Tell Me :
Talk
"Create new and exciting work"? For some maybe, for others it was merely a variation on what had been done before. In the same way one can talk about The Rolling Stones: for some they are still creative, for others it's merely a variation on what's been done before. It's all a matter of taste. My opinion means just as much as yours ... nothing for those with (again) other opinions.
Fact is, that The Rolling Stones can still attrack millions of people, if only the tough part of touring around the world wouldn't put a heavy load on musicians like the Stones. Duke attrackting millions to come and see him play in his life span? Not even close ...
The Stones are a unique bunch and as the thread says: Unprecidented longevity!
Yes, if we were to judge Duke and the Stones on mere butts in the seats. I'll bet Duke played more concerts. His band was on the road well over 300 days a year. The idea of playing in baseball/football stadiums didn't even come around until 1965, and the first Shea Stadium concert with the Beatles. I'll still put Duke's creative recording output from 1926-1974 the king for longevity, and variety. In 1971 Duke put out the African-Eurasian Eclipse. Duke continued to pair up with the likes of John Coltrane and Coleman Hawkins in his final years. You could only come up with less than a handful of memorable new recordings by the Stones in the Post-Wyman era.
But I will always hand them credit for their incredible drawing power. Nostalgia is big bucks these days.
But, unlike the Stones, Dylan is respected, if maybe not adored, for rearranging his old tunes. And he does pull out real deep cuts. He had three recent albums (before he became Rod Stewart crooning standards) that were well received. Dylan is still thought of as an artist. The Stones stopped being artists (except a Blue & Lonesome) by the early 90s.
Respected by who?
I remember going to a Dylan concert, which was saved by the contributions of Tom Petty's band and Roger McQuin. Bob s*cked all the way and didn't deserve to earn a penny. I never experienced anything like that during the ca.80 Stones concerts.
Dylan's 60s records were good, after that ... ????
A Bigger Bang ... a great, creative album with some excellent songs. It's all a matter of of sitting down, relax and listen.
$TONE$ NO$TALGIA..it's like anything ya want the best ya pay good money for it and I don't mind at all
Yeah well perhaps so, but she can't write a decent rock n' roll song - can she ? Makes her a bit irrelevant in my book - does that !
[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]
From a fellow Brit, mine too. The Stones weren't born into their fame. They had to earn it and work hard to do so they did, touring and recording at breakneck speed between 1963-67. And having earned it, they've had to continue working hard to maintain it.
They've only been irrelevant old has beens for about 20 years. Rolling Stone magazine tried to write them off in 1978, but a successful tour and multi platinum album put them back in their place at the top.
It's up to the fans to decide their relevance, not the media. In 1968 I read in the media that Jumping Jack Flash was merely a copy of Satisfaction, and that the Stones "were finished", not to mention all the irrelevant stories written during the 5 (!!!) decades that followed ... and with close to a million people going to see them in the upcoming mini tour in North America, I'd say that they are still highly relevant.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: The Rolling Stones Longevity Unprecedented
Posted by:
colonial
()
Date: April 12, 2019 07:19
The Rolling Stones longevity unprecedented...
Re: The Rolling Stones Longevity Unprecedented
Posted by:
wonderboy
()
Date: April 13, 2019 17:59
Clint Eastwood is 88 and directed two movies that came out last year.
I love the Stones, but Eastwood is still growing and making relevant art.
I love the Stones, but Eastwood is still growing and making relevant art.
Re: The Rolling Stones Longevity Unprecedented
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: April 14, 2019 01:23
The old standard would have been Duke Ellington, but there's no comparison really. Duke had 'hits' he would play, but he continued to create new and exciting work up until the end. The Stones may last longer as a road touring unit, but their artistic growth and output ended thirty years ago. They are a rock and roll jukebox now, cranking out the hoary hits for undiscerning fans. But they will have pleased those fans worldwide for a good deal longer. Here's to what's left of them.
Re: The Rolling Stones Longevity Unprecedented
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: April 14, 2019 02:22
Yes, jazz is another animal. They continue to grow all the way and peaks, in many cases, just before they go. But they need to work all the time.
Practicing, recording, performing or whatever. They're in it for the art. Money comes second.
Practicing, recording, performing or whatever. They're in it for the art. Money comes second.
Re: The Rolling Stones Longevity Unprecedented
Posted by:
georgie48
()
Date: April 14, 2019 11:44
Quote
24FPS
The old standard would have been Duke Ellington, but there's no comparison really. Duke had 'hits' he would play, but he continued to create new and exciting work up until the end.
"Create new and exciting work"? For some maybe, for others it was merely a variation on what had been done before. In the same way one can talk about The Rolling Stones: for some they are still creative, for others it's merely a variation on what's been done before. It's all a matter of taste. My opinion means just as much as yours ... nothing for those with (again) other opinions.
Fact is, that The Rolling Stones can still attrack millions of people, if only the tough part of touring around the world wouldn't put a heavy load on musicians like the Stones. Duke attrackting millions to come and see him play in his life span? Not even close ...
The Stones are a unique bunch and as the thread says: Unprecidented longevity!
Re: The Rolling Stones Longevity Unprecedented
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: April 14, 2019 23:40
Quote
georgie48Quote
24FPS
The old standard would have been Duke Ellington, but there's no comparison really. Duke had 'hits' he would play, but he continued to create new and exciting work up until the end.
"Create new and exciting work"? For some maybe, for others it was merely a variation on what had been done before. In the same way one can talk about The Rolling Stones: for some they are still creative, for others it's merely a variation on what's been done before. It's all a matter of taste. My opinion means just as much as yours ... nothing for those with (again) other opinions.
Fact is, that The Rolling Stones can still attrack millions of people, if only the tough part of touring around the world wouldn't put a heavy load on musicians like the Stones. Duke attrackting millions to come and see him play in his life span? Not even close ...
The Stones are a unique bunch and as the thread says: Unprecidented longevity!
Yes, if we were to judge Duke and the Stones on mere butts in the seats. I'll bet Duke played more concerts. His band was on the road well over 300 days a year. The idea of playing in baseball/football stadiums didn't even come around until 1965, and the first Shea Stadium concert with the Beatles. I'll still put Duke's creative recording output from 1926-1974 the king for longevity, and variety. In 1971 Duke put out the African-Eurasian Eclipse. Duke continued to pair up with the likes of John Coltrane and Coleman Hawkins in his final years. You could only come up with less than a handful of memorable new recordings by the Stones in the Post-Wyman era.
But I will always hand them credit for their incredible drawing power. Nostalgia is big bucks these days.
Re: The Rolling Stones Longevity Unprecedented
Posted by:
jlowe
()
Date: April 14, 2019 23:48
Yes, nostalgia is big bucks these days.
Did Dylan ever say 'Don't look back' ?
He got that one wrong.
Did Dylan ever say 'Don't look back' ?
He got that one wrong.
Re: The Rolling Stones Longevity Unprecedented
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: April 15, 2019 03:31
Quote
jlowe
Yes, nostalgia is big bucks these days.
Did Dylan ever say 'Don't look back' ?
He got that one wrong.
But, unlike the Stones, Dylan is respected, if maybe not adored, for rearranging his old tunes. And he does pull out real deep cuts. He had three recent albums (before he became Rod Stewart crooning standards) that were well received. Dylan is still thought of as an artist. The Stones stopped being artists (except a Blue & Lonesome) by the early 90s.
Re: The Rolling Stones Longevity Unprecedented
Posted by:
georgie48
()
Date: April 15, 2019 04:08
Quote
24FPSQuote
jlowe
Yes, nostalgia is big bucks these days.
Did Dylan ever say 'Don't look back' ?
He got that one wrong.
But, unlike the Stones, Dylan is respected
Respected by who?
I remember going to a Dylan concert, which was saved by the contributions of Tom Petty's band and Roger McQuin. Bob s*cked all the way and didn't deserve to earn a penny. I never experienced anything like that during the ca.80 Stones concerts.
Dylan's 60s records were good, after that ... ????
A Bigger Bang ... a great, creative album with some excellent songs. It's all a matter of of sitting down, relax and listen.
Re: The Rolling Stones Longevity Unprecedented
Posted by:
colonial
()
Date: April 15, 2019 10:17
Quote
jlowe
Yes, nostalgia is big bucks these days.
Did Dylan ever say 'Don't look back' ?
He got that one wrong.
$TONE$ NO$TALGIA..it's like anything ya want the best ya pay good money for it and I don't mind at all
Re: The Rolling Stones Longevity Unprecedented
Posted by:
bitusa2012
()
Date: April 15, 2019 11:11
Few threads back, John Mayall SOMEHOW playing his 85th Anniversary tour. Must have come out of the womb with a guitar in his hands....
Stones have about 30 years to catch him!!!!
Rod
Stones have about 30 years to catch him!!!!
Rod
Re: The Rolling Stones Longevity Unprecedented
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: April 15, 2019 13:11
If Stones can not write new songs then at least they could make another B&L.
The album was very well received in Europe. There is still a good number of people liking real blues music and not too many bands playing real good blues music.
The album was very well received in Europe. There is still a good number of people liking real blues music and not too many bands playing real good blues music.
Re: The Rolling Stones Longevity Unprecedented
Posted by:
paulywaul
()
Date: April 15, 2019 13:33
Quote
jlowe
Here is another:
QUEEN ELIZABETH II
Head of State since 1952..ie 10 years ahead of our lads.
Yeah well perhaps so, but she can't write a decent rock n' roll song - can she ? Makes her a bit irrelevant in my book - does that !
[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]
Re: The Rolling Stones Longevity Unprecedented
Posted by:
grzegorz67
()
Date: April 15, 2019 13:46
Quote
paulywaulQuote
jlowe
Here is another:
QUEEN ELIZABETH II
Head of State since 1952..ie 10 years ahead of our lads.
Yeah well perhaps so, but she can't write a decent rock n' roll song - can she ? Makes her a bit irrelevant in my book - does that !
From a fellow Brit, mine too. The Stones weren't born into their fame. They had to earn it and work hard to do so they did, touring and recording at breakneck speed between 1963-67. And having earned it, they've had to continue working hard to maintain it.
Re: The Rolling Stones Longevity Unprecedented
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: April 15, 2019 15:15
What's really funny is to realise that they've been filling football stadia around the world for about 40 years since being written of as irrelevant old has-beens.
They're sure taking a long time to die
They're sure taking a long time to die
Re: The Rolling Stones Longevity Unprecedented
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: April 16, 2019 02:57
Quote
Spud
What's really funny is to realise that they've been filling football stadia around the world for about 40 years since being written of as irrelevant old has-beens.
They're sure taking a long time to die
They've only been irrelevant old has beens for about 20 years. Rolling Stone magazine tried to write them off in 1978, but a successful tour and multi platinum album put them back in their place at the top.
Re: The Rolling Stones Longevity Unprecedented
Posted by:
georgie48
()
Date: April 16, 2019 12:28
Quote
24FPSQuote
Spud
What's really funny is to realise that they've been filling football stadia around the world for about 40 years since being written of as irrelevant old has-beens.
They're sure taking a long time to die
They've only been irrelevant old has beens for about 20 years. Rolling Stone magazine tried to write them off in 1978, but a successful tour and multi platinum album put them back in their place at the top.
It's up to the fans to decide their relevance, not the media. In 1968 I read in the media that Jumping Jack Flash was merely a copy of Satisfaction, and that the Stones "were finished", not to mention all the irrelevant stories written during the 5 (!!!) decades that followed ... and with close to a million people going to see them in the upcoming mini tour in North America, I'd say that they are still highly relevant.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1992
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10