Some woman about my age (46) said this to me the other day, referring, of course, to my Stones Tee. Then she starts waxing nostalgic about some '81 dome show. "You know" I said, "It's not over. It's not all in the past. They're touring this year." I got a blank look. She was clueless. This kind of thing drives me nuts. Older "fans" who don't seem to realize that it's still going on; that the Stones are still a living, breathing entity, and that the possiblity for making NEW memories still exists. Anyone else experience this kind of frustration when you encounter these people who seem content with their nostalgia and have absolutely no idea that it is all STILL happening?

tatters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some woman about my age (46) said this to me the
> other day, referring, of course, to my Stones Tee.
> Then she starts waxing nostalgic about some '81
> dome show. "You know" I said, "It's not over. It's
> not all in the past. They're touring this year." I
> got a blank look. She was clueless. This kind of
> thing drives me nuts. Older "fans" who don't seem
> to realize that it's still going on; that the
> Stones are still a living, breathing entity, and
> that the possiblity for making NEW memories still
> exists. Anyone else experience this kind of
> frustration when you encounter these people who
> seem content with their nostalgia and have
> absolutely no idea that it is all STILL happening?


What exactly do you mean by "it is all STILL happening"? The Stones haven't released a new studio album in 7 years. They haven't had any major commercial success since Tattoo You in '81. What do you expect non-Stones freaks to think of them other than an oldies act that regularly trots out their golden oldies on tour, just like the Beach Boys.

Some people are just not into the same things as when they were young. They feel as if its time to grow up or whatever their mind is thinking. I read somewhere that a majority of people who purchase cds are in the ages 15 to 35 and this has been the trend since the late 60's. (I do market research for my job). I know plenty of people who used to go to lots of concerts and by new records as soon as they come out. These same people today have no idea when new albums come out and now have families and other things that keep them busy so they are not out at concerts on weekends.

I hope the statement by stonesfool is a joke or something because I'd hate to see someone judge music on commercial success. If that is the case you must be a big fan of Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake.

And I also assume that you know a new album is being released soon.

Not strictly true. Voodoo & B2B reached # 2 (38 weeks) & # 3 (27 weeks) & were double platinum & platinum, last time I read about them. 40 Licks, # 2 (48 weeks) did really well. Four Flicks was huge. Jump Back, issued in the US last fall, has been on the charts 45 weeks. Every studio album since 12 x 5 has gone top 5 in the US; the live albums, especially NS & Live Licks, have not done so well. Nobody sustains multi-platinum blockbusters a la Hot Rocks, Some Girls, Tattoo over the long haul.

stonesfool Wrote:

---

> What exactly do you mean by "it is all STILL
> happening"? The Stones haven't released a new
> studio album in 7 years. They haven't had any
> major commercial success since Tattoo You in '81.
> What do you expect non-Stones freaks to think of
> them other than an oldies act that regularly trots
> out their golden oldies on tour, just like the
> Beach Boys.

PC-mini concert still is a heavy, fresh & crispy memory for me.

Don't worry about it. I gave up long ago trying to turn people onto the Stones. Who cares if other people don't like them, or don't know that they're still touring? So what? The only thing that matters to me is that I know it.

Besides, maybe she doesn't really give a crap about the Stones and was just hitting on you.



-- Keep on rollin'. Keep on. Keep on. Keep on. --

always disappoints me when I run into someone wearing a Stones tongue or who says they saw the Stones xxx number of years ago - and then I find out that the depth of their fanaticism is minimal compared to my own and most people I know from these boards.

Its usually someone who saw them years ago and didnt appreciate it and still to this day owns about one album and probably still thinks Bill Wyman is in the band (if they even realise the band is still together - "didnt they break up in the 80's?")

Plus they invariably cant even get the year right when they saw the band. Christ that annoys me. "yeah I saw them at Slane Castle - it must have been 1984". The date of my first Stones show is ingrained on my mind forever, its as significant an occasion in my life as my first steps, first day at school, first girlfriend, first orgasm (er..i think that came before the first girlfriend now i think about it), first shag, wedding date and things of similar importance.

Bloody philistines.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-07-19 02:16 by Gazza.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> always disappoints me when I run into someone
> wearing a Stones tongue or who says they saw the
> Stones xxx number of years ago - and then I find
> out that the depth of their fanaticism is minimal
> compared to my own and most people I know from
> these boards.
>
> Its usually someone who saw them years ago and
> didnt appreciate it and still to this day owns
> about one album and probably still thinks Bill
> Wyman is in the band (if they even realise the
> band is still together - "didnt they break up in
> the 80's?")
>
> Plus they invariably cant even get the year right
> when they saw the band. Christ that annoys me.
> "yeah I saw them at Slane Castle - it must have
> been 1984". The date of my first Stones show is
> ingrained on my mind forever, its as significant
> an occasion in my life as my first steps, first
> day at school, first girlfriend, first orgasm
> (er..i think that came before the first girlfriend
> now i think about it), first shag, wedding date
> and things of similar importance.
>
> Bloody philistines.

It happened again today! I saw a guy in his 40s in Ann Arbor (supposedly hip town about 40 miles from Detroit) wearing what appeared to be a NEW Stones hat with the classic logo. I asked him if he was going to the show at Comerica next month. He had no idea what I was talking about and appeared DEEPLY PUZZELED when I told him the Stones would be playing.

Here's a laugh: I once read the following post on paulmccartney.com:

"I'm only in my early 30s so I never got to see the Beatles or the Rolling Stones"

Sheez, how old do ya hafta be to get INTO a Stones concert anyway?

Just read something in a newspaper, that somehow reflects how people forget about the Stones. They asked a young performer how long it is possible to be in the business - she answered with a question "how old are the Stones?" The interview guy responded "Jagger is 61, Ringo Starr just got 65" WTF!!

And hell, this was in the best and most respected Austrian weekly paper!
Respected for their news about politics, though...


Belgrade-Bucharest-Budapest-Brno

hey folks - I got news for you - "they" are all normal - it's "us" that are nuts.

Music - popular music of whatever stripe - provides various kinds of sustenance for kids during adolescence. Once they get married, out of school, etc, then its the serious fans who continue to explore other genres, keep up w/ favorites, buy new & old music, etc into thyeir 30s & beyond.

Word, Gazza!

Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings

"Normal" is nothing more than a cycle on the washing machine.

inopeng Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Normal" is nothing more than a cycle on the
> washing machine.


If you like. But, we're still all nuts.

My point exactly...and I would have it no other way!

Well, all of you, I am 59 years old and the Stones are as "happening" to me as they were when I was 17 and bought my first vinyl, England's Newest Hit Makers THE ROLLING STONES.
Am I nuts? Of course! But I keep a low profile most places. If any one dare enter my "cubicle" at work, they are shocked because along with my medical journals, dictionaries, medical and nursing education programs, nursing memorabilia is STONESLAND! I have collections of pictures of the Stones from the "ages", a big GIMME SHELTER sign, and a quote from "Waiting on a Friend", "A smile relieves the heart that grieves", perfect for those in the medical profession and others as well.
I have a picture of Keith and he is so very handsome (who knows how old he is, who cares?). A youngster came in and saw it and said, "Who is that 'hottie?"
I proudly educated her, "KEITH RICHARD(S)!"
Yes, inopeng, you are correct, " 'Normal' is nothing more than a cycle on the washing machine."
We are all here now in this space at this time
Love y'all (y'uns for you, KSIE)

"What exactly do you mean by "it is all STILL happening"? The Stones haven't released a new studio album in 7 years. They haven't had any major commercial success since Tattoo You in '81."

Stonesfool, don't be fool!


Yes, the Stones haven't released a new studio album in 7 years, but
in the last 8 years they have attracted at their concerts 9.1 million people
in the last 11 years they have attracted at their concerts 17 million people
in the last 16 years they have attracted at their concerts 23 million people

They are by far #1 live act in the world

About the albums:

The Stones NEVER have been top sellers, but they always are very stable sellers. Voodoo Lounge #1 UK and #2 USA
B2B #7 UK and # 3 USA

Voodoo Lounge has sold 8 million copies worldwide, more than every album of Stones during the 70s, except Some Girls (and perhaps except Exile, i'm not sure)

Their older albums are still selling


So, what are you talking about?

im sick and tired of people saying the stones are to old,Im 38 and some people my age say this.

stickydion Wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------
> So, what are you talking about?


While I'm probably not the biggest Stones freak on this board, I'm still a big fan. But I'm not blind to what's happened to the band in the last 20 years or so and the public's perception of them. And it has nothing to do with their age. I put the blame squarely on the band's laziness. I mean, 4 studio albums in 16 years?!! And this is after the Mick/Keith feud of the mid-80s, mind you, so you can't blame that. When I see some of their peers from relatively the same era like Elton John still continuously pumping out fresh material that is well received, I think, why can't Mick and Keith do that? If you're all satisfied with a touring oldies act, then that's great for you, but I have higher expectations for them. Hopefully they'll turn it around with the new album and start getting back into the game.

The worst of it is unfortunately at their age, they will probably have to slow down now whether they want to or not.

Stonesfool, you said something about "commercial success", i mention some clear numbers about it and what are you doing now? Just change the point! OK, never mind...

You say: "4 studio albums in 16 years?!!". I say: So what? New albums and touring are both parts of rock and roll. I remember the opposite boring nagging in the 1986-88. "Oh, what a shame. They make albums continuously, obviously they do it only for the money. That's against the quality of their albums. Where are the tours? No touring, no Stones", blah, blah

And now the nagging is that they tour again and again. I suppose because of their "laziness"...

To me the question about albums is "good or not", not "how many". I' m satisfied because the last 2 studio albums were truly nice. And yes, when i see in the stadiums a lot of young people singing the "Satisfaction" or dancing to the rythm of JJF, i feel great.

PS OK, you are a normal fan but everyone who has a different opinion is a freak. Very democratic conclusion...

"Who cares if other people don't like them, or don't know that they're still touring? So what? The only thing that matters to me is that I know it."

I think you're right, Bluespayer.

Also a lot of people know nothing about the last De Niro's film, the last Eco's book, the last article of R. Frisk. So what?

Last week i saw a s... rapper in a mtv video wearing the tongue cap. I'm sure he didn't know and only found the logo cool.

i can't blame anyone who don't keep up to date in the music world. It's too frustrating, fast and forcefull. You succumb to mainstream backround diddlydoo and are sometimes surprised when your daughter plays a new tune from a new band that reminds you of the old times. Needless to say she don't want to listen to you now about your heydays and look in awe at your dusty vinyl collection.

If you watch the news only you might be lucky to catch a 30 sec. coverage of the new Stones tour. But you're to old, too deep in debts and lazy that you don't get up and check what time they're around your town. And you're scared of the noise, rockers, drunken kids etc. etc.

"Come with me next Saturday to the stadium to see the stones man, it'll be great fun", "No, sorry, have to go and visit my wifes aunt..."

Don't f... whine to me next time after your 5th pint about the 'good old days'.

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>>
> You say: "4 studio albums in 16 years?!!". I say:
> So what? New albums and touring are both parts of
> rock and roll. I remember the opposite boring
> nagging in the 1986-88. "Oh, what a shame. They
> make albums continuously, obviously they do it
> only for the money. That's against the quality of
> their albums. Where are the tours? No touring, no
> Stones", blah, blah


they CAN do both, you know.

Theyd more reason not to tour in the mid 80's because it was quite obvious that some band members hated each others guts and others had drug problems - two issues which made the prospect of spending long periods on the road completely unrealistic. If the Stones had toured at that time, they wouldnt exist today.

they didnt make albums "continuously" in that period - just 1983, 1986 and 1989. They didnt work together at all in the years 1984, 1986, 1987 and 1988.

We all have our own 'standards' that we expect of our favourite band. Some of us (rightly in my view) expect high standards from a band that is rightly called the greatest rock n roll band of all time and which charges its fans a fortune for the privilege of seeing them.

I'm glad theyre still active on some level, but they vowed never to become a nostalgia act and thats something they undeniably have been in the last few years. A great band should be both growing musically and as a performing act too.