When The Rolling Stones’ first ever shows in Japan in January 1973 were announced — and they were later cancelled due to Mick’s prior drug bust — the reaction from some of the fans over there back in the day was like, “So they are coming to Japan at last. Too late.”
The Beatles had visited the country in 1966, beating them by seven years. The fans felt they were waiting for them for too long, and that the members were now getting old and beyond their prime. Looking back, the Pacific Tour 1973 was virtually an extension of the U.S. Tour 1972, which is regarded as their peak period as a live band by many. They were at the zenith of their performance then, and the Japanese missed a LOT.

Fast forward to 1989. The news came in — “The Rolling Stones will release a new album and start a U.S. tour after seven years’ hiatus from the road.” The members were all into their forties now, one even fifties. The 60’s being almost two decades behind, nobody said, “Don’t trust over thirty” anymore. Even so, the forty-something Stones looked way too old to rock ‘n roll in the eyes of the general public. Now, in 2021, I watch the recorded footage of their performance from the Steel Wheels Tour and think, “Look, how they were young and played well.”

Watching the visual recorded material of the performances of the Stones after turning 40, 50 or even 60, have you ever felt they were younger than you thought back then, and playing brilliantly?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-07-18 13:33 by RisingStone.

Speaking for myself, I thought they had to put up with being old school in the early 70s because of all the new bands at the time. 14 year olds wanted new bands, at first represented by the wide and loose "progressive music" concept.

I know when I saw the video from Mixed Emotions for the first time on my television in the summer of 1989 I thougth that they looked realy old, but seeing it now they were looking and acting very strong and were physical in excellent condition. Right now I'm even older than them in 1989.

Still MY band ...

is that a perception ???????


Perceptions, I just can't make no perceptions
But all I want to do is to get back to you.......... S.A.G



ROCKMAN

In 1978 I was nineteen. Mick and Keith were in their mid-30s and seemed ancient to me. I'm amazed now at how young they look in their 1978 photos. Mid-thirties? My wife's kids are that age now!

Quote
noughties
Speaking for myself, I thought they had to put up with being old school in the early 70s because of all the new bands at the time. 14 year olds wanted new bands, at first represented by the wide and loose "progressive music" concept.

Same for Japan. The received wisdom now is that The Rolling Stones were on top of their game in the early 70’s, both in the studio and on stage. Back then, in real time, though, they were regarded as part of the “old school”, almost on the verge of falling behind the times. Music lovers went for Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Chicago, Santana, Pink Floyd, EL&P, T. Rex, Bowie etc...

Quote
tatters
In 1978 I was nineteen. Mick and Keith were in their mid-30s and seemed ancient to me. I'm amazed now at how young they look in their 1978 photos. Mid-thirties? My wife's kids are that age now!

Some Girls was by the press regarded as a comeback album by some old (farts). Just as when you thought they could be written off, came this punk/disco album.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-07-18 14:52 by noughties.

Quote
RisingStone

Quote
noughties
Speaking for myself, I thought they had to put up with being old school in the early 70s because of all the new bands at the time. 14 year olds wanted new bands, at first represented by the wide and loose "progressive music" concept.

Same for Japan. The received wisdom now is that The Rolling Stones were on top of their game in the early 70’s, both in the studio and on stage. Back then, in real time, though, they were regarded as part of the “old school”, almost on the verge of falling behind the times. Music lovers went for Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Chicago, Santana, Pink Floyd, EL&P, T. Rex, Bowie etc...

On top of their game? What happened to all the bands/acts you mention. When the "old" Rolling Stones finally performed in Japan in 1990, half a million fans came to see them in Tokyo (more than 2 million requests for tickets). Just to see some "old men" do their thing on stage? The 1980s (with gap) had proven they were still big, and in Japan they new. I saw the band many times over the past 5 decades. They evolved all the time and when you evolve, you don't talk about "top of their game". 14onFire tour! Zip tour USA, magnificant shows in Latin America (Argentina ... wow), Cuba ... wow. Europe, USA 2017/18/19 ... on top of their game? You're kidding me ...


I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town

In the last 80s/early 90s in thought they are done (thus I didn't go to any shows)

In the 2000s I thought they are really done (thus I didn't go to any shows after 1998)

since 2013 onwards I think they are well done (and thus I went to a couple of shows)

Quote
georgie48

Quote
RisingStone

Quote
noughties
Speaking for myself, I thought they had to put up with being old school in the early 70s because of all the new bands at the time. 14 year olds wanted new bands, at first represented by the wide and loose "progressive music" concept.

Same for Japan. The received wisdom now is that The Rolling Stones were on top of their game in the early 70’s, both in the studio and on stage. Back then, in real time, though, they were regarded as part of the “old school”, almost on the verge of falling behind the times. Music lovers went for Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Chicago, Santana, Pink Floyd, EL&P, T. Rex, Bowie etc...

On top of their game? What happened to all the bands/acts you mention. When the "old" Rolling Stones finally performed in Japan in 1990, half a million fans came to see them in Tokyo (more than 2 million requests for tickets). Just to see some "old men" do their thing on stage? The 1980s (with gap) had proven they were still big, and in Japan they new. I saw the band many times over the past 5 decades. They evolved all the time and when you evolve, you don't talk about "top of their game". 14onFire tour! Zip tour USA, magnificant shows in Latin America (Argentina ... wow), Cuba ... wow. Europe, USA 2017/18/19 ... on top of their game? You're kidding me ...

I kind of acknowledge your points. Somehow I feel we are discussing the matters on different grounds — especially regarding the phrase, “on top of their game”. In one way, as you say, they have been “on top of their game” all the time, since they rose to stardom in mid 60’s to the present. On the other hand, there have been some standout phases many a Stones aficionado recognizes where their musicianship shines through all the more gloriously than other occasions, and the Exile/U.S. Tour 1972 is without doubt one of them (and some say that’s “the one”). Here I’m talking in the latter sense.

And the irony, the point I try to make here, is that people thought the Stones were fading when they were actually in their prime, both creative and performance wise.

In 1989, the first night of the Los Angeles shows, they seemed old and creaky, compared to their opening act, Guns and Roses. Then, a few nights later, closing night, they were really cooking. That was the cap on their career, and what should have been their final tour in 1990. If they wanted to go out on top artistic wise.
Bill knew it. Except for the 'last flare from the lighthouse' in 1999, it's been a nostalgia act with less and less return.

But I think if you want to see that act one last time, and I might, I would catch them this time around. Charlie is 80. (Was much made of that at the time?) Remember what Keith's guitar playing was like in 2012, the last time with a long layoff? Yeah, the 'old' Stones of 1989 seem like young whippersnappers compared to now.

Quote
RisingStone
When The Rolling Stones’ first ever shows in Japan in January 1973 were announced — and they were later cancelled due to Mick’s prior drug bust — the reaction from some of the fans over there back in the day was like, “So they are coming to Japan at last. Too late.”
The Beatles had visited the country in 1966, beating them by seven years. The fans felt they were waiting for them for too long, and that the members were now getting old and beyond their prime. Looking back, the Pacific Tour 1973 was virtually an extension of the U.S. Tour 1972, which is regarded as their peak period as a live band by many. They were at the zenith of their performance then, and the Japanese missed a LOT.

Fast forward to 1989. The news came in — “The Rolling Stones will release a new album and start a U.S. tour after seven years’ hiatus from the road.” The members were all into their forties now, one even fifties. The 60’s being almost two decades behind, nobody said, “Don’t trust over thirty” anymore. Even so, the forty-something Stones looked way too old to rock ‘n roll in the eyes of the general public. Now, in 2021, I watch the recorded footage of their performance from the Steel Wheels Tour and think, “Look, how they were young and played well.”

Watching the visual recorded material of the performances of the Stones after turning 40, 50 or even 60, have you ever felt they were younger than you thought back then, and playing brilliantly?

Yes, I have thought that way. In fact, as some of these vault releases have come out (Atlantic City, Voodoo Lounge Uncut, San Jose) I've thought that very thing. That they seemed old at the time, but not so much in retrospect, though of course...at the time I was basing it off of the past ('64-'81, etc.) But it's made me try to be more consciously appreciative of these last few tours and the (hopeful) next one...knowing that someday I'll think they looked young on the '19 tour! No? Maybe not, I don't know.

Quote
RisingStone

Quote
georgie48

Quote
RisingStone

Quote
noughties
Speaking for myself, I thought they had to put up with being old school in the early 70s because of all the new bands at the time. 14 year olds wanted new bands, at first represented by the wide and loose "progressive music" concept.

Same for Japan. The received wisdom now is that The Rolling Stones were on top of their game in the early 70’s, both in the studio and on stage. Back then, in real time, though, they were regarded as part of the “old school”, almost on the verge of falling behind the times. Music lovers went for Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Chicago, Santana, Pink Floyd, EL&P, T. Rex, Bowie etc...

On top of their game? What happened to all the bands/acts you mention. When the "old" Rolling Stones finally performed in Japan in 1990, half a million fans came to see them in Tokyo (more than 2 million requests for tickets). Just to see some "old men" do their thing on stage? The 1980s (with gap) had proven they were still big, and in Japan they new. I saw the band many times over the past 5 decades. They evolved all the time and when you evolve, you don't talk about "top of their game". 14onFire tour! Zip tour USA, magnificant shows in Latin America (Argentina ... wow), Cuba ... wow. Europe, USA 2017/18/19 ... on top of their game? You're kidding me ...

I kind of acknowledge your points. Somehow I feel we are discussing the matters on different grounds — especially regarding the phrase, “on top of their game”. In one way, as you say, they have been “on top of their game” all the time, since they rose to stardom in mid 60’s to the present. On the other hand, there have been some standout phases many a Stones aficionado recognizes where their musicianship shines through all the more gloriously than other occasions, and the Exile/U.S. Tour 1972 is without doubt one of them (and some say that’s “the one”). Here I’m talking in the latter sense.

And the irony, the point I try to make here, is that people thought the Stones were fading when they were actually in their prime, both creative and performance wise.

The difficulty is that some people have been fans for f.i. 20 years, which is a long time, but they didn't experience the 30 years before at a personal level. Their judgement on Stones music from those decades is very different from the ones (like me) who were there as fans (almost) right from the beginning.
Us oldies thought the band made great interpretations of other people's music, sometimes in a way that you could almost call such interpretations "their own songs" (Not Fade Away, It's All Over Now, and so on). We even had to get used to f.i. Aftermath, because those songs were so different from many covers they did.
That's why I prefer the expression "evolve". A Bigger Bang was made 43 years after they started. Okay, it's all a matter of taste, but to me that album contains a bunch of great own penned songs. After well over half a Century you can't expect these (with respect off course) old men to behave like hungry wolves, trying to prove they are the ones the females have to follow, but I'm sure that their new album will carry some great songs, proving they haven't faded away (Blue and Lonesome actually proved they could still be "on top of their game" any time they like).
Let's be fair. Almost 60 years alive and kicking in that tough world called "Rock 'n Roll". It's almost impossible to believe, but ... it's true

I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town

georgie48,

My interest in the group is rather patchy. I don’t think I’m a casual fan — but I can’t say I’m hardcore, either. Something in between, maybe, if I define myself.

You seem to approach the Stones with philanthropic attitude, as it were, and that’s a healthy and admirable way to go. Keep on rollin!

Something changed between FORTY LICKS and Doom And Gloom that is weird: they put out the interesting yet weird A BIGGER BANG and then got really awful... and somehow got good, or at least decent, again, in 2012, which was quite a long time between the BANG tour and Doom And Gloom.

The disappointment from watching THE BIGGEST BANG, especially in comparison to FOUR FLICKS, was an eye opener: what the hell happened to The Rolling Stones?

Well, obviously, Keith slipping and hitting his head on a rock is what happened. But it was more than that: the entire thing felt rote.

Having seen SHINE A LIGHT in a theatre, and then getting the double album, what flew by in the theatre was horrifically slowed down on the album, and then, for some reason, getting the video... and realizing what a horrific job Martin Scorsese did and that the Stones allowed that to be released... what seemed a bit obvious at the end of BIGGEST BANG, about the last show of the tour at the O2, seemed hollow after seeing SAL.

After the SAL disaster it felt like the band had just pissed away any hope of being good again.

I've never watched or listened to anything from that movie or album since and never will.

But the vibrance of Doom And Gloom and their nod to history by playing I Wanna Be Your Man changed the perception that they were done with, not so much because they were so much older, but because they got serious again.

I was thinking about this subject recently regarding perspective of time. When I listen to Hampton 81 and Mick introduces Time Is On My Side, saying it was a song they recorded when they just small, that would have been 17 years prior. Today, a song like Don't Stop was released more than 17 years ago!
Every Stones tour it seems the press announces the Stones have either reunited for a tour or it's their farewell tour even though they're probably one of the few bands that hasn't announced a farewell tour! I remember in 81 when they announced the big American tour, they were all asking if the Stones are too old to rock since Mick was 38!

I thought they looked pretty grown up on the Arthur Haynes Show when I was six. Arthur, of course, looked much older.

My perception of them is changing as the long break between albums drags on and on and on and on and on....

Your idea of what old is shifts with time.

When I bought Some Girls on the day it came out for £2.95 from Our Price in Ilford. I thought to myself 'This is obviously their last album, I mean, come on, they're 35!'

In 1976 the Melody Maker reader's letter of the week bore the headline;

'JAGGER IS 33, SO WHAT?'

It looks funny now.

I just wish they hadn't wasted so much time feuding. We could have had truly great Stones albums in the place of all the patchy solo efforts.

My perception of them changes each time they go on tour and I see them perform on stage; before the tour starts I am always anxious that I could be disappointed (example: the last shows of Chuck Berry in Europe). But each time I see them play live I am surprised and still in awe at how strong and great they are on stage.
Rockandroll,
Mops

Ummm.... nope - no perception change for me. Still the Greatest Rock n Roll band in the world ever!!

Cheers
Richard - In Another Land

I have been thinking of Elvis Presley.

Elvis was one of the biggest stars in the whole history of rock ‘n’ roll. An originator as well as archetypal rock star.
And he was the precursor of a rock ‘n’ roll rebel turned into a Vegas act, in a very literal sense of the words in his case.

When I started to listen to rock music in the early 70’s, he was already old school, much more so than The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. He seemed to belong to the ancient times, a yesterday’s star. The film, Elvis: That’s The Way It Is, became a big hit in Japan (it was released under the title, “Elvis On Stage”, over there), and there was an occasional radio friendly chart topper, e.g. Burning Love — for all that, Elvis in those days felt like a nostalgia act, a revival.

When he passed away in Summer 1977, Elvis was a half forgotten figure — at least in Japan and around me. He was forty-two, and being at that age in 1977 gave me an impression of a rock star who lived long, especially when he was compared to the members of the “27 Club”, Brian, Jimi, Janis and Jim, those who had left us earlier, and in much younger age than Elvis. The news was received as a blast from the past by many of us, old and young generations alike back in time.

Looking back from now, some forty-four years after his death, I feel how young he was — he was younger than me now by twenty years or so! Untimely even. In 2009, I put my hand on the 40th anniversary 2CD edition of Elvis In Memphis, his later-era masterpiece released in 1969, the year of Woodstock and Altamont. It was almost like an alt-country/Americana album that came decades earlier.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-07-20 13:22 by RisingStone.

Quote
rcfoxy
Ummm.... nope - no perception change for me. Still the Greatest Rock n Roll band in the world ever!!

Yes, they definitely are, but it's hard to figure out what is most important to them at this point.

I noticed some similarities between Elvises late career and Britney Spears with the Vegas residencies and her father doing the Colonel part

No and never . I always looked at it in the terms of the quality of there performance chops and how they constantly delivered the high quality . The level of quality to me was always very high .

Hi RisingStone. I wanted to say that I like reading your posts. This is a subject I’ve thought about occasionally. Never got around to discussing it with anyone, but I got to say we’re thinking the same on this. I always felt it was funny The Stones were considered old and finished in 1981. Looking back on Late Night TV hosts making old guy jokes every tour. And then finally it seems they’re getting respect for longevity. Makes me laugh sometimes.

Hi frankotero,

Cheers for kind words. Feel appreciated.

The modern Stones (1989 - present) have overtaken the vintage Stones (1962 - 1982) in their live activities by ten years now. It’s about time to reassess them properly and give credit where it’s due.

Again, good thinking. It's great to have so much Stones that we can make comparisons to different decades, phases and such. Really is a kind of luxury.

Quote
VoodooLounge13

Quote
rcfoxy
Ummm.... nope - no perception change for me. Still the Greatest Rock n Roll band in the world ever!!

Yes, they definitely are, but it's hard to figure out what is most important to them at this point.

They have several "most important" issues, I think. Enjoying family life, f.i., jamming with other musicians (lately Ronnie, Keith and Mick), but you can count on it that The Rolling Stones are also "most important". They very well know, that they as a band are in a unique position and for sure (although they may not admit it) the upcoming 60th Anniversary is playing in their heads.


I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town

I get all that Georgie. As life happens and one gets married, older, has a family, the band goes a little bit to the background. It just seems like producing new music has not been an important facet of their band for many years. I remember reading on one of the other threads where someone wrote the last album that sounded truly unique was BTB, as if they'd put out another 10 albums thereafter. They've only done 1 album of originals since that one. I do think the well has mostly run dry. Though Crosseyed Heart and Easy Sleazy are exceptions...