Quote
MrThompsonWooft

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
James Kirk
For the record when I started this thread my intention wasn't to discuss the success of Paul McCartney. My intention was simply to contrast McCartney's continuing creativity to the Stones total lack of output + continued repeating off themselves on the road doing nearly the same exact show year after year. You could substitute Bruce Springsteen or any number of other artists and the argument would still be valid.

The Stones are in a unique position to at least attempt to grow this music up with mature rock/blues records, but unlike McCartney they simply don't try. They just use their iconic brand to sell wildly expensive concert tickets to line their pockets...They are taking the easy way out.

They still have enough credibility to make albums that matter (like Bob Dylan for example) but they prefer to charge fans $500 to hear them sing "It's Only Rock + Roll" AGAIN and not even try to be creative.

You could look at it from a completely different perspective as well, which is to say that 50+ years on, and even with some diminished capacity, they are the biggest and best live act around, maybe ever.

We can quibble about whether they delve deep enough into their catalogue or not, that's fine, but they have one of the finest if not the finest catalogue of music of which to draw from and are able to perform at a high level well into their 70s.`

As far as creativity and 'new music' is concerned, as has been observed they are still individually creative, but perhaps collectively that muse has passed a long time ago for various reasons.

It's not as though McCartney, or any other legendary performer is out there playing 50% new material in their set list, so what is the big deal?

Why continue to lament about things that are not remotely within your control?

Because some Stones are clearly obsessed with Paul McCartney. He seems to be the first thing they think about in the morning and the last thing at night.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
MrThompsonWooft

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
James Kirk
For the record when I started this thread my intention wasn't to discuss the success of Paul McCartney. My intention was simply to contrast McCartney's continuing creativity to the Stones total lack of output + continued repeating off themselves on the road doing nearly the same exact show year after year. You could substitute Bruce Springsteen or any number of other artists and the argument would still be valid.

The Stones are in a unique position to at least attempt to grow this music up with mature rock/blues records, but unlike McCartney they simply don't try. They just use their iconic brand to sell wildly expensive concert tickets to line their pockets...They are taking the easy way out.

They still have enough credibility to make albums that matter (like Bob Dylan for example) but they prefer to charge fans $500 to hear them sing "It's Only Rock + Roll" AGAIN and not even try to be creative.

You could look at it from a completely different perspective as well, which is to say that 50+ years on, and even with some diminished capacity, they are the biggest and best live act around, maybe ever.

We can quibble about whether they delve deep enough into their catalogue or not, that's fine, but they have one of the finest if not the finest catalogue of music of which to draw from and are able to perform at a high level well into their 70s.`

As far as creativity and 'new music' is concerned, as has been observed they are still individually creative, but perhaps collectively that muse has passed a long time ago for various reasons.

It's not as though McCartney, or any other legendary performer is out there playing 50% new material in their set list, so what is the big deal?

Why continue to lament about things that are not remotely within your control?

Because some Stones are clearly obsessed with Paul McCartney. He seems to be the first thing they think about in the morning and the last thing at night.

Love McCartney BTW. I thought him a bit the fool in the 80s and 90s with some of the saccharin material he was putting out, but some of the newer material is great and he's 'fab' in concert, saw him 2 years ago.

His voice doesn't hit all the notes but he's absolutely fearless in belting out the vocals, doesn't hold back.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
dmay
From treaclefingers re my comment on the Dead Kennedys - "Don`t you remember your Dad telling you that when you were listening to Brown Sugar?"

Actually, what dad said, much earlier, was, while watching the Ed SUllivan show here in the U-S-of-A back in the day, one time when the Stones came on: "Look at them. Just look at them. They're disgusting. Why don't you like those nice looking boys, those Beatles." My fate was sealed. A Stones fan forever.

Dad later said, when I played Dylan's "Bringing It All Back Home" album, the album that hooked me on Dylan because of the beauty of "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue", foremost among the songs, along with "She Belongs To Me", "Love Minus Zero", and the still relevant "It's Alright Ma", dad's comment on hearing Dylan's voice was, "He sounds like a chicken with its head cut off". You go figure what that line means. Oddly enough, when as a sullen teen I chafed at doing chores around the house or paying attention to the parents, me dad would sing out to me re my chafing, "I ain't gonna work on daddy's farm no more", making up his own version of Dylan's song. So, apparently, the old fluck had paid attention to Bob.

It was difficult to pick a Stones 'period' to pick a song from, so I kind of went, "late classic".

But yeah, stuff we love kids think is old folks music. And you realize that when your children grow up, stuff like Kanye will be considered 'classic' and their kids will look at it like 'grandpa music'.

You see the classic reactions of parents to what their kids listen to through the ages...it's deja vu all over again!

Quote
James Kirk
A lot of McCartney's new material is excellent and he plays it in concert.

Quote
whitem8
I am a big Macca fan. I like it all. Cheese, grit, melody, sadness, bubble gum. Lots of stuff for different moods. Why not?

Quote
BowieStone

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
BowieStone
Why is it always Jaggers fault? If the stones was the only thing he did, the stones would be more than a nostalgia band. But the man has a lot of interests.

I think Keith is the most happy. He hasn't written a complete song in, what, 20 years?

He has just completed an album with new songs + he wrote OMS in 2012.

He wrote (half of) OMS in 1987 or 1988. Mick wrote the other half in 2012.
The album with new songs: probably his riffs made into songs by Steve Jordan (?).
Keith can't write a song on his own (anymore).

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
James Kirk
A lot of McCartney's new material is excellent and he plays it in concert.

Possibly, but I would never know. I stopped listening to anything new of his since he did awful tracks like My Brave Face and that one w/ M Jackson.

I'll stick to his Wings stuff.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
BowieStone

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
BowieStone
Why is it always Jaggers fault? If the stones was the only thing he did, the stones would be more than a nostalgia band. But the man has a lot of interests.

I think Keith is the most happy. He hasn't written a complete song in, what, 20 years?

He has just completed an album with new songs + he wrote OMS in 2012.

He wrote (half of) OMS in 1987 or 1988. Mick wrote the other half in 2012.
The album with new songs: probably his riffs made into songs by Steve Jordan (?).
Keith can't write a song on his own (anymore).

BowieStone, what planet do you live on? Obviously not the one Jagger lives on, which is the one where the set lists rely on nothing past 1981 even with his outside interests, which are nothing more than a drop of piss. The Stones are Jagger's biggest opportunity yet it's strictly a nostalgia band.

Jagger's quip a decade ago was then. He hasn't said anything like that since. He's fine with it being a Stones jukebox.

Quote
James Kirk

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
BowieStone

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
BowieStone
Why is it always Jaggers fault? If the stones was the only thing he did, the stones would be more than a nostalgia band. But the man has a lot of interests.

I think Keith is the most happy. He hasn't written a complete song in, what, 20 years?

He has just completed an album with new songs + he wrote OMS in 2012.

He wrote (half of) OMS in 1987 or 1988. Mick wrote the other half in 2012.
The album with new songs: probably his riffs made into songs by Steve Jordan (?).
Keith can't write a song on his own (anymore).

BowieStone, what planet do you live on? Obviously not the one Jagger lives on, which is the one where the set lists rely on nothing past 1981 even with his outside interests, which are nothing more than a drop of piss. The Stones are Jagger's biggest opportunity yet it's strictly a nostalgia band.

Jagger's quip a decade ago was then. He hasn't said anything like that since. He's fine with it being a Stones jukebox.

EXACTLY! There is barely anything in the setlist post 1981. That's too bad because they have produced some quality music since then. Perhaps not Sticky Fingers quality, but better than what was on the radio when they released new records.

Quote
stupidguy2
Love Four Five Seconds..my 15 and 24-year old nieces love it, and grew up listening to the Beatles.
The Stones give them little reason to get excited.
I thought about this the other day: Macca is still getting his rocks off as an artist. You can crap on that all you want, but I've seen Macca twice the last decade, and he was fantastic. I love his work with Grohl etc...
The Stones don't seem to give a shit anymore.
Don't knock Macca for giving a shit.

Quote
Naturalust
Because this is a Stones fan site and the moderator obviously thought your title was somewhat disrespectful to the Stones. It's obvious to Stones fans what the band is content with playing these days, they are old men, playing oldies is their thing. It's more about seeing them still rocking out after 50+ years and the excitement they can sill bring to their shows...new music isn't the reason most fans here are fans and expecting them to be like McCartney is a strange and misinformed opinion. etc., etc. peace

Quote
James Kirk

Quote
Naturalust
Because this is a Stones fan site and the moderator obviously thought your title was somewhat disrespectful to the Stones. It's obvious to Stones fans what the band is content with playing these days, they are old men, playing oldies is their thing. It's more about seeing them still rocking out after 50+ years and the excitement they can sill bring to their shows...new music isn't the reason most fans here are fans and expecting them to be like McCartney is a strange and misinformed opinion. etc., etc. peace

Seriously? Are the Stones above criticism in your world?

As I've said more than once this thread is not about McCartney. You could substitute any number of artists and the conversation would be the same. People like Paul Simon, Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen (see no mention of Paul McCartney. I only used him because he has a top five hit at the moment) are still putting out quality music and adding to their legacy.

Forgive me if I'm a little cynical about the Stones (and their $500 concert tickets. Nothing says rock and roll better than $500 tickets) intentions and lack of artistic output.

A 2015 Sticky Fingers tour is a pathetic cash grab. It is totally against what the band once stood for. They are making themselves the Frankie Valli of the stadium touring circuit + that's too bad because there is still some good music in there that we won't hear for the simple reason there isn't enough money in it for them.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
James Kirk

Quote
Naturalust
Because this is a Stones fan site and the moderator obviously thought your title was somewhat disrespectful to the Stones. It's obvious to Stones fans what the band is content with playing these days, they are old men, playing oldies is their thing. It's more about seeing them still rocking out after 50+ years and the excitement they can sill bring to their shows...new music isn't the reason most fans here are fans and expecting them to be like McCartney is a strange and misinformed opinion. etc., etc. peace

Seriously? Are the Stones above criticism in your world?

As I've said more than once this thread is not about McCartney. You could substitute any number of artists and the conversation would be the same. People like Paul Simon, Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen (see no mention of Paul McCartney. I only used him because he has a top five hit at the moment) are still putting out quality music and adding to their legacy.

Forgive me if I'm a little cynical about the Stones (and their $500 concert tickets. Nothing says rock and roll better than $500 tickets) intentions and lack of artistic output.

A 2015 Sticky Fingers tour is a pathetic cash grab. It is totally against what the band once stood for. They are making themselves the Frankie Valli of the stadium touring circuit + that's too bad because there is still some good music in there that we won't hear for the simple reason there isn't enough money in it for them.

Naturalust is not the moderator here. Address your issues with bv.

BTW, it's a little too late for the cash grab-criticism. It started with perfume in 1981

Quote
James Kirk
Why was my original title topic about the Stones being an oldies act deleted?

This was not meant as an OT thread about Paul McCartney. It was meant to show how the Rolling Stones are happy being an oldies act and used McCartney to contrast their lack of activity.

Quote
bv

Quote
James Kirk
Why was my original title topic about the Stones being an oldies act deleted?

This was not meant as an OT thread about Paul McCartney. It was meant to show how the Rolling Stones are happy being an oldies act and used McCartney to contrast their lack of activity.

It was shortened mainly because it was a VERY VERY VERY long title. A title is a headline not an entire story. A long title is messing up the reading of the Tell Me Forum index. Have you ever seen such a long title as the hreadline on the first page of a major newspaper? Probably not.

Also, the title was a negativity campaign against Mick Jagger ("oldie act"). I don't care if people love or hate Macca and/or Jagger, but most of the Macca lovers posts will go into the "Macca stuff" thread, because they are basically mostly interesting for Macca fans, in the genre Beatles vs Stones stuff. No worries. I am sure you will be able to find a Macca site out there when you need a little coke and sympathy...

If this goes on I will of course merge it in where it belongs - into the Macca vs Stones thread. It has been around for years, nothing new.

Quote
James Kirk

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
James Kirk

Quote
Naturalust
Because this is a Stones fan site and the moderator obviously thought your title was somewhat disrespectful to the Stones. It's obvious to Stones fans what the band is content with playing these days, they are old men, playing oldies is their thing. It's more about seeing them still rocking out after 50+ years and the excitement they can sill bring to their shows...new music isn't the reason most fans here are fans and expecting them to be like McCartney is a strange and misinformed opinion. etc., etc. peace

Seriously? Are the Stones above criticism in your world?

As I've said more than once this thread is not about McCartney. You could substitute any number of artists and the conversation would be the same. People like Paul Simon, Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen (see no mention of Paul McCartney. I only used him because he has a top five hit at the moment) are still putting out quality music and adding to their legacy.

Forgive me if I'm a little cynical about the Stones (and their $500 concert tickets. Nothing says rock and roll better than $500 tickets) intentions and lack of artistic output.

A 2015 Sticky Fingers tour is a pathetic cash grab. It is totally against what the band once stood for. They are making themselves the Frankie Valli of the stadium touring circuit + that's too bad because there is still some good music in there that we won't hear for the simple reason there isn't enough money in it for them.

Naturalust is not the moderator here. Address your issues with bv.

BTW, it's a little too late for the cash grab-criticism. It started with perfume in 1981

I'm aware that Naturalust is not a moderator. I was simply responding to his post...I hear what you are saying about the perfume in 1981, but they continued to make new music for decades after that.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
James Kirk

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
James Kirk

Quote
Naturalust
Because this is a Stones fan site and the moderator obviously thought your title was somewhat disrespectful to the Stones. It's obvious to Stones fans what the band is content with playing these days, they are old men, playing oldies is their thing. It's more about seeing them still rocking out after 50+ years and the excitement they can sill bring to their shows...new music isn't the reason most fans here are fans and expecting them to be like McCartney is a strange and misinformed opinion. etc., etc. peace

Seriously? Are the Stones above criticism in your world?

As I've said more than once this thread is not about McCartney. You could substitute any number of artists and the conversation would be the same. People like Paul Simon, Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen (see no mention of Paul McCartney. I only used him because he has a top five hit at the moment) are still putting out quality music and adding to their legacy.

Forgive me if I'm a little cynical about the Stones (and their $500 concert tickets. Nothing says rock and roll better than $500 tickets) intentions and lack of artistic output.

A 2015 Sticky Fingers tour is a pathetic cash grab. It is totally against what the band once stood for. They are making themselves the Frankie Valli of the stadium touring circuit + that's too bad because there is still some good music in there that we won't hear for the simple reason there isn't enough money in it for them.

Naturalust is not the moderator here. Address your issues with bv.

BTW, it's a little too late for the cash grab-criticism. It started with perfume in 1981

I'm aware that Naturalust is not a moderator. I was simply responding to his post...I hear what you are saying about the perfume in 1981, but they continued to make new music for decades after that.

Of course I'm not the moderator but it was pretty obvious why your title was edited. Ok I missed the too long part, I'm not as respectfully subtle as Bjornulf.

I'm not above criticism of the Stones in my world, but this is not my world, it's shared by many folks. I might even agree with you on a lot of them. Most of us have our issues with setlists and lack of new records but I've learned that this forum is better served by less critical commentary and more shared excitement. There is plenty to still talk about and get excited about without comparing Jagger to Macca. There are a few topics which seem off limits and worn out here these days, Taylor vs. Wood, Beatles vs. Stones, and imo the warhorse setlist of the modern Stones. They have established who they are and the direction of their late careers and at this point I'm resigned to accept it for what it is, not what I personally want it to be. peace

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
James Kirk

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
James Kirk

Quote
Naturalust
Because this is a Stones fan site and the moderator obviously thought your title was somewhat disrespectful to the Stones. It's obvious to Stones fans what the band is content with playing these days, they are old men, playing oldies is their thing. It's more about seeing them still rocking out after 50+ years and the excitement they can sill bring to their shows...new music isn't the reason most fans here are fans and expecting them to be like McCartney is a strange and misinformed opinion. etc., etc. peace

Seriously? Are the Stones above criticism in your world?

As I've said more than once this thread is not about McCartney. You could substitute any number of artists and the conversation would be the same. People like Paul Simon, Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen (see no mention of Paul McCartney. I only used him because he has a top five hit at the moment) are still putting out quality music and adding to their legacy.

Forgive me if I'm a little cynical about the Stones (and their $500 concert tickets. Nothing says rock and roll better than $500 tickets) intentions and lack of artistic output.

A 2015 Sticky Fingers tour is a pathetic cash grab. It is totally against what the band once stood for. They are making themselves the Frankie Valli of the stadium touring circuit + that's too bad because there is still some good music in there that we won't hear for the simple reason there isn't enough money in it for them.

Naturalust is not the moderator here. Address your issues with bv.

BTW, it's a little too late for the cash grab-criticism. It started with perfume in 1981

I'm aware that Naturalust is not a moderator. I was simply responding to his post...I hear what you are saying about the perfume in 1981, but they continued to make new music for decades after that.

Of course I'm not the moderator but it was pretty obvious why your title was edited. Ok I missed the too long part, I'm not as respectfully subtle as Bjornulf.

I'm not above criticism of the Stones in my world, but this is not my world, it's shared by many folks. I might even agree with you on a lot of them. Most of us have our issues with setlists and lack of new records but I've learned that this forum is better served by less critical commentary and more shared excitement. There is plenty to still talk about and get excited about without comparing Jagger to Macca. There are a few topics which seem off limits and worn out here these days, Taylor vs. Wood, Beatles vs. Stones, and imo the warhorse setlist of the modern Stones. They have established who they are and the direction of their late careers and at this point I'm resigned to accept it for what it is, not what I personally want it to be. peace

I do not accept that is the case. Some people go overboard in their criticism perhaps, but I think positive and negative criticism are accepted no problem here.

People often take it to far, get personal, get angry etc., but that's a different animal altogether.