Tell Me :
Talk
That writer is oh, so clueless. It ain't all about age. It's about good music!! It's also laughable to recall how some people said the Stones were too old in 1972! I've heard the same moaning about how they can't possibly rock and roll in 1975..78..81..89...94..97..99...2002...05...06...12..13....14......15.....16....
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-05-16 01:29 by HonkeyTonkFlash.
I couldn`t agree more. Today I walked by this years youth celebrating being finished with 12 years of school. It struck me that their music is all about partying, while the music of my generation was about rebellion. In addition, their music is much more ongoing, if not to say annoying. All the bass is enervating. But when did this start, at least in it`s embryo? Well, in fact very early. When The Stones released Exile in 1972, it was all partying from then on.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-05-16 14:56 by noughties.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Vegas era began in....72??
Posted by:
loog droog
()
Date: May 16, 2016 00:37
This letter was in the LA Times Calendar section today. I've left out the writer's name...and while I envy him seeing The Stones in the years when he did I find his perspective on when the Stones went "showbiz" fascinating and worth bringing up here
Should there be a mandatory retirement age of 35 for rock frontmen? Probably — particularly for those who cannot act their age. I first saw the Stones in 1969, but by 1972 at the Palladium and 1973 at the Forum they had gone showbiz and were en route to irrelevancy. A quarter-century later the Stones are absurd.
There is nothing authentic about aging rock stars trying to relive their 20s.
Should there be a mandatory retirement age of 35 for rock frontmen? Probably — particularly for those who cannot act their age. I first saw the Stones in 1969, but by 1972 at the Palladium and 1973 at the Forum they had gone showbiz and were en route to irrelevancy. A quarter-century later the Stones are absurd.
There is nothing authentic about aging rock stars trying to relive their 20s.
Re: Vegas era began in....72??
Posted by:
HonkeyTonkFlash
()
Date: May 16, 2016 00:54
Quote
loog droog
This letter was in the LA Times Calendar section today. I've left out the writer's name...and while I envy him seeing The Stones in the years when he did I find his perspective on when the Stones went "showbiz" fascinating and worth bringing up here
Should there be a mandatory retirement age of 35 for rock frontmen? Probably — particularly for those who cannot act their age. I first saw the Stones in 1969, but by 1972 at the Palladium and 1973 at the Forum they had gone showbiz and were en route to irrelevancy. A quarter-century later the Stones are absurd.
There is nothing authentic about aging rock stars trying to relive their 20s.
That writer is oh, so clueless. It ain't all about age. It's about good music!! It's also laughable to recall how some people said the Stones were too old in 1972! I've heard the same moaning about how they can't possibly rock and roll in 1975..78..81..89...94..97..99...2002...05...06...12..13....14......15.....16....
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-05-16 01:29 by HonkeyTonkFlash.
Re: Vegas era began in....72??
Posted by:
noughties
()
Date: May 16, 2016 01:19
Quote
loog droog
This letter was in the LA Times Calendar section today. I've left out the writer's name...and while I envy him seeing The Stones in the years when he did I find his perspective on when the Stones went "showbiz" fascinating and worth bringing up here
Should there be a mandatory retirement age of 35 for rock frontmen? Probably — particularly for those who cannot act their age. I first saw the Stones in 1969, but by 1972 at the Palladium and 1973 at the Forum they had gone showbiz and were en route to irrelevancy. A quarter-century later the Stones are absurd.
There is nothing authentic about aging rock stars trying to relive their 20s.
I couldn`t agree more. Today I walked by this years youth celebrating being finished with 12 years of school. It struck me that their music is all about partying, while the music of my generation was about rebellion. In addition, their music is much more ongoing, if not to say annoying. All the bass is enervating. But when did this start, at least in it`s embryo? Well, in fact very early. When The Stones released Exile in 1972, it was all partying from then on.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-05-16 14:56 by noughties.
Re: Vegas era began in....72??
Posted by:
HonkeyTonkFlash
()
Date: May 16, 2016 01:35
Furthermore...if that writer thinks Mick was washed up in 1972, did he ever see Ladies and Gentlemen? Mick was an unbridled wild man on that tour!
Re: Vegas era began in....72??
Posted by:
RipThisBone
()
Date: May 16, 2016 01:58
Vegas era began in 72...
No. It began at least in 1963.
No. It began at least in 1963.
Re: Vegas era began in....72??
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: May 16, 2016 02:42
I think the first hints of Vegasism came with Ronnie's addition. Anyone who listens to Brussels '73 can hear their peak as a live unit. They NEVER again reached that level. I first noted the Vegas touch the first time I put on Love You Live (except for the Mocambo side).
When Keith backed off the junk they had a bit of a resurgence in the late 70s. It really became just summer time rock and roll, have a couple beers, smoke a few joints in 1981. The danger is gone for good. They are a much more competent band, compared to the mid-70s, and that's good from the consumer's standpoint. Steel Wheels should have been the capper, Bill got smart, but they decided to continue. There was about an EP worth of studio cuts afterward, and a surprisingly good tour in '99.
But yeah, the rebellion, the danger, the excitement, that's gone, but it took a long time to get there.
When Keith backed off the junk they had a bit of a resurgence in the late 70s. It really became just summer time rock and roll, have a couple beers, smoke a few joints in 1981. The danger is gone for good. They are a much more competent band, compared to the mid-70s, and that's good from the consumer's standpoint. Steel Wheels should have been the capper, Bill got smart, but they decided to continue. There was about an EP worth of studio cuts afterward, and a surprisingly good tour in '99.
But yeah, the rebellion, the danger, the excitement, that's gone, but it took a long time to get there.
Re: Vegas era began in....72??
Posted by:
stewedandkeefed
()
Date: May 16, 2016 03:15
The writer knows not of what he speaks. The Rolling Stones were named after a Muddy Waters song who was in his fifties when they took the name. They sat at Howlin Wolf's feet at their own request. They played with Muddy in his eighties. Mick Jagger has redefined what it can mean to be a seventy year old. When I saw his dancing during the instrumental section of Midnight Rambler at the first London show in 2012 on iorr, it blew my mind. Some may see it as pathetic but they minimize the professional achievement of such performances. Mick's voice sounds great. i don't always like the way he sings but his is probably the most in tact voice of the sixties iconic rock stars.
Re: Vegas era began in....72??
Posted by:
emotionalbarbecue
()
Date: May 16, 2016 11:36
Hey look....someone thinks vegas era began in 1972...
Re: Vegas era began in....72??
Posted by:
pepganzo
()
Date: May 16, 2016 14:47
Quote
24FPS
I think the first hints of Vegasism came with Ronnie's addition. Anyone who listens to Brussels '73 can hear their peak as a live unit. They NEVER again reached that level. I first noted the Vegas touch the first time I put on Love You Live (except for the Mocambo side).
When Keith backed off the junk they had a bit of a resurgence in the late 70s. It really became just summer time rock and roll, have a couple beers, smoke a few joints in 1981. The danger is gone for good. They are a much more competent band, compared to the mid-70s, and that's good from the consumer's standpoint. Steel Wheels should have been the capper, Bill got smart, but they decided to continue. There was about an EP worth of studio cuts afterward, and a surprisingly good tour in '99.
But yeah, the rebellion, the danger, the excitement, that's gone, but it took a long time to get there.
Re: Vegas era began in....72??
Posted by:
RoughJusticeOnYa
()
Date: May 16, 2016 17:07
I think it was Lester Bangs who wrote something along those lines in Rolling Stone magazine while covering the '72 STP Tour...
So yes, you might be on to something here.
So yes, you might be on to something here.
Re: Vegas era began in....72??
Posted by:
1cdog
()
Date: May 16, 2016 19:06
I thought it was shortly after "Love Train" entered the set list.
Re: Vegas era began in....72??
Posted by:
HonkeyTonkFlash
()
Date: May 16, 2016 19:16
While we're at it, god - I hate the term Vegas Era. How about Professional Era? Vegas makes me think of people like Liberace! Barf!
Re: Vegas era began in....72??
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: May 16, 2016 19:56
Steel Wheels 1989 was sterilized - the Stones became a machine.
I was happy to see them again, but just like the album it was lacking heart and soul.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
I was happy to see them again, but just like the album it was lacking heart and soul.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Vegas era began in....72??
Posted by:
Title5Take1
()
Date: May 16, 2016 22:55
He's just plagiarizing Nick Cohn who wrote in 1969: "If they have any sense of neatness they’ll get themselves killed in an air crash, three days before their thirtieth birthdays.”
More here >>> [www.irishtimes.com]
(I think he's full of garbage.)
More here >>> [www.irishtimes.com]
(I think he's full of garbage.)
Re: Vegas era began in....72??
Posted by:
jambay
()
Date: May 16, 2016 23:08
Another example of some who-ever-the-fk? using The Stones trying to attention by bashing on them.
It seems there are basically 2 types of press my band gets...
1) Either the media is raving about how much money they made (usually right after a tour) how great the show was (usually right after they played)
2) Or when things go quiet again (like right now) the dumbasses come out in force to bash on them saying dumb shit like they are too old and should have quit a long time ago.
Been like that for 35 years...
Basically a bunch of hens in the hen house clucking away in between bites.
buc buc BWAAAK!!! buc buc buc
It seems there are basically 2 types of press my band gets...
1) Either the media is raving about how much money they made (usually right after a tour) how great the show was (usually right after they played)
2) Or when things go quiet again (like right now) the dumbasses come out in force to bash on them saying dumb shit like they are too old and should have quit a long time ago.
Been like that for 35 years...
Basically a bunch of hens in the hen house clucking away in between bites.
buc buc BWAAAK!!! buc buc buc
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
2232
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10