 2008,2009,2010,2011). The Stones were on tour in 1989,1990,1994, 1995,1997,1998,1999,2002,2003,2005,2006,2007,2012,2013. Do you really believe the factor that makes attractive their performances is the kind of "hype" that reffers to "rare events"?? Honestly, i think you need other argument...

Because they are The Rolling Stones

-------------------
Keep On Rolling