Some poetic truth in what you said there, Raahen T. Nice angle.

<the audience>

Come to think of it, there aren't many bands with fans that work as «ambassadors» the way Stones fans do. The band is being passed on to the next generation multiple times, without the objections youngsters normally have to their parents's taste in music.

Quite an achievement.

superior marketing

Many good suggestions, but the one thing that made it possible for them to do big stadium tours from 1989 and onwards is the incredible physical (and mental) discipline of Mick Jagger. If he had been overweight or not able to move and dance, or simply lost his voice, it would have been very different. Just think of Elvis at the end. It’s too sad to watch. The fact that Jagger has always been Jagger, the frontman that never stops moving around the stage and working hard for the audience, with the same famous voice intact – that is really what made it possible for this band to sell out stadium after stadium. Mick Jagger is now approaching 80 - and still performes and delivers at the very top level.

Anita said also that Keith likes so much to be on tour (not all the time but also not very long without touring).

Mick has said similar things about himself.

I think that they are both a little bit addicted to those live performances and that energy involved. And that is of course a good thing.

Very large fan base globally helps things obviously. And general respect for them in the music business (especially in the US I think). They are a role model for so many other bands. Maybe not always in a healthy way.

And they were very creative for the first 15 years artistically at least so they have so large catalog of great songs, so it's easy to put a really good rock show out.

They have been good also at choosing the people they work with (in studio and on tour) and Chuck Leavell has been quite important person on these later years for keeping it together (according to Mick). Maybe not the best piano player in the world but important person otherwise keeping the band and the performances together with his positive and diplomatic attitude. Chuck and Mick are quite good friends I think.

Mick's self discipline when everything else was pure chaos around the band in the 70s was also crucial that they somehow survived and also later.

Reason the Stones have lasted so long ??

Mick and Keith, that's it in a nutshell, their continued relationship and refusal to give in to age.

Quote
saltoftheearth
chicks & money

Imo that wears out when you turn 35.
The main motivation is surviving younger competitors who claim you're too old and should be in a graveyard.
In that respect there are entire batallion of up-and-coming bands that thought they'd dethrone the Stones that are now in a musical mass grave.

Quote
The Worst.
Many good suggestions, but the one thing that made it possible for them to do big stadium tours from 1989 and onwards is the incredible physical (and mental) discipline of Mick Jagger. If he had been overweight or not able to move and dance, or simply lost his voice, it would have been very different. Just think of Elvis at the end. It’s too sad to watch. The fact that Jagger has always been Jagger, the frontman that never stops moving around the stage and working hard for the audience, with the same famous voice intact – that is really what made it possible for this band to sell out stadium after stadium. Mick Jagger is now approaching 80 - and still performes and delivers at the very top level.

This is very true. I watched the video of living in a ghost town from Sunday. He still very impressive really working the audience!!

It's easy to say money but it can hardly be that big a deal at this point - they must have enough for themselves and future generations. Good genes, good luck, ability to change with the times, a loyal following and love of performing has to be the top 5.

Quote
nick1970

Quote
The Worst.
Many good suggestions, but the one thing that made it possible for them to do big stadium tours from 1989 and onwards is the incredible physical (and mental) discipline of Mick Jagger. If he had been overweight or not able to move and dance, or simply lost his voice, it would have been very different. Just think of Elvis at the end. It’s too sad to watch. The fact that Jagger has always been Jagger, the frontman that never stops moving around the stage and working hard for the audience, with the same famous voice intact – that is really what made it possible for this band to sell out stadium after stadium. Mick Jagger is now approaching 80 - and still performes and delivers at the very top level.

This is very true. I watched the video of living in a ghost town from Sunday. He still very impressive really working the audience!!

Mick is one of the best performers in the world and has been that for over several decades. And he also trains for it all the time. He has quite strict routines when he practises things in advance if I have understood right. His "standards" are pretty high, he never ever wants to perform badly or even just in mediocre way.

Keith is more volatile and more bohemian artistic type of person maybe but this contrast between them has always been the most interesting feature in the whole band and the secret for their success I think. They have perfectly complementary skills and personality traits.

The tongue logo is also very enduring, I see kids wearing it everywhere on their t-shirts. It's as cool as wearing a Calvin Klein t-shirt or something

the greatness of their music

Quote
Lynd8
It's easy to say money but it can hardly be that big a deal at this point - they must have enough for themselves and future generations. Good genes, good luck, ability to change with the times, a loyal following and love of performing has to be the top 5.

Couldn’t agree more. Money is rarely a true enduring motivator. Usually much more personal drives and needs are the engine.

The first 30 years was magical. Uncanny chemistry, the look, and they were hit single makers only surpassed by the Beatles.

The second 30 is habit. They're they only true group survivors from the baby boomers youth. (Now that true survivor status is obviously challenged). Freddie and the Dreamers faded a long time ago.

Now they're a bucket list item. See the icons before they're gone. And get price gouged to do it.

Another reason they last so long is Mick's inability to be embarrassed by singing Miss You and Satisfaction for the Zillionth time so far into old age.

Quote
Rocktiludrop
Another reason they last so long is Mick's inability to be embarrassed by singing Miss You and Satisfaction for the Zillionth time so far into old age.

Why should he be embarrassed?

It's the same with all big acts: You need a big breakthrough and then you need to sustain that fame with new hits and tours. If you're big enough you can capitalize on that for the rest of your life. Like The Beatles - they split up in 1967, still they are good for a lot of money (living or not). The same with the Stones - they had their last big hit 40 years ago - it doesn't matter their catalogue is still big enough (64-81).

Quote
Lady Jayne

Quote
Rocktiludrop
Another reason they last so long is Mick's inability to be embarrassed by singing Miss You and Satisfaction for the Zillionth time so far into old age.

Why should he be embarrassed?

As much as we love them don't you think sometimes if you take a step back it's a bit comical seeing an old man hop and skip along trying to resemble youth, every so often I see it awkwardly because of how he presents it.
You see Roger Daltry concentrate on a great vocal and it just seems more honest, I just wish Mick spent less time and energy struggling with covering the catwalks and just concentrated on the band and the vocals.

On a bunch of songs the other night Mick's voice was so wanting, he always ends up stretching himself and then we get cancelled shows when he loses his voice.

Sorry but you did ask.

to find out why people are successful you have to focus not so much on these people but on the social and economical circumstances.

there's an interesting study on Mozart by sociologist Norbert Elias. Elias point out that Mozart hadn't been economically successful in his time because neither the concept of original genius had been developed at his time nor a bourgois concert business. Therefore Mozart always depended on the genty but they didn't want real art but just some kind of entertainment. From their point of views musicians had the same status as confectioners. The were needed to show the status of a nobility residence but they were just some kind of servants not original arists.
In contrast to Mozart Beethoven was able to become economical successful because a bourgois audience had formed in his time who was willing to pay for concert tickets and also a concert business had developed.

I wish somebody would do an analysis of the success of rock musicians in that vein…

Similarties with the 60s rock act are striking. Remember those blues men who were a generation younger than the Stones, Clapton etc.? The died in the gutter, while the Stones etc. got rich. The difference is are not so much in the music but in teh circumstance. The baby boomer generation grew up in times of prosperity and became wealthy during they're lifetime. Thus they had a lot of money to spend on leisure activities. etc etc

For lot of people going to a Stones show is like something they want to do once. They probably want to go see the Niagara Falls, Mona Lisa, the Effel Tower, the Pyramids etc... The Stone's have reached that amazing and strange status for a little blues band from London.
Rockandroll,
Mops

see the Niagara Falls, Mona Lisa, the Effel Tower, the Pyramids etc..Sun Studio Memphis



ROCKMAN

1) The Material - Pulls in new fans all the time. I wasn’t thought of in 1972, but when I heard exile first in the early 90s, it blew my mind. I’m sure it has for lots of fans each year since it was released. All those early albums are gems in my opinion. The Stones v Beatles debate wasn’t exclusive to the 60s, and I’ll take the stones any day.

2) Mick & Keith - They’ve managed to continue working together through tough times, egos, addictions, deaths, band members leaving. They’re rooted in the blues tradition. Age doesn’t count when you play the blues. Age might even be an advantage.

3) Charlie & Bill - The “straight men” a solid solid back line of no ego. Reliable, consistent, talented, focused.

4) Ronnie - Ronnie has done a lot of heavy lifting since the licks tour in my opinion, sobriety maybe has helped, but he takes his role seriously and is an anchor. He also played therapist for the glimmer twins in the 80s.

Sooo many reasons one can think of, but really ... it was written in the stars right from the very start
Some things you can't explain, they just happen ...

I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town

A lot comes down on being in the right place on the right time. In the 60's in London where everything happened. And with those unique personalities. They were quite the opposite of the decent fab four. Five bad boys with long hair and the talent to write hit after hit. Longetivity is also a key word. They topped the charts for 10+ years. And they stayed relevant pop music between 1962 and ca 1995. Their ability to adapt different musical genre's also is quite unique. Blues, rock, punk, country, ska-reggae, new-wave.. they can do it all and they can do it good!

Most other bands split up a couple of years after their peak. Because they can't stand each other, because they lose inspiration or because the public or\and the media lose their interest. The Stones stayed together, scored #1 hitsongs in four different decades and sold out every show up until a few years ago.

Quote
Rocktiludrop

Quote
Lady Jayne

Quote
Rocktiludrop
Another reason they last so long is Mick's inability to be embarrassed by singing Miss You and Satisfaction for the Zillionth time so far into old age.

Why should he be embarrassed?

As much as we love them don't you think sometimes if you take a step back it's a bit comical seeing an old man hop and skip along trying to resemble youth, every so often I see it awkwardly because of how he presents it.
You see Roger Daltry concentrate on a great vocal and it just seems more honest, I just wish Mick spent less time and energy struggling with covering the catwalks and just concentrated on the band and the vocals.

On a bunch of songs the other night Mick's voice was so wanting, he always ends up stretching himself and then we get cancelled shows when he loses his voice.

Sorry but you did ask.

Funny to think of it.. One main reason why the Stones have lasted so long and still is such a huge concert draw is that Mick does not act the way you wished him to do... Probably - to quote a more insightful dude - 'not growing up gracefully' is not for your conservative taste?

- Doxa

They are all such lousy musicians that they should not be allowed to join any other band.

It's only rock and roll but they like it.

Actually they do have a business / corporation to support - too, and touring must benefit that.

Positive feedback mechanism!

But as for being a working studio band ........

I'd say THE reason they can still play these massive shows is that Mick has stayed in tip top shape and has been able to stay at the top of his game. If he had declined the way Keith has it would have stopped 15 years ago.

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

Quote
RobertJohnson
They are all such lousy musicians that they should not be allowed to join any other band.

But they were ...

Keith ... Expensive Winos, New Barabarians, Dirty Mac, ...
Mick ... Super Heavy, Red Devils, ...
Ronnie ... before he joined the Stones (Birds, Faces, ...), after ... New Barbarians, ...
Charlie ... Tentet, Combo, Orchestre, Alexis Korner, ...
Bill ... Rhythm Kings, ...
Mick T. ... John Mayall & Bluesbreakers, ...
Brian ... he started it all (we should blame him for still having to live with the Rolling Stones live ?)
Ian ... Rocket 88, ...

The Rolling Stones ... man, what a worthless, lousy band, but what would I do without them. Long live The Rolling Stones ...

I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town

Laughter joy and loneliness and sex and sex and sex and sex.