Quote
Rockman
Not to the true Stones fans, but let's be honest - most Stones fans
are just as happy to go see Macca, U2, or other bands. There are few among
us who truly love the band.

.... get ya hand off it Br...

whôt?


<<most Stones fans
are just as happy to go see Macca, U2, or other bands. There are few among
us who truly love the band.[/b]
<<
Are you kidding me Rockee?


I truly do love the Stones and no band comes close to the Rolling Stones



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

People like you and I are an exception to the typical Stones fan. Most are simply classic rock fans and they do not have the passion us diehards have.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-19 04:50 by Brstonesfan.

Quote
Aron
I don't really mean "replace" because that's impossible, but do you think there are currently good rock bands that can dominate rock music for 15 years, like the Stones did in the 60s and 70s?
I know that times have changed but still, there have to be good rock bands..

I think u2 has made some incredible albums and i really like them live (i know some people Find Bono arrogant, but i really think he is a first class performer). In my opinion they are the second best band in the world. But maybe they are becoming a bit irrelevant...

I mentioned the artic monkeys because i think their last album was really great. They are still young but they play large festivals all over the world(like Glastonbury.). So maybe a band for the future?

I think AM was really the Arctic Monkey's Sgt. Pepper. Everyone I know has heard and enjoyed not only one or two songs but the entire thing. Will be interesting to see where they go from here.

I really don't like anything U2 has done and find them really repetitive but that's probably just a personal taste thing.

Coldplay are an example of a band that have done pretty well for a long time. The Black Keys, Vampire Weekend, Arcade Fire and the Killers are others. Young people (i.e. 18 to 25 year olds) seem to be more into finding out the most obscure bands to call their favourites, which I think is why the bands that seem to "dominate" are the amateur ones adored by 14 year old girls (which I guess was the case with the Stones and the Beatles in the 60s, except that they were quite good).

NO.

If rock and roll were still king, maybe in time. But, it's a lost art and I don't see them ever being replaced.

<<I think AM was really the Arctic Monkey's Sgt. Pepper.>>

That statement shows that no band has yet taken the place of the Beatles, if a Beatles album is still being name checked as the benchmark for accomplishment and greatness.

To address the question put forth by the OP, it's all relative and depends on who you ask. There was a whole generation, for instance, who felt that Elvis could never take the place of Sinatra. And long before that, I'm sure there were plenty of those who felt that Beethoven and all those new-fangled, free-form nineteenth-century upstart Romantics could never take the place of the likes of the Classical composers from the late 1700s, like Mozart and Haydn.

You're only young once, after all....

The Stones are better than the Beatles and we must never allow the Beatles fans taunts to go unanswered . The true Stones fan, IMHO, will never give in to this Beatles mentality.

The only band that can replace the Stones are the Archive Stones....

Quote
stonehearted
<<I think AM was really the Arctic Monkey's Sgt. Pepper.>>

That statement shows that no band has yet taken the place of the Beatles, if a Beatles album is still being name checked as the benchmark for accomplishment and greatness.

To address the question put forth by the OP, it's all relative and depends on who you ask. There was a whole generation, for instance, who felt that Elvis could never take the place of Sinatra. And long before that, I'm sure there were plenty of those who felt that Beethoven and all those new-fangled, free-form nineteenth-century upstart Romantics could never take the place of the likes of the Classical composers from the late 1700s, like Mozart and Haydn.

You're only young once, after all....

I was only using it as a metaphor... wasn't trying to "taunt"(if it was me that was directed at,even though I'm a bigger Stones than Beatles fan). I was going to say it was their "Exile" but I wasn't sure that was the appropriate album to compare it to considering AM was instantly popular and Exile took time to get there.

You make a good point though, considering my Nonna who was born in the 20s thinks that the music of the 60s was a "big racket" and isn't familiar with any popular music that came out after the 50s.

It seems a couple of posters have read something in to my post that wasn't there--where did this notion of "taunt" come from?

For what it's worth, I was going to mention the Stones in my post. I was going to say that there was a generation for whom the Stones could never take the place of the Glen Miller and Benny Goodman bands.

If I were going to issue a "taunt", I could have said something like, "I realize it's against some people's religion here to mention 'Beatles', so I'll just say instead Who, Kinks, Hollies, Byrds, or Buffalo Springsteen, so that none of you reactionary louts who think that you're only allowed to like one band--or if you like more than one band, it cannot be THAT band".... and on and on.

But I didn't post that in my earlier post above, so I don't know where that impression of "taunt" comes from.

the "taunt" comment was from Brstonesfan... just didn't quote him... my bad!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-19 09:20 by alieb.

No

Quote
alieb
the "taunt" comment was from Brstonesfan... just didn't quote him... my bad!

No, you're good! In fact, everything's fine, and why shouldn't it be? We have the sun, the moon, and The Rolling Stones--that no band could take the place of.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
alieb
the "taunt" comment was from Brstonesfan... just didn't quote him... my bad!

No, you're good! In fact, everything's fine, and why shouldn't it be? We have the sun, the moon, and The Rolling Stones--that no band could take the place of.

ahahah true that! i feel I always have to apologize because sometimes i get the feeling people take these boards a little too seriously...or maybe it is because that is a symptom of me being Canadian... but why not have a debate or two, all in good fun!

Quote
alieb

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
alieb
the "taunt" comment was from Brstonesfan... just didn't quote him... my bad!

No, you're good! In fact, everything's fine, and why shouldn't it be? We have the sun, the moon, and The Rolling Stones--that no band could take the place of.

ahahah true that! i feel I always have to apologize because sometimes i get the feeling people take these boards a little too seriously...or maybe it is because that is a symptom of me being Canadian... but why not have a debate or two, all in good fun!

Sometimes a sense of humor is lacking, too. Or gets lost in translation. I just saw a band I've been hearing about (I'd a heard a little before) on Letterman. Gaslight Anthem performed "Get Hurt" & were pretty impressive. Impressive enough that I'm going to check out some of their other stuff.

[www.cbs.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-19 10:44 by crholmstrom.

i thought about it some more...and I know!


Me! ..just give me one or two years

Is there a band that can take the place of the Stones?

This question never needed to be asked.

The Strypes

[en.wikipedia.org]

2 1 2 0

Quote
memphiscats
NEVER

AGREED

Nope.

Never ever.

Not for me.

At one time I though the Black Crowes were poised to walk in the shoes of those giants but alas it wasn't meant to be.

The industry is so changed from the machine that created the Stones, record companies don't develop bands like they used to and the competition these days for touring deals is brutal. Records have taken a back seat to internet video flashes of single songs.....

Basically the whole art form is a dying breed, imho, so the answer is unfortunately...NO. peace

Correct. Rock is a dying breed just like the music our parents listened to in the 50's. While there will never be a band like he Stones again, many casual fans will go with the latest crap they call music and try to be hip. The Stones fan is the worst of all as they never appreciated anything the band has done and just come round for the shows and look for the cheap tickets. They do not buy albums or defend the band IMO.

I'm not saying that it is totally impossible, but right now, I can't see anybody coming along ......

The other day I have written that under the circumstances I prefer to listen to my old albums instead of paying hundreds of € just to listen to a boring "Best of..." concert.

I have just found something in ebay, namely

Very Best Of The Rolling Stones 1964-1971 - Rolling Stones (2013, CD NEW)

Label: UMGD/ABKCO
Format: CD
Release Date 23 Apr 2013
No. of Discs 1

Album Tracks
1. Time Is on My Side
2. (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction
3. Get Off of My Cloud
4. 19th Nervous Breakdown
5. Mother's Little Helper
6. Paint It, Black
7. Under My Thumb
8. Ruby Tuesday
9. She's A Rainbow
10. Jumpin' Jack Flash
11. Sympathy for the Devil
12. Gimme Shelter
13. You Can't Always Get What You Want
14. Honky Tonk Woman
15. Brown Sugar
16. Wild Horses

This album costs € 8,02 and contains a setlist similar to those our heroes use to present these days.

This is all I wanted to add to my recent post.

Regards, Ruediger



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-24 11:28 by Ruediger.