...that Eddie Vedder is one year older (52) than Mick was when they embarked on the Voodoo Lounge tour, and how much attention was given to their ages at the time.

Playing rock'n'roll when you're *gasp* 50?? Perish the thought. I remember Ed Bradley on 60 Minutes fixating on it as the Stones shrugged him off.

Now no one bats an eye at rock bands made up of people in their 50s and 60s. It's amazing how peoples' perceptions have changed in a relatively short period of time.

they paved the way, as they say

But Mick derives from an English boyband. That's the difference. And he is a classic diva in the Vaudeville. Eddie is an American roots guy with native aspirations.

Mick will always be 25. Eddie was always the old wise man in the cabin.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Mick will always be 25. Eddie was always the old wise man in the cabin.

I'm not comparing Mick to Eddie...just about how people don't care about rock bands growing old with their music anymore.

Yes, I am often thinking about the fact that many "young" rock bands are way older now than the Stones were when I started listening to them. And back then I already though the Stones were super old.

Times have changed...new, and old, bands put out albums every 5 years now as opposed to every 6 months which was almost the norm in the 60's if you wanted to stay relevant.

I still remember the '81 tour when everyone talked about how old the Stones were and that would probably be their last. Fast forward 36 years and they're still here...

In fairness, I would say Eddie doesn't look as old as Mick did on the Voodoo Lounge tour. Not that Mick really did look old, but they looked elder starting with Steel Wheels. The wrinkles were there, they looked more aged. Never bothered me, but I get where it came from. Eddie still kinda looks the same as he has for 15 years.

Look how old Elvis is these days and he still rocks! It can be done...

Watching Pearl Jam perform at the R'n'R HOF, it occurred to me...

... how stiff they are? Imo they can rock okay but boy they're totally deprived of any swing.

I got into the Stones in 1989, when I was 13 years old. I missed the Steel Wheels tour and thought "Man, these guys are ancient, there is no way they'll ever tour again, I'll never get to see them."

Quote
dcba
Watching Pearl Jam perform at the R'n'R HOF, it occurred to me...

... how stiff they are? Imo they can rock okay but boy they're totally deprived of any swing.

I figured you'd all miss the point of my post entirely and just decide to compare PJ to the Stones. Typical.

Quote
maumau
they paved the way, as they say

True the Stones made it acceptable to be rocking 'old fogies' - they took the brunt of the jokes of being dinosaurs as far back as 1977 or even earlier.
Now it's commonplace to see bands/artists 'over the hill' - some way past their prime creatively, and nobody bats an eye.

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

Two different beasts , not alike at all .Weak comparison

Quote
TheGreek
Two different beasts , not alike at all .Weak comparison

Where the @#$%& did I compare the two bands aside from mentioning their ages? READ.

the stones as usual get absolutly no credit-this time for breaking that age barrier.

now it's as though it never happened,the unbelievable amount of shit the stones took from every side ,even the so called rock world crapped on the rolling stones.the media, print,radio and television couldn't bash them enough and couldn't come up with enough insults disguised as "jokes".

i distinctly remember them playing a show with the stones in the early 90's and the guy on the radio said "pearl jam is playing and the headliners are,i don't even want to mention the other guys-let's just say pearl jam and a pile of old magazines"[get it?, rolling stones.isn't that just so cute and funny]]

a bunch of fcking posers jumping on the latest trend that the record companies were shoving down their throats .well here we are almost 25 years later and nobody cares about those lame-ass grunge bands or their fans,they're old and even better,irrelevant.more than the stones ever were or will be.
those guys were so pompous and fcking snarky,have fun scraping out a living on the indian casino circuit,a-holes.

Quote
lem motlow
the stones as usual get absolutly no credit-this time for breaking that age barrier.

now it's as though it never happened,the unbelievable amount of shit the stones took from every side ,even the so called rock world crapped on the rolling stones.the media, print,radio and television couldn't bash them enough and couldn't come up with enough insults disguised as "jokes".

i distinctly remember them playing a show with the stones in the early 90's and the guy on the radio said "pearl jam is playing and the headliners are,i don't even want to mention the other guys-let's just say pearl jam and a pile of old magazines"[get it?, rolling stones.isn't that just so cute and funny]]

a bunch of fcking posers jumping on the latest trend that the record companies were shoving down their throats .well here we are almost 25 years later and nobody cares about those lame-ass grunge bands or their fans,they're old and even better,irrelevant.more than the stones ever were or will be.
those guys were so pompous and fcking snarky,have fun scraping out a living on the indian casino circuit,a-holes.

I remember that even in '89 everybody joked about Steel Wheelchairs etc.
I wouldn't say though that Pearl Jam are irrelevant nowadays.

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
TheGreek
Two different beasts , not alike at all .Weak comparison

Where the @#$%& did I compare the two bands aside from mentioning their ages? READ.

Remind me to ignore your ignorant posts .

The Stones were at the forefront for rock band. They were already getting crap about their age by 1975. By 1978 the crap was massive. Rolling Stone referring to old age with " the road ain't what it used to be" slagging the 1978 shows. Anyone remember Letterman STEEL WHEELCHAIRS jokes. Jagger and Richards were only 46 at the time, much younger than Vedder now

Let's not get carried away with comparisons -- 50+ is still old, no matter which generation wears it. I was born in 1966, so I know.

Quote
stonehearted
Let's not get carried away with comparisons -- 50+ is still old, no matter which generation wears it. I was born in 1966, so I know.

Damn.

I obviously can't question your authority on the subject but, as a 1969 baby myself, I was really hoping to put off the "old" label for another 7-12 years. So much for that idea.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Quote
stonehearted
Let's not get carried away with comparisons -- 50+ is still old, no matter which generation wears it. I was born in 1966, so I know.

we all get that,but the stones generation weren't the ones walking around with the smug look on our faces saying"why are those guys still playing? they're sooo OLD" "you still listen to THEM"

chuck berry,little richard,elvis,jerry lee etc were always respected by the rolling stones and their fans.

so again,how's the little grunge movement doing now? 90% of them are gone.couldn't handle their dope or were forgotten when they went out of style and the trendies moved on.
hopefully the wife didn't throw out the doc martens or give the old flannels shirts to goodwill,gotta get ready for the next "who gives a shit tour"eh junior,.ha ha ha

as keith said "wait till they get to this age and see how they run"- playing stadiums and that blues album sold really well,gold rings on ya ,old friend.

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
stonehearted
Let's not get carried away with comparisons -- 50+ is still old, no matter which generation wears it. I was born in 1966, so I know.

Damn.

I obviously can't question your authority on the subject but, as a 1969 baby myself, I was really hoping to put off the "old" label for another 7-12 years. So much for that idea.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Sorry to ruin your day, it's just that my gray hairs tell me otherwise. That and my ever-expanding mid-section, which I can't seem to get flat no matter how much I exercise or restrict my diet. Fortunately, though, aging happens just gradually enough so that there's always enough time to adjust.

So, anyway, am I the only one in this thread who thinks that Pearl Jam really sucks? Talk about overrated: Pearl Jam = the Journey of the nineties. The only people listening to that shit are fat, bald forty-somethings at their high school reunions.

I find "music" of the 1990s about as listenable as that of the 1980s -- that is, not at all.

Guess I was born 20 years too late.

Quote
TheGreek

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
TheGreek
Two different beasts , not alike at all .Weak comparison

Where the @#$%& did I compare the two bands aside from mentioning their ages? READ.

Remind me to ignore your ignorant posts .

I attempted to give the Stones credit for breaking an age barrier in rock'n'roll, and you missed my point entirely and decided to attack Pearl Jam for ZERO reason. My post had nothing to do with comparing them musically...only their ages.

That's on you, not me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-12 01:23 by keefriff99.

Quote
lem motlow
the stones as usual get absolutly no credit-this time for breaking that age barrier.

now it's as though it never happened,the unbelievable amount of shit the stones took from every side ,even the so called rock world crapped on the rolling stones.the media, print,radio and television couldn't bash them enough and couldn't come up with enough insults disguised as "jokes".

i distinctly remember them playing a show with the stones in the early 90's and the guy on the radio said "pearl jam is playing and the headliners are,i don't even want to mention the other guys-let's just say pearl jam and a pile of old magazines"[get it?, rolling stones.isn't that just so cute and funny]]

a bunch of fcking posers jumping on the latest trend that the record companies were shoving down their throats .well here we are almost 25 years later and nobody cares about those lame-ass grunge bands or their fans,they're old and even better,irrelevant.more than the stones ever were or will be.
those guys were so pompous and fcking snarky,have fun scraping out a living on the indian casino circuit,a-holes.

You're getting a little carried away there.

Grunge as a genre was a record label creation. Alice in Chains and Soundgarden were metal bands, Nirvana was punk-inspired, and Pearl Jam was just a rock'n'roll band. It was record labels who grouped them together and signed a bunch of copycats.

Those three bands are all still alive and kicking. Pearl Jam especially has a committed following and plays arenas regularly.

Quote
stonehearted
So, anyway, am I the only one in this thread who thinks that Pearl Jam really sucks? Talk about overrated: Pearl Jam = the Journey of the nineties. The only people listening to that shit are fat, bald forty-somethings at their high school reunions.

I don't like the way Eddie Vedder sings...or the way he growls...nothing about his vocals are interesting.
My opinion is based on their first album as I haven't really heard anything of interest from them since they were MTV heroes back in the day.
Maybe he's gotten better since then?

"The Journey of the nineties"..lol

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

Quote
Hairball

Quote
stonehearted
So, anyway, am I the only one in this thread who thinks that Pearl Jam really sucks? Talk about overrated: Pearl Jam = the Journey of the nineties. The only people listening to that shit are fat, bald forty-somethings at their high school reunions.

I don't like the way Eddie Vedder sings...or the way he growls...nothing about his vocals are interesting.
My opinion is based on their first album as I haven't really heard anything of interest from them since they were MTV heroes back in the day.
Maybe he's gotten better since then?

"The Journey of the nineties"..lol

I like them...at least their early stuff. Ten is a great album, but I'm not an expert on them. Haven't thought about them much since the late '90s.

I shouldn't be surprised that this thread turned into a referendum on the musical merits of PJ. I just picked a band of a certain age and used them to compare how they're viewed today vs. how the Stones were viewed 23 years ago.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-04-12 01:56 by keefriff99.

Quote
keefriff99
I'm not comparing Mick to Eddie...just about how people don't care about rock bands growing old with their music anymore.

Ideally, yes. But then the Stones will tour again and some moron teleprompter jockey will point out their "combined age is 290 [or whatever]" - like that means anything, and they'll interview some truly ancient fans. Other bands don't get that treatment. Indeed everyone always notes how young Paul McCartney looks. Riiiight!

Quote
keefriff99
You're getting a little carried away there.

Grunge as a genre was a record label creation. Alice in Chains and Soundgarden were metal bands, Nirvana was punk-inspired, and Pearl Jam was just a rock'n'roll band. It was record labels who grouped them together and signed a bunch of copycats.

Those three bands are all still alive and kicking. Pearl Jam especially has a committed following and plays arenas regularly.

no i'm really not-don't blame the record company,i remember their little anti-rockstar stance perfectly.

at least the 80's bands gave the ones who came before them their due.from tommy lee and every other drummer talking about john bonham to slash and izzy giving credit to keith and mick taylor for their sound.

alive and kicking or just playing to make a buck? tommy james and the shondells still play,hermans hermits still do shows.

i have people in my life who i still torture about this."the stones just did another tour playing stadiums,how's mudhoney doing"-ha ha. 6 decades in, stones fans have long memories.

I've never understood why certain bands attract SUCH criticism. That it just becomes fashionable to crap on certain bands they don't like. You don't really have to be a fan, but its hard not to respect Pearl Jam. They do their own thing, have a dedicated fanbase that they treat with respect, still play big places, and have a live download service that is near perfect. Granted yes, I'm a fan, but I give the same respect to bands I'm not a fan of. I'm not a Phish fan but they do well by their fans, keep their ticket prices low (same with Pearl Jam), also have a great download service. Not a Journey fan but I actually think their pre-Steve Perry stuff is great, and I give them credit for their sales. Just a thought.

Having said that, I'm a fan of Pearl Jam and think they are excellent. They still put on ridiculously good shows with a ton of diversity. They've made a whole bunch of great records, first three are classic and at least 3 more are also great. Didn't like the last, but they can't all be winners. They don't look old at all despite having done this for 25 hard years.