Right on Rockeee!!
I have faith in my band!! They have earned that.
They have proven themselves over and over and over.
They have never let me down. They have done so much for so long, it is all gravy at this point.

I can be as grumpy about crap as anyone and complain when needed...
but The Stones are (always have been) a shining glimmering positive bright light in this world.
I am happy to have them... I am happy to have anyone.


STONES!!!

Lol

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

I doubt it will happen but...
it would crazy awesome if on this tour, out of the blue, Mick decided one night to say "We have new album coming out soon and we are going to pay a cut off of it. You are the first crowd to ever it hear live. I hope you enjoy it and that you show some enthusiasm for it (because if you don't this will not happen again)

Be hilarious if they went into a filthy funked out Gotta Get A Grip ....



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
Be hilarious if they went into a filthy funked out Gotta Get A Grip ....

THUMP IT DARRYL!!! Get da funk out!!

Quote
Rocky Dijon

As for remarks like "it's unlikely there'll be a new album, let alone a good one," what can you say if someone hasn't liked an artist's work in decades? Chances are good they won't think any future releases are "good" either. Fans who liked their work in the last 30 years or so will probably enjoy it. If you haven't liked them since TATTOO YOU, why even think about a new album? You stopped liking them over 35 years ago.

Yeah, I wish it were that easy. I wish I could dismiss the Stones like I’ve dismissed Steven Seagal. I enjoyed a few of his movies in the late eighties but you won’t find me on Steven Seagal message boards harping on about his bloated waistline or his cheap shake-on wig or the neverending straight-to-video slapping contests which the Great Pissed Off One invariably wins. You won’t find me there cuz Seagal never meant fahk-all to me.

The Stones, on the other hand, are in my blood and bones as surely as they were in my 78 Gremlin. I got rear-ended by a streetcar while delivering pizza in 1984 – I survived but the car didn’t. All that’s left of that 78 Gremlin is me and the Stones and I thank God that my car never had to endure third-rate crap like Voodoo Lounge and etc. blasting out of its speakers. That tinbox of memories contains only the very best of the Stones. It wasn’t a jalopy with Mick in the passenger seat and Keith singing harmony in the back.

But yeah I can’t find much to like in their music for the last 35 years. I am tormented by songs like Blinded By Rainbows. Wtf? Jagger used to be deep but now it’s all fluff, no depth. ‘Rainbows?!’ Dylan would at least write about rainbow trout..I feel betrayed, I have been bleeding all this time but I can’t let them go. I envy those of you who enjoy their post 90s output even while admitting it’s inferior to the golden period – to me it’s like comparing rock gods with a competent cover band. No I absolutely won’t like the new record but I won’t be able to stop myself from listening to it and bleeding some more either.

Instead of berating people like me you should show us a little sympathy.

Quote
Swayed1967

Quote
Rocky Dijon

As for remarks like "it's unlikely there'll be a new album, let alone a good one," what can you say if someone hasn't liked an artist's work in decades? Chances are good they won't think any future releases are "good" either. Fans who liked their work in the last 30 years or so will probably enjoy it. If you haven't liked them since TATTOO YOU, why even think about a new album? You stopped liking them over 35 years ago.

Yeah, I wish it were that easy. I wish I could dismiss the Stones like I’ve dismissed Steven Seagal. I enjoyed a few of his movies in the late eighties but you won’t find me on Steven Seagal message boards harping on about his bloated waistline or his cheap shake-on wig or the neverending straight-to-video slapping contests which the Great Pissed Off One invariably wins. You won’t find me there cuz Seagal never meant fahk-all to me.

The Stones, on the other hand, are in my blood and bones as surely as they were in my 78 Gremlin. I got rear-ended by a streetcar while delivering pizza in 1984 – I survived but the car didn’t. All that’s left of that 78 Gremlin is me and the Stones and I thank God that my car never had to endure third-rate crap like Voodoo Lounge and etc. blasting out of its speakers. That tinbox of memories contains only the very best of the Stones. It wasn’t a jalopy with Mick in the passenger seat and Keith singing harmony in the back.

But yeah I can’t find much to like in their music for the last 35 years. I am tormented by songs like Blinded By Rainbows. Wtf? Jagger used to be deep but now it’s all fluff, no depth. ‘Rainbows?!’ Dylan would at least write about rainbow trout..I feel betrayed, I have been bleeding all this time but I can’t let them go. I envy those of you who enjoy their post 90s output even while admitting it’s inferior to the golden period – to me it’s like comparing rock gods with a competent cover band. No I absolutely won’t like the new record but I won’t be able to stop myself from listening to it and bleeding some more either.

Instead of berating people like me you should show us a little sympathy.

I have no problem with any new album, although everybody knows they won't release another Exile. I just doubt they will come to an end.

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
Swayed1967

Quote
Rocky Dijon

As for remarks like "it's unlikely there'll be a new album, let alone a good one," what can you say if someone hasn't liked an artist's work in decades? Chances are good they won't think any future releases are "good" either. Fans who liked their work in the last 30 years or so will probably enjoy it. If you haven't liked them since TATTOO YOU, why even think about a new album? You stopped liking them over 35 years ago.

Yeah, I wish it were that easy. I wish I could dismiss the Stones like I’ve dismissed Steven Seagal. I enjoyed a few of his movies in the late eighties but you won’t find me on Steven Seagal message boards harping on about his bloated waistline or his cheap shake-on wig or the neverending straight-to-video slapping contests which the Great Pissed Off One invariably wins. You won’t find me there cuz Seagal never meant fahk-all to me.

The Stones, on the other hand, are in my blood and bones as surely as they were in my 78 Gremlin. I got rear-ended by a streetcar while delivering pizza in 1984 – I survived but the car didn’t. All that’s left of that 78 Gremlin is me and the Stones and I thank God that my car never had to endure third-rate crap like Voodoo Lounge and etc. blasting out of its speakers. That tinbox of memories contains only the very best of the Stones. It wasn’t a jalopy with Mick in the passenger seat and Keith singing harmony in the back.

But yeah I can’t find much to like in their music for the last 35 years. I am tormented by songs like Blinded By Rainbows. Wtf? Jagger used to be deep but now it’s all fluff, no depth. ‘Rainbows?!’ Dylan would at least write about rainbow trout..I feel betrayed, I have been bleeding all this time but I can’t let them go. I envy those of you who enjoy their post 90s output even while admitting it’s inferior to the golden period – to me it’s like comparing rock gods with a competent cover band. No I absolutely won’t like the new record but I won’t be able to stop myself from listening to it and bleeding some more either.

Instead of berating people like me you should show us a little sympathy.

I have no problem with any new album, although everybody knows they won't release another Exile. I just doubt they will come to an end.

Do you care to tell us why you think so?

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
24FPS
Maybe their ears haven't failed them yet. Maybe every new track they cut is just a weak echo of something they've already done. Maybe it's impossible for the Stones to be 'new' in this day and age, and ridiculous to sound like a slowed down version of what they already were.

Even if that's the case, new albums of previously unreleased and "only recently rediscovered, thought to have been lost" masterial will arrive in the years to come...

I would prefer that. I wish they had a separate wing concentrating on just that. Anything from 1963-1990. The bonus songs from Exile/Some Girls/Sticky Fingers are the best things they've released in the past 28 years. (Okay, Love Is Strong, You Got Me Rocking & Rough Justice aren't bad)Anything 'undiscovered' since 1990 is unnecessary.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Saying the album will "never be made" is foolish considering they were specifically given a contract extension by their label for a new studio album after listening to the work-in-progress tracks. Fans being impatient that's it's been nearly nine months since the last album was released ignores the fact that the band made it clear earlier this year that the album schedule had moved out to 2018. Holding your breath won't make it happen any more than daring them by saying it will never happen.

Even if something happened to one of them, that would just mean the end of concerts as we knew them. The album releases would keep coming. Universal has already heard rough mixes of material Don Was has identified as worthy of release. No matter what, the sessions that started in December 2015 will see fruition as will other unreleased material from the band from the Virgin Records era. There will be more Jagger solo music as well. Either something Mick finishes himself after next year or something that is put together for him. The legacy goes on. More albums. More songs you've never heard.

As for remarks like "it's unlikely there'll be a new album, let alone a good one," what can you say if someone hasn't liked an artist's work in decades? Chances are good they won't think any future releases are "good" either. Fans who liked their work in the last 30 years or so will probably enjoy it. If you haven't liked them since TATTOO YOU, why even think about a new album? You stopped liking them over 35 years ago.

________________________________________________


You seem / sound as if you know the full score ..or a bit of the inside info on things. I'll ask .. did you hear anything about the quality of what they heard and / or its sound?

As well .. Is what the execs heard more just a 'trial thing' .. or was it the probable final track listing?

If Don Was (whose been at the helm for some of the worst material in their entire history) has "identified some of the material as worthy of release", then it must be really great!

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Hairball
If Don Was (whose been at the helm for some of the worst material in their entire history) has "identified some of the material as worthy of release", then it must be really great!

_________________________________


So you are a Stones purist more over? I personally found Don Was doing a fine job with them .. I don't think anyone else could do better at these stages. Just my opinion Mr. Hairball

Quote
IanBillen

Quote
Hairball
If Don Was (whose been at the helm for some of the worst material in their entire history) has "identified some of the material as worthy of release", then it must be really great!

_________________________________


So you are a Stones purist more over? I personally found Don Was doing a fine job with them .. I don't think anyone else could do better at these stages. Just my opinion Mr. Hairball

Stones purist?

Not sure what you mean...diehard maybe, but I know what I like (and what I don't like).
For the most part Don Was has not been very helpful to the Stones imo - give or take some tunes here and there.
Blue and Lonesome as a whole may be an exception if you can get past it being a covers album.
Would have been nice to see the Stones try something different.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Rocky Dijon

As for remarks like "it's unlikely there'll be a new album, let alone a good one," what can you say if someone hasn't liked an artist's work in decades? Chances are good they won't think any future releases are "good" either. Fans who liked their work in the last 30 years or so will probably enjoy it. If you haven't liked them since TATTOO YOU, why even think about a new album? You stopped liking them over 35 years ago.

I don't think about a new album at all. I am occasionally reading this thread and slightly amused. As far as I am concerned, I wish Mick Jagger would concentrate on his solo Get A Grip stuff, and Keith would make another 5 or 6 solo albums.
I have enjoyed their live shows over the past 30 years (because I was too little to see them when their live shows were really special), but I haven't the faintest clue what they'd be trying to prove by bringing out another album.
Some of the songs of the last 35 years were ok, but while "ok" is good enough for other bands, it's not for the Stones.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
IanBillen

Quote
Hairball
If Don Was (whose been at the helm for some of the worst material in their entire history) has "identified some of the material as worthy of release", then it must be really great!

_________________________________


So you are a Stones purist more over? I personally found Don Was doing a fine job with them .. I don't think anyone else could do better at these stages. Just my opinion Mr. Hairball

Stones purist?

Not sure what you mean...diehard maybe, but I know what I like (and what I don't like).
For the most part Don Was has not been very helpful to the Stones imo - give or take some tunes here and there.
Blue and Lonesome as a whole may be an exception if you can get past it being a covers album.
Would have been nice to see the Stones try something different.

_______________________________


Stones 'purist' as in preferring only thinking their work TY (81) and before was really good or strong. Or even a lighter version of a Stones purist as someone who enjoyed stuff from the eighties and before but nothing after Undercover or Steel Wheels or something like that.


A 'Stones purist' in listening to their golden era (or at least their classic stuff) 10 times as much as you would ever think to spin Voodoo Lounge or say A Bigger Bang etc. etc....


That is a 'Stones purist'. Not an <extreme Stones purist> .. An 'extreme Stones purist' would be someone who only liked / enjoyed of gave credit to their stuff say up to 72 or perhaps 75.

I am a Rolling Stones fan ... a very big one .. (have been for 35 years or so) but I am not a Stones 'purist'. I find some of their later albums strong and I spin them as much ...or even more than their others. I grew up listening to their classic stuff...I heard those albums 10,000 times .. I also often enjoy their fresh stuff (8 times out of ten).

However I dont enjoy 'everything' they do. For example ...Not a huge Steel Wheels fan .. Not a big Forty Licks singles fan minus two tracks. Not a big 'One More Shot' fan (it's 'ok') So I dont like everything they do new ..but I do really enjoy some of it - Voodoo Lounge... A Bigger Bang ... B&L (simply wonderful albums IMO...great releases). BridgesTB was strong too .. but not in my top 'personal favs'.

You don't feel anything they have done ...in 25 - 30 years is really note worthy or strong .. You are a Stones 'purist', my friend..



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2017-09-02 02:02 by IanBillen.

I am really looking forward to new Stones music, it is like like looking forward to getting and opening a present.

And like all presents only bratty children whine and cry about these things- "THIS PRESENT BETTER BE AS GOOD AS THAT LAST PRESENT OR I AM GOING WHINE, CRY AND POUT"... as the gift giver/parents of that whiny brat reply "All you ever do is whine and cry, it is why you do not get as many presents as you used to, you ungrateful brat" and/or "Hell these days you start whining and crying even before the present gets here you pathetic child".... as the ungrateful brats siblings look on and just shake their heads, knowing the ungrateful brat makes for less presents for everyone.


I remember opening so many cool presents from the Stones.. IT IS AWESOME!!!
Presents for my ears!!! Not knowing what is coming up next but knowing it will be Keef and Ronnie riffing... and Charlies cool drumming style... and Mick's unique singing... It is great.

And it is the best kind of present, because they didn't just go out and buy it, they made it themselves.

Quote
HankM
I am really looking forward to new Stones music, it is like like looking forward to getting and opening a present.

And like all presents only bratty children whine and cry about these things- "THIS PRESENT BETTER BE AS GOOD AS THAT LAST PRESENT OR I AM GOING WHINE, CRY AND POUT"... as the gift giver/parents of that whiny brat reply "All you ever do is whine and cry, it is why you do not get as many presents as you used to, you ungrateful brat" and/or "Hell these days you start whining and crying even before the present gets here you pathetic child".... as the ungrateful brats siblings look on and just shake their heads, knowing the ungrateful brat makes for less presents for everyone.


I remember opening so many cool presents from the Stones.. IT IS AWESOME!!!
Presents for my ears!!! Not knowing what is coming up next but knowing it will be Keef and Ronnie riffing... and Charlies cool drumming style... and Mick's unique singing... It is great.

And it is the best kind of present, because they didn't just go out and buy it, they made it themselves.

YES YES YES

Quote
IanBillen

Quote
Hairball

Quote
IanBillen

Quote
Hairball
If Don Was (whose been at the helm for some of the worst material in their entire history) has "identified some of the material as worthy of release", then it must be really great!

_________________________________


So you are a Stones purist more over? I personally found Don Was doing a fine job with them .. I don't think anyone else could do better at these stages. Just my opinion Mr. Hairball

Stones purist?

Not sure what you mean...diehard maybe, but I know what I like (and what I don't like).
For the most part Don Was has not been very helpful to the Stones imo - give or take some tunes here and there.
Blue and Lonesome as a whole may be an exception if you can get past it being a covers album.
Would have been nice to see the Stones try something different.

_______________________________


Stones 'purist' as in preferring only thinking their work TY (81) and before was really good or strong. Or even a lighter version of a Stones purist as someone who enjoyed stuff from the eighties and before but nothing after Undercover or Steel Wheels or something like that.


A 'Stones purist' in listening to their golden era (or at least their classic stuff) 10 times as much as you would ever think to spin Voodoo Lounge or say A Bigger Bang etc. etc....


That is a 'Stones purist'. Not an .. An 'extreme Stones purist' would be someone who only liked / enjoyed of gave credit to their stuff say up to 72 or perhaps 75.

I am a Rolling Stones fan ... a very big one .. (have been for 35 years or so) but I am not a Stones 'purist'. I find some of their later albums strong and I spin them as much ...or even more than their others. I grew up listening to their classic stuff...I heard those albums 10,000 times .. I also often enjoy their fresh stuff (8 times out of ten).

However I dont enjoy 'everything' they do. For example ...Not a huge Steel Wheels fan .. Not a big Forty Licks singles fan minus two tracks. Not a big 'One More Shot' fan (it's 'ok') So I dont like everything they do new ..but I do really enjoy some of it - Voodoo Lounge... A Bigger Bang ... B&L (simply wonderful albums IMO...great releases). BridgesTB was strong too .. but not in my top 'personal favs'.

You don't feel anything they have done ...in 25 - 30 years is really note worthy or strong .. You are a Stones 'purist', my friend..

I am a Rolling Stones fan, simple as that.
Attempting to define sub-categories of fans and label people as such seems silly.
I've seen them live many times since 1981, and have enjoyed most of them - including the most recent ones I saw at Desert Trip.
Having favorite era's of their studio output, or enjoying something old vs. something new, does not mean one is more or less of a Stones fan imo.
Same with the Beatles music, some people prefer certain albums over others, but the bottom line is they are Beatles fans - simple as that.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Maindefender
YES YES YES

YES!!! and on that note TIME TO GET THIS ROCK AND ROLL WEEKEND STARTED!!! YES!!!!!


STONES!!!

Quote
HankM

Quote
Maindefender
YES YES YES

YES!!! and on that note TIME TO GET THIS ROCK AND ROLL WEEKEND STARTED!!! YES!!!!!


STONES!!!

I have multiple Stones albums lined up to revisit and crank loud this weekend - albums from '63 up to '83!



_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Sparks will fly!!
Saint of Me!!!
UNDERCOVEROFTHEFKGNIGHT!!!
Hold on to your hat!!!
Wining Ugly!!!
Out of Control!!!
Flip the switch!!!
Where the boys all go!!!!
Rough Justice!!!
Rock and roll in a hard place!!!
Love is Stong!!!
She saw me coming!!!
She was HOT!!!
then... she was so cold
Back of my hand.... cuz there is a preacher... on the corner....

JUST TO GET STARTED!!!

Oh...and I forgot to mention Keith's Talk is Cheap, Main Offender, and Crosseyed Heart...(not to mention Live at the Hollywood Palladium)...maybe even some Wingless Angels...irie mon!

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Hairball

Quote
IanBillen

Quote
Hairball

Quote
IanBillen

Quote
Hairball
If Don Was (whose been at the helm for some of the worst material in their entire history) has "identified some of the material as worthy of release", then it must be really great!

_________________________________


So you are a Stones purist more over? I personally found Don Was doing a fine job with them .. I don't think anyone else could do better at these stages. Just my opinion Mr. Hairball

Stones purist?

Not sure what you mean...diehard maybe, but I know what I like (and what I don't like).
For the most part Don Was has not been very helpful to the Stones imo - give or take some tunes here and there.
Blue and Lonesome as a whole may be an exception if you can get past it being a covers album.
Would have been nice to see the Stones try something different.

_______________________________


Stones 'purist' as in preferring only thinking their work TY (81) and before was really good or strong. Or even a lighter version of a Stones purist as someone who enjoyed stuff from the eighties and before but nothing after Undercover or Steel Wheels or something like that.


A 'Stones purist' in listening to their golden era (or at least their classic stuff) 10 times as much as you would ever think to spin Voodoo Lounge or say A Bigger Bang etc. etc....


That is a 'Stones purist'. Not an .. An 'extreme Stones purist' would be someone who only liked / enjoyed of gave credit to their stuff say up to 72 or perhaps 75.

I am a Rolling Stones fan ... a very big one .. (have been for 35 years or so) but I am not a Stones 'purist'. I find some of their later albums strong and I spin them as much ...or even more than their others. I grew up listening to their classic stuff...I heard those albums 10,000 times .. I also often enjoy their fresh stuff (8 times out of ten).

However I dont enjoy 'everything' they do. For example ...Not a huge Steel Wheels fan .. Not a big Forty Licks singles fan minus two tracks. Not a big 'One More Shot' fan (it's 'ok') So I dont like everything they do new ..but I do really enjoy some of it - Voodoo Lounge... A Bigger Bang ... B&L (simply wonderful albums IMO...great releases). BridgesTB was strong too .. but not in my top 'personal favs'.

You don't feel anything they have done ...in 25 - 30 years is really note worthy or strong .. You are a Stones 'purist', my friend..

I am a Rolling Stones fan, simple as that.
Attempting to define sub-categories of fans and label people as such seems silly.
I've seen them live many times since 1981, and have enjoyed most of them - including the most recent ones I saw at Desert Trip.
Having favorite era's of their studio output, or enjoying something old vs. something new, does not mean one is more or less of a Stones fan imo.
Same with the Beatles music, some people prefer certain albums over others, but the bottom line is they are Beatles fans - simple as that.

_____________________________________


I didn't say you were more or less of a 'fan' .. or not a fan at all .. I simply said you are a Stones 'purist'. You enjoy their classic work and you are not very impressed with their second half of output. I record with an Engineer who's favorite act is The Stones.. has been for almost 40 years.. and he is also a purist. He doesn't enjoy anything past Some Girls .. only enjoys the odd song every here and again.

A (Stones) purist means someone who likes The Stones at their most rootsy, and their best work ... why they made history ... their golden era they regard.. where as without being very impressed at all with their latter second half. That definition fits you perfectly. It is not a bash .. it doesn't mean you love them any less.. but you are not impressed by anything they have done in like what... 25-35 years?

You're clearly the Stones purist who is not any sort of fan of or who doesn't really regard their stuff after their strong half (as you noted). I simply happen to think they still put out really good (at times 'great') releases. My guess is you think A bigger Bang is sub-par.. almost crap. I think it is a solid, strong... great release. I loved it's sound and the songs were all good. I think Voodoo Lounge is of their very best albums .. I'm sure you would never dream of ranking it as such and would rate it as lower end product by them.

There different types of fans who dis and or prefer or at least take regard for certain eras of The Stones .. unlike most other acts.. simply because they have had like three or four separate careers at this point ..thats all I mean by classifying you as a (Stones) purist.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2017-09-02 05:17 by IanBillen.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
IanBillen

Quote
Hairball

Quote
IanBillen

Quote
Hairball
If Don Was (whose been at the helm for some of the worst material in their entire history) has "identified some of the material as worthy of release", then it must be really great!

_________________________________


So you are a Stones purist more over? I personally found Don Was doing a fine job with them .. I don't think anyone else could do better at these stages. Just my opinion Mr. Hairball

Stones purist?

Not sure what you mean...diehard maybe, but I know what I like (and what I don't like).
For the most part Don Was has not been very helpful to the Stones imo - give or take some tunes here and there.
Blue and Lonesome as a whole may be an exception if you can get past it being a covers album.
Would have been nice to see the Stones try something different.

_______________________________


Stones 'purist' as in preferring only thinking their work TY (81) and before was really good or strong. Or even a lighter version of a Stones purist as someone who enjoyed stuff from the eighties and before but nothing after Undercover or Steel Wheels or something like that.


A 'Stones purist' in listening to their golden era (or at least their classic stuff) 10 times as much as you would ever think to spin Voodoo Lounge or say A Bigger Bang etc. etc....


That is a 'Stones purist'. Not an .. An 'extreme Stones purist' would be someone who only liked / enjoyed of gave credit to their stuff say up to 72 or perhaps 75.

I am a Rolling Stones fan ... a very big one .. (have been for 35 years or so) but I am not a Stones 'purist'. I find some of their later albums strong and I spin them as much ...or even more than their others. I grew up listening to their classic stuff...I heard those albums 10,000 times .. I also often enjoy their fresh stuff (8 times out of ten).

However I dont enjoy 'everything' they do. For example ...Not a huge Steel Wheels fan .. Not a big Forty Licks singles fan minus two tracks. Not a big 'One More Shot' fan (it's 'ok') So I dont like everything they do new ..but I do really enjoy some of it - Voodoo Lounge... A Bigger Bang ... B&L (simply wonderful albums IMO...great releases). BridgesTB was strong too .. but not in my top 'personal favs'.

You don't feel anything they have done ...in 25 - 30 years is really note worthy or strong .. You are a Stones 'purist', my friend..

I am a Rolling Stones fan, simple as that.
Attempting to define sub-categories of fans and label people as such seems silly.
I've seen them live many times since 1981, and have enjoyed most of them - including the most recent ones I saw at Desert Trip.
Having favorite era's of their studio output, or enjoying something old vs. something new, does not mean one is more or less of a Stones fan imo.
Same with the Beatles music, some people prefer certain albums over others, but the bottom line is they are Beatles fans - simple as that.

___________________________________


As well I def meant no disrespect or slighting .. or that you are any less of a fan. There are several purists on this message board.


Like I say .. an Engineer I work with is an enormous Stones fan .. It's 'part' of the very reason he ever got into music in the first place and he knows the band inside out.. from reading books about them .. to seeing them live.. to playing their songs in his own band ... they are his favorite band and have been for 40 years.


He (as you are) is a Stones fan who is a 'purist'.. that's all I was saying.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-09-02 08:33 by IanBillen.

No disrespect taken Ian, but this isn't science or psychology...it's only rock and roll.
Categorizing, classifying, defining, and labeling fans seems silly to me as I said before, but if it means something to you don't let me stop you.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who has taken the time to register an account on this website is a Stones fan...period - simple as that.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
HankM
[...] whine [...]

I thought that was what this forum was all about? 79 pages about an album that's not even there must be for something, no?

Quote
IanBillen
[...] Stones purist [...]

In general, not just for the Stones, I like my bands to go out of their way to make things special. If not, I don't see the point. There were a few highlights post-Undercover, like "One Hit" or "Thief In The Night", and if they want to make a new album, I have no objection (I'm sure that must be a big relief for them), but I wonder why they'd want to do that. There's nothing worse than playing music with people when you don't agree about the music, in my experience. Maybe they just want to give us something more to whine about.

...After almost 13 years I'll wait the "Divine comedy"!

How much philosophy for a Rock'n roll album...Is it really so difficult make 10/12 simply rock'n roll tunes for "The Rolling Stones"?!?

Quote
mailexile67
How much philosophy for a Rock'n roll album...Is it really so difficult make 10/12 simply rock'n roll tunes for "The Rolling Stones"?!?

...if possible something better than the horrible Gotta Get a Grip/England Lost.

Quote
matxil
[...] what [...]

wut?