Tell Me :
Talk
Excellent analysis! That's it.
- Doxa
Every time I hear this “Relevance” thing I get a laugh- it reminds me of the old song “ trying to make it real,compared to what?
Im inclined to ask who’s judging? Relevance, hmmm strange word.relevant to some jerkoff teenager? Relevant to some clown sitting in front of a keyboard at a magazine.
What are the “relevant” bands of the 90s? Nirvana.ok, Nirvana.their biggest album sold about 10 million in the 90s. That ranks them about 14th for the decade behind the likes of Whitney Houston and Garth Brooks but “relevant”
Bands usually got about $1.50 per record then so they made what, 15 mil?
The Rolling Stones had the two biggest tours of the decade. Combined they grossed nearly one billion dollars.and you could do this with any decade.
So again, who’s calling the balls and strikes here? Because my first question to anyone talking “relevance” is -and you are who exactly? And you represent what again now?
True. But I also want to share my love of The Rolling Stones with others. Things change with time and new generations. What was mega popular at that time might seem a bit unrelevant today. It is also a matter of marketing and reputation. Stones where extremely strong until the late 90s, then it started to drop. Among my friends (a bit younger at least - I am 35) everyone is convinced that Queen is the biggest group ever and there music have become relevant again through the musical and the movie. When mentioned that Stones where part of the revolution of live music, performance etc people go like ”wow did not know that”. We can also see on streams that Stones are doing good but are behind groups like ACDC, Pink Floyd, Beatles and of course Queen (who has more than 3x the streams).
Back to my orginal point. I want them to be relevant. I want to share my love with others. A good album, a hit single? A tv-series. But I would love people around me to dig into the treasures of the Stones world.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-07-29 09:52 by tiffanyblu.
Excellent post.
Sounds spot on to me
It is a good question, and so damn good replies here. I think the term 'relevance' is problematic, and even more is if is further defined by 'mainstream'. The thing is that the Stones have probably always been a mainstream act if any rock band ever been. They have always sold much albums and their tours been incredible by success. And although they have not charmed that much teenage hearts for ages, they still pretty much define what a mainstream rock act is. They are the biggest. Of course, the whole rock genre is not mainstream among the youth any longer, but that is another issue.
But the 'relevance' is something else. I take that something to do with being on the nerve of the times, and the latter is defined what the young people are up to. The latter has not necessarily to do with sheer popularity. I mean, Elvis, Sinatra and The Stones sold more records than The Sex Pistols or The Clash did at their prime (during the late 70's, that is), but can we really say those old acts were as relevant to the times as the latter ones were? You know, when the culture historians are writing the zeitgeist of the late 70's, you know, what novel was going on, it will be determined by such punk acts, since that was the new 'hot' thing at the time. No matter how great album SOME GIRLS is, selling millions and it had a huge mainstream disco hit, it is not NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS. I know, since as a young kid, I was there. Then again, years later, "Smells Like Teen Spirit" made only #6 in Billboard, but today it is an anthem of the era, and the most streamed singular song from the whole 90's.
I am not sure, but I hope I made some sense...
- Doxa
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2023-07-30 13:13 by Doxa.
You are right but that is the kiss of death for the band as a creative entity. If live shows are your main source of income why bother releasing a new album? You will have to play 4-5 tracks off it and unevitably peoples faces will go "ugh" because 90% of them will not know these new songs.
Otoh if you play it safe and built your setlists around 30 classic songs everyone knows you know your gigs will go smoothly.
Well if you hold out that high a standard, peak moments from an era, then you'd go to 1969 and Altamont, which is the flipside of Woodstock. That would be the last time their was an actual societal affect.
But to the actual question, relevance to mainstream culture? I was toying with Tattoo You as the last time their was true musical relevance, which I think is right. But as far as mainstream culture is concerned, are we not forgetting the licks logo? Can you go anywhere and not see it?
The tongue and the tours. As far as 'mainstream culture' is concerned, that they are still relevant is somewhat unbelievable.
What happens to any city in the world that is a stop on a Stones tour? They are on every news cast and 'the thing' to do that night and what people talk about that week.
That's relevance to mainstream culture.
While the 60s and 70s music will be their great legacy, I think they'll also have an enduring legacy for their tours and that endurance, playing at a high level into their 80s.
That legacy is almost as powerful as the music they created in their first 10 years.
Personally it happened just after Mick sold out, mid 80s.
Since after the 81' / 82' tour Mick kept looking at other artists to base himself on, he need not have bothered because the Stones were more important than Bowie, Prince, Sting, Stewart, Plant and all the rest of the young pretenders put together.
Unfortunately after the 80s sell outs and embarrassments the Stones were never going to be anything more than a parody, they became a great Stones cover band, you know the type of band that can copy cat really well but you just know they couldn't write the hits that the real Stones could.
Ah, oops.
This is really a great thread and very thought provoking. From my perspective, the Stones (and certainly the Beatles in the 60's) were the movers and shakers in the 60's and 70's. After Tattoo You and the big hit Start Me Up, the Stones were more followers and even though they came back and reunited for a successful Steel Wheels tour, this was the real beginning of what I would consider to be capitalizing on their legacy, building of the brand and solidifying their status as a concert attraction. Don't get me wrong, this is not a dig, because very few musical artists can maintain that level of artistic relevancy.
Think about it, many groups during rock's greatest years were one hit wonders who came and went. Given people's attention spans (especially today with an abundance of so many social media platforms) If you lasted five years in the spotlight as a performing artist, that was something. The fact that the Rolling Stones dominated during the 1960's and 70's is astounding! Like how many artists can be that prolific and maintain that high standard that the Stones achieved during their heyday? Many musical artists would give their left nut to have the catalogue of songs that the Stones possess in their arsenal!
Overall, the Stones solidified their importance to mainstream culture a while ago, through their music, fashion industry (tongue logo), and the arts (movies).
Another factor that does not get touched upon often enough that the general concert goer is not even aware of is how the Stones revolutionized and changed the concert business-and I don't mean just during the Michael Cohl years. It goes farther back to the time the Stones returned to America on the '69 tour. Prior to '69, there was no staging, props, lighting effects, even public address systems in arenas across America were woefully inadequate and designed primarily for sporting events rather than concerts. When the Stones returned to the concert stage in 1969, they utilized their own lighting designer, brought in their own PA system, chose their own opening acts, etc. Their shows became spectacles with high production values. The Stones and their vision changed expectations as to what a rock and roll show should be like and essentially created the template that many artists copied.
Talk about relevance to mainstream culture! lol...
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2023-08-01 06:51 by Sighunt.
I think the Stones contribution to the concert industry cannot be understated. Prior to their '69 tour, the arenas in the 1960's werent suited or equipped for rock concerts. The Stones and their organization were such forward thinkers that they not only changed how rock concerts were presented, but it allowed them to launch even greater and bigger spectacles over the years. Also the model the Stones used for the 69 tour changed the way rock shows were financed (in order to make a profit) which many big artists copied.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-08-01 06:53 by Sighunt.
It's just a brand like Nike or Reebok, the kids don't know it's a band
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-07-31 20:12 by NilsHolgersson.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: When did the music of The Rolling Stones lose its relevance to mainstream culture?
Posted by:
georgelicks
()
Date: July 29, 2023 03:25
The only way to stay on the radar is to release new music, the Stones stayed on that radar until 1997, new music since then has been very sporadic (1 album of original material in 25 years and a handful of singles every 5-7-8 years), it's hard to be on radio/TV competing with new artists who are 20 years old releasing so little new material, it's impossible in fact.
Taylor Swift, the hot act at the moment, released over 70 new songs during the last 3 years, that's more than the amount of new stuff released by the Stones since 1991.
Taylor Swift, the hot act at the moment, released over 70 new songs during the last 3 years, that's more than the amount of new stuff released by the Stones since 1991.
Re: When did the music of The Rolling Stones lose its relevance to mainstream culture?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: July 29, 2023 04:07
1973.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-07-29 04:08 by Doxa.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-07-29 04:08 by Doxa.
Re: When did the music of The Rolling Stones lose its relevance to mainstream culture?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: July 29, 2023 04:13
Quote
swiss
We felt at the time it was Goat's Head Soup. The Satanic imagery was trying too hard to be "bad," as well as pushing "Dancing with Mr D" on the radio (which took off, to use a Keithism, like a lead balloon), few people were into it at the time--in terms of mainstream popular culture--except for Angie, and in those days many people would happily tune into (and buy) singles or buy an album for one single and not listen to much of the rest of the album.
The album at that time felt disjointed and, as a whole, not like the Stones were on their game. For many Exile was too long and diffuse, but it had enough hits/singles and danceable numbers to make it an interesting album. A friend who is 10 years older than me and attended Stones early shows in NY and Jacksonville FL said for many Exile was seen as a cynical bummer and a turn-off, but I wasn't tuned into that because I was too young. But I was aware when Goats Head Soup was released and being promoted. My brother was teased by his friends for being a sucker for buying it, and he gave it to me (6 years younger) in embarrassment instead of throwing it away. I listened to it a lot, and liked some of it, but was aware it wasn't as extroverted an album as earlier albums. (I grew to like it a lot over the years)
So, I would say GHS. And then came Black & Blue--and my next closest in age brother bought it, and he hated it, and also gave it to me (some kids got hand-me-down clothes; having brothers I only got--and loved--hand me down albums). I loved Black & Blue's singles (played on AM radio a lot, which as an elementary school kid, hadn't graduated to FM yet), as well as Hand of Fate, Cherry O, etc.
From my perspective, at the time, the Stones rebounded into public mainstream view and popular acceptance with singles from IORR, with the title track getting enormous airplay on AM and FM, as well as the slithery ominous paranoic (but not cartoonish Satanism of GHS) Fingerprint File, and other toe-tappers and party/dance numbers, Ain't Too Proud to Beg, and Dance.
Interesting to see the range of perspectives here--some saying Some Girls was perceived to be relevant due to adoption of pseudo-punk and -disco. But in my world Some Girls was seen as irrelevant, culturally, except for the singles. The Stones were seen as old-hat, trying too hard to be current, and just not as interesting as the massive explosion of music that was happening and we were totally immersed in re: New Wave, Punk, Progressive, and early hip-hop (I lived in NYC and the punk/New Wave aesthetic were vibrantly ubiquitous and really exciting). The Stones seemed a nostalgia act at that point, to us. Not current--and a little embarrassing with the overtness, not the sexism per se, at that time, of the song "Some Girls," and uninteresting that it was "controversial," which at the time felt a little contrived (and I wonder, now, as I write, how much of it was contrived) like trying to recapture their former edge as cultural bad boys you wouldn't want your daughter to marry.
By that time (Some Girls), the band seemed like old men--like your uncles or something. Cool enough, and all, but not desirable in their current form.
But then--almost finished with this stream-of-consciousness--fast forward a bit, Tattoo You arrived. And that was a game-changer. Suddenly everybody was buying a Stones album again. The singles all were embraced and RELISHED and celebrated--but the album as a whole was seen as a WINNER. No more were these guys "trying" to do or be something, [again]. They actually were transcending age, and even genre, by spirited, really raw, but somehow sophisticated song after song. They sounded like no one else--once again--only them, but in this new form.
That entire ALBUM was played at parties, which hadn't happened in years. And interestingly, at least in my world, at this same time--due to the re-awareness of Stones and how exciting they could be, Exile, as an album (Side 1-3) was also suddenly being played at parties too.
That's my long download - great question!
-swiss
Excellent analysis! That's it.
- Doxa
Re: When did the music of The Rolling Stones lose its relevance to mainstream culture?
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: July 29, 2023 09:31
Quote
Britney
When did mainstream culture lose it's relevance to Stonesfans?
Every time I hear this “Relevance” thing I get a laugh- it reminds me of the old song “ trying to make it real,compared to what?
Im inclined to ask who’s judging? Relevance, hmmm strange word.relevant to some jerkoff teenager? Relevant to some clown sitting in front of a keyboard at a magazine.
What are the “relevant” bands of the 90s? Nirvana.ok, Nirvana.their biggest album sold about 10 million in the 90s. That ranks them about 14th for the decade behind the likes of Whitney Houston and Garth Brooks but “relevant”
Bands usually got about $1.50 per record then so they made what, 15 mil?
The Rolling Stones had the two biggest tours of the decade. Combined they grossed nearly one billion dollars.and you could do this with any decade.
So again, who’s calling the balls and strikes here? Because my first question to anyone talking “relevance” is -and you are who exactly? And you represent what again now?
Re: When did the music of The Rolling Stones lose its relevance to mainstream culture?
Posted by:
tiffanyblu
()
Date: July 29, 2023 09:45
Quote
lem motlowQuote
Britney
When did mainstream culture lose it's relevance to Stonesfans?
Every time I hear this “Relevance” thing I get a laugh- it reminds me of the old song “ trying to make it real,compared to what?
Im inclined to ask who’s judging? Relevance, hmmm strange word.relevant to some jerkoff teenager? Relevant to some clown sitting in front of a keyboard at a magazine.
What are the “relevant” bands of the 90s? Nirvana.ok, Nirvana.their biggest album sold about 10 million in the 90s. That ranks them about 14th for the decade behind the likes of Whitney Houston and Garth Brooks but “relevant”
Bands usually got about $1.50 per record then so they made what, 15 mil?
The Rolling Stones had the two biggest tours of the decade. Combined they grossed nearly one billion dollars.and you could do this with any decade.
So again, who’s calling the balls and strikes here? Because my first question to anyone talking “relevance” is -and you are who exactly? And you represent what again now?
True. But I also want to share my love of The Rolling Stones with others. Things change with time and new generations. What was mega popular at that time might seem a bit unrelevant today. It is also a matter of marketing and reputation. Stones where extremely strong until the late 90s, then it started to drop. Among my friends (a bit younger at least - I am 35) everyone is convinced that Queen is the biggest group ever and there music have become relevant again through the musical and the movie. When mentioned that Stones where part of the revolution of live music, performance etc people go like ”wow did not know that”. We can also see on streams that Stones are doing good but are behind groups like ACDC, Pink Floyd, Beatles and of course Queen (who has more than 3x the streams).
Back to my orginal point. I want them to be relevant. I want to share my love with others. A good album, a hit single? A tv-series. But I would love people around me to dig into the treasures of the Stones world.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-07-29 09:52 by tiffanyblu.
Re: When did the music of The Rolling Stones lose its relevance to mainstream culture?
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: July 29, 2023 10:31
First off tiffanyblu, you are adorable. The thing you need to realize is with the exception of AC/DC none of those bands you mentioned still exist.
When any artist is gone their legacy is picked over, lionized,mythologized,and basically made out to be more than they were.
Queen for instance were a great band. I saw them about six times between 76 and 80 and I think the worst seats I had were 10th row.
They weren’t in the Stones league.Freddie was a great singer but trying to pull off a blues, country or reggae forget it. No chance.
Great songs, but a Satisfaction, Jumping Jack Flash,Honky Tonk etc they didn’t have it.
The Stones will be fine, they were pulling down about 9 or 10 million a night on that last tour, I think that’s relevant enough for now.
When any artist is gone their legacy is picked over, lionized,mythologized,and basically made out to be more than they were.
Queen for instance were a great band. I saw them about six times between 76 and 80 and I think the worst seats I had were 10th row.
They weren’t in the Stones league.Freddie was a great singer but trying to pull off a blues, country or reggae forget it. No chance.
Great songs, but a Satisfaction, Jumping Jack Flash,Honky Tonk etc they didn’t have it.
The Stones will be fine, they were pulling down about 9 or 10 million a night on that last tour, I think that’s relevant enough for now.
Re: When did the music of The Rolling Stones lose its relevance to mainstream culture?
Posted by:
steffialicia
()
Date: July 29, 2023 14:19
I think a question about "relevance" is a young question. I'm sure the same question was asked about all the greats i.e. the Beatles, Sinatra, Bach, etc. Truly great music never loses its relevance. It will be heard and enjoyed forever.
Re: When did the music of The Rolling Stones lose its relevance to mainstream culture?
Posted by:
Putty
()
Date: July 29, 2023 14:38
I think the Stones lost some relevance as a band, but not as a brand.
In the fashion industry there are currently a few brands in cooperation
with the Stones putting out some really cool collections. Stones Inmmacultated,
Dsquared2, Sketchers, to name a few.
The Stones logo is everywhere.
People, kids wear Stones tees all over the world, and it’s cool to wear
young Mick on a retro tee shirt or the logo and so on.
Movies keep using their music. Louise Vuitton just had an incredible campaign
using She’s a Rainbow.
The Stones are present in culture, just in a different way. But they are still
icons of cool, legends with an aura of greatness beyond any rock band.
They are very present in our culture, just not relevant with new music .
But the brand has been managed perfectly, reason why their new album is not about sales, it’s about legacy, which puts more pressure on Mick. I think he understand this very well. The brand is what matters.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-07-29 14:40 by Putty.
In the fashion industry there are currently a few brands in cooperation
with the Stones putting out some really cool collections. Stones Inmmacultated,
Dsquared2, Sketchers, to name a few.
The Stones logo is everywhere.
People, kids wear Stones tees all over the world, and it’s cool to wear
young Mick on a retro tee shirt or the logo and so on.
Movies keep using their music. Louise Vuitton just had an incredible campaign
using She’s a Rainbow.
The Stones are present in culture, just in a different way. But they are still
icons of cool, legends with an aura of greatness beyond any rock band.
They are very present in our culture, just not relevant with new music .
But the brand has been managed perfectly, reason why their new album is not about sales, it’s about legacy, which puts more pressure on Mick. I think he understand this very well. The brand is what matters.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-07-29 14:40 by Putty.
Re: When did the music of The Rolling Stones lose its relevance to mainstream culture?
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: July 29, 2023 14:43
Quote
Putty
I think the Stones lost some relevance as a band, but not as a brand.
In the fashion industry there are currently a few brands in cooperation
with the Stones putting out some really cool collections. Stones Inmmacultated,
Dsquared2, Sketchers, to name a few.
The Stones logo is everywhere.
People, kids wear Stones tees all over the world, and it’s cool to wear
young Mick on a retro tee shirt or the logo and so on.
Movies keep using their music. Louise Vuitton just had an incredible campaign
using She’s a Rainbow.
The Stones are present in culture, just in a different way. But they are still
icons of cool, legends with an aura of greatness beyond any rock band.
They are very present in our culture, just not relevant with new music .
But the brand has been managed perfectly, reason why their new album is not about sales, it’s about legacy, which puts more pressure on Mick. I think he understand this very well. The brand is what matters.
Excellent post.
Re: When did the music of The Rolling Stones lose its relevance to mainstream culture?
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: July 29, 2023 17:03
The Steel Wheels tour was huge. They have never really lost relevance except after 1989 I don't think their new music resonates.
Re: The Rolling Stones relevance to mainstream culture
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: July 29, 2023 17:41
Some really good posts here, Swiss in particular. I thought I had to dig a trench for myself, expecting shelling from every corner. Of course you can question whether relevance is the right word here.
But then again you'll have to replace it with another word. Thanks, everyone.
But then again you'll have to replace it with another word. Thanks, everyone.
Re: The Rolling Stones relevance to mainstream culture
Posted by:
angee
()
Date: July 30, 2023 03:06
Lem, thank you for this:
""Every time I hear this “Relevance” thing I get a laugh- it reminds me of the old song “trying to make it real,compared to what?""
Great lyric and song. I know the Mose Allison version best, also played by Les McCann and Eddie Harris.
~"Love is Strong"~
""Every time I hear this “Relevance” thing I get a laugh- it reminds me of the old song “trying to make it real,compared to what?""
Great lyric and song. I know the Mose Allison version best, also played by Les McCann and Eddie Harris.
~"Love is Strong"~
Re: When did the music of The Rolling Stones lose its relevance to mainstream culture?
Posted by:
tomcat2006
()
Date: July 30, 2023 11:53
Quote
TeaAtThree
As a recording act, I'd agree that Undercover and the video for the song Undercover were the last moments of relevance. The long layoff to the disappointing Dirty Work and then another three years for Steel Wheels meant they fell off the radar.
As a concert draw, again a long layoff from '82 to '89 meant they were in "comeback" mode, which is a step removed from contemporary relevance, even though the tour was a smash and established a whole new stadium paradigm. Then, another five year layoff to Voodoo Lounge and tour.
My two cents.
T@3
Sounds spot on to me
Re: The Rolling Stones relevance to mainstream culture
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: July 30, 2023 13:05
Quote
Stoneage
Some really good posts here, Swiss in particular. I thought I had to dig a trench for myself, expecting shelling from every corner. Of course you can question whether relevance is the right word here.
But then again you'll have to replace it with another word. Thanks, everyone.
It is a good question, and so damn good replies here. I think the term 'relevance' is problematic, and even more is if is further defined by 'mainstream'. The thing is that the Stones have probably always been a mainstream act if any rock band ever been. They have always sold much albums and their tours been incredible by success. And although they have not charmed that much teenage hearts for ages, they still pretty much define what a mainstream rock act is. They are the biggest. Of course, the whole rock genre is not mainstream among the youth any longer, but that is another issue.
But the 'relevance' is something else. I take that something to do with being on the nerve of the times, and the latter is defined what the young people are up to. The latter has not necessarily to do with sheer popularity. I mean, Elvis, Sinatra and The Stones sold more records than The Sex Pistols or The Clash did at their prime (during the late 70's, that is), but can we really say those old acts were as relevant to the times as the latter ones were? You know, when the culture historians are writing the zeitgeist of the late 70's, you know, what novel was going on, it will be determined by such punk acts, since that was the new 'hot' thing at the time. No matter how great album SOME GIRLS is, selling millions and it had a huge mainstream disco hit, it is not NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS. I know, since as a young kid, I was there. Then again, years later, "Smells Like Teen Spirit" made only #6 in Billboard, but today it is an anthem of the era, and the most streamed singular song from the whole 90's.
I am not sure, but I hope I made some sense...
- Doxa
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2023-07-30 13:13 by Doxa.
Re: When did the music of The Rolling Stones lose its relevance to mainstream culture?
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: July 30, 2023 15:01
Quote
lem motlow
The Rolling Stones had the two biggest tours of the decade. Combined they grossed nearly one billion dollars.and you could do this with any decade.
You are right but that is the kiss of death for the band as a creative entity. If live shows are your main source of income why bother releasing a new album? You will have to play 4-5 tracks off it and unevitably peoples faces will go "ugh" because 90% of them will not know these new songs.
Otoh if you play it safe and built your setlists around 30 classic songs everyone knows you know your gigs will go smoothly.
Re: The Rolling Stones relevance to mainstream culture
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: July 30, 2023 16:32
You did, Doxa. I got you.
Re: The Rolling Stones relevance to mainstream culture
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: July 30, 2023 17:02
Quote
DoxaQuote
Stoneage
Some really good posts here, Swiss in particular. I thought I had to dig a trench for myself, expecting shelling from every corner. Of course you can question whether relevance is the right word here.
But then again you'll have to replace it with another word. Thanks, everyone.
It is a good question, and so damn good replies here. I think the term 'relevance' is problematic, and even more is if is further defined by 'mainstream'. The thing is that the Stones have probably always been a mainstream act if any rock band ever been. They have always sold much albums and their tours been incredible by success. And although they have not charmed that much teenage hearts for ages, they still pretty much define what a mainstream rock act is. They are the biggest. Of course, the whole rock genre is not mainstream among the youth any longer, but that is another issue.
But the 'relevance' is something else. I take that something to do with being on the nerve of the times, and the latter is defined what the young people are up to. The latter has not necessarily to do with sheer popularity. I mean, Elvis, Sinatra and The Stones sold more records than The Sex Pistols or The Clash did at their prime (during the late 70's, that is), but can we really say those old acts were as relevant to the times as the latter ones were? You know, when the culture historians are writing the zeitgeist of the late 70's, you know, what novel was going on, it will be determined by such punk acts, since that was the new 'hot' thing at the time. No matter how great album SOME GIRLS is, selling millions and it had a huge mainstream disco hit, it is not NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS. I know, since as a young kid, I was there. Then again, years later, "Smells Like Teen Spirit" made only #6 in Billboard, but today it is an anthem of the era, and the most streamed singular song from the whole 90's.
I am not sure, but I hope I made some sense...
- Doxa
Well if you hold out that high a standard, peak moments from an era, then you'd go to 1969 and Altamont, which is the flipside of Woodstock. That would be the last time their was an actual societal affect.
But to the actual question, relevance to mainstream culture? I was toying with Tattoo You as the last time their was true musical relevance, which I think is right. But as far as mainstream culture is concerned, are we not forgetting the licks logo? Can you go anywhere and not see it?
The tongue and the tours. As far as 'mainstream culture' is concerned, that they are still relevant is somewhat unbelievable.
What happens to any city in the world that is a stop on a Stones tour? They are on every news cast and 'the thing' to do that night and what people talk about that week.
That's relevance to mainstream culture.
Re: The Rolling Stones relevance to mainstream culture
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: July 30, 2023 17:19
Sure Treaclefingers, you have a good point there. But I think BV has shortened my initial question - which had an emphasis on the m-u-s-i-c of the Rolling Stones. Particularly the new music.
I added the element of time. Their legacy is unquestionable - I think no one is questioning that.
I added the element of time. Their legacy is unquestionable - I think no one is questioning that.
Re: The Rolling Stones relevance to mainstream culture
Posted by:
georgie48
()
Date: July 30, 2023 18:29
Mainstream ??? When I read that word I see a shepherd followed by thousands of sheep.
The "problem" with the Rolling Stones is that they, right from the start, were never really part of "mainstream" of any kind. My parents generation hated the Stones right from the beginning, when they became internationally sort of known, because they didn't line up with .... mainstream. Even many kids from my generation detested the Rolling Stones because of their looks, noisy music, etc. That makes them special. It would not have suited them one bit if they would have been important for "mainstream". How boring it is to be one of those thousands of above mentioned sheep.
It often looks good to follow a interesting brand, but when millions do so, people become eager to look for "another interesting (new?) brand, etc.
Mainstream is good for business, not for individual happiness. No thanks.
I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-07-30 19:26 by georgie48.
The "problem" with the Rolling Stones is that they, right from the start, were never really part of "mainstream" of any kind. My parents generation hated the Stones right from the beginning, when they became internationally sort of known, because they didn't line up with .... mainstream. Even many kids from my generation detested the Rolling Stones because of their looks, noisy music, etc. That makes them special. It would not have suited them one bit if they would have been important for "mainstream". How boring it is to be one of those thousands of above mentioned sheep.
It often looks good to follow a interesting brand, but when millions do so, people become eager to look for "another interesting (new?) brand, etc.
Mainstream is good for business, not for individual happiness. No thanks.
I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-07-30 19:26 by georgie48.
Re: The Rolling Stones relevance to mainstream culture
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: July 30, 2023 19:04
What a great thread. Because of the many excellent replies, I realize that the answer/assessment is subjective. There is no blanket statement.
Loved what swiss said, and I had followed a very similar pattern, but came out of it with differing feelings. I was living in NYC during 'Some Girls' and was a Punk through and through. The Stones album was 100% embraced with us. Again, just IMO, we saw them (and the Dolls) as the true groundbreakers.
To me 'Start me Up' was almost too big. That is when they got swept up by the mainstream. I did not see it then; same with the big come-back tour of 'Steel Wheels'.
But in a way they lost a lot of their edge when Jagger and co took over. When Keith quit fighting him, and started reading too much of their press.
I do believe a huge part of their success can be attributed to their various live show eras. While'Exile' may not have been huge at time of release, the 72 tour was the event of the pop culture in '72.
The myth of Keith's Blind Date, and the crazy '78 tour, the SNl performance kept them on the cutting edge.
'Steel Wheels' pretty much wrote the book for stadium rock of today. And I don't think 'B2B' would have made any kind of splash without those great, great tours behind it. '97-99', while still gave us some surprises.
Edt - sorry, I didn't even answer question. To me it stopped mattering in '99. Am I mainstream culture? I hope not. But they still matter b/c now they are a brand.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-07-30 19:06 by Palace Revolution 2000.
Loved what swiss said, and I had followed a very similar pattern, but came out of it with differing feelings. I was living in NYC during 'Some Girls' and was a Punk through and through. The Stones album was 100% embraced with us. Again, just IMO, we saw them (and the Dolls) as the true groundbreakers.
To me 'Start me Up' was almost too big. That is when they got swept up by the mainstream. I did not see it then; same with the big come-back tour of 'Steel Wheels'.
But in a way they lost a lot of their edge when Jagger and co took over. When Keith quit fighting him, and started reading too much of their press.
I do believe a huge part of their success can be attributed to their various live show eras. While'Exile' may not have been huge at time of release, the 72 tour was the event of the pop culture in '72.
The myth of Keith's Blind Date, and the crazy '78 tour, the SNl performance kept them on the cutting edge.
'Steel Wheels' pretty much wrote the book for stadium rock of today. And I don't think 'B2B' would have made any kind of splash without those great, great tours behind it. '97-99', while still gave us some surprises.
Edt - sorry, I didn't even answer question. To me it stopped mattering in '99. Am I mainstream culture? I hope not. But they still matter b/c now they are a brand.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-07-30 19:06 by Palace Revolution 2000.
Re: The Rolling Stones relevance to mainstream culture
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: July 30, 2023 23:23
Quote
Stoneage
Sure Treaclefingers, you have a good point there. But I think BV has shortened my initial question - which had an emphasis on the m-u-s-i-c of the Rolling Stones. Particularly the new music.
I added the element of time. Their legacy is unquestionable - I think no one is questioning that.
While the 60s and 70s music will be their great legacy, I think they'll also have an enduring legacy for their tours and that endurance, playing at a high level into their 80s.
That legacy is almost as powerful as the music they created in their first 10 years.
Re: The Rolling Stones relevance to mainstream culture
Posted by:
keefriffhards
()
Date: July 30, 2023 23:46
Quote
Stoneage
When did the music of The Rolling Stones lose its relevance to mainstream culture?
No, I don't mean the old hits, the warhorses, - they will never lose their relevance. I mean when did the new music of the Rolling Stones start to lose its grip on the mainstream audience?
Some say in 1981 when their last big hit, Start Me Up, was released. Some say in 1972 already when the last of the "big four" albums was released (Exile On Main Street).
Some say it has never lost its relevance. What are your thoughts about this? Is it even a subject open for debate or should we cancel it the bud?
Personally it happened just after Mick sold out, mid 80s.
Since after the 81' / 82' tour Mick kept looking at other artists to base himself on, he need not have bothered because the Stones were more important than Bowie, Prince, Sting, Stewart, Plant and all the rest of the young pretenders put together.
Unfortunately after the 80s sell outs and embarrassments the Stones were never going to be anything more than a parody, they became a great Stones cover band, you know the type of band that can copy cat really well but you just know they couldn't write the hits that the real Stones could.
Re: The Rolling Stones relevance to mainstream culture
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: July 31, 2023 14:47
My point of view is that they are completely integrated in to mainstream culture. Their past and present influencing it, influenced by it, completely entangled in the fabric of it all. They are everywhere, in art, music, photography, film, social media etc etc.
Mainstream is the important distinction. In the past they were more part of youth culture and/or counter-culture as it was. That slowly became mainstream culture. I think this shift is what people are seeing as a move in to irrelevance, when, perhaps, it's more a case of The Rolling Stones way of doing things became more and more accepted, integrated, assimilated in to mainstream culture.
I'd say they are on the outside of current youth and counter-culture, but still influencing it somewhat simply because they are everywhere. I think most of us are just too old to have any real grasp on what youth and counter culture is now though.
In short, along with many others, The Rolling Stones are mainstream culture.
Mainstream is the important distinction. In the past they were more part of youth culture and/or counter-culture as it was. That slowly became mainstream culture. I think this shift is what people are seeing as a move in to irrelevance, when, perhaps, it's more a case of The Rolling Stones way of doing things became more and more accepted, integrated, assimilated in to mainstream culture.
I'd say they are on the outside of current youth and counter-culture, but still influencing it somewhat simply because they are everywhere. I think most of us are just too old to have any real grasp on what youth and counter culture is now though.
In short, along with many others, The Rolling Stones are mainstream culture.
Re: The Rolling Stones relevance to mainstream culture
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: July 31, 2023 14:56
Quote
Stoneage
Sure Treaclefingers, you have a good point there. But I think BV has shortened my initial question - which had an emphasis on the m-u-s-i-c of the Rolling Stones. Particularly the new music.
I added the element of time. Their legacy is unquestionable - I think no one is questioning that.
Ah, oops.
Re: The Rolling Stones relevance to mainstream culture
Posted by:
Sighunt
()
Date: July 31, 2023 16:20
Quote
Stoneage
When did the music of The Rolling Stones lose its relevance to mainstream culture?
No, I don't mean the old hits, the warhorses, - they will never lose their relevance. I mean when did the new music of the Rolling Stones start to lose its grip on the mainstream audience?
This is really a great thread and very thought provoking. From my perspective, the Stones (and certainly the Beatles in the 60's) were the movers and shakers in the 60's and 70's. After Tattoo You and the big hit Start Me Up, the Stones were more followers and even though they came back and reunited for a successful Steel Wheels tour, this was the real beginning of what I would consider to be capitalizing on their legacy, building of the brand and solidifying their status as a concert attraction. Don't get me wrong, this is not a dig, because very few musical artists can maintain that level of artistic relevancy.
Think about it, many groups during rock's greatest years were one hit wonders who came and went. Given people's attention spans (especially today with an abundance of so many social media platforms) If you lasted five years in the spotlight as a performing artist, that was something. The fact that the Rolling Stones dominated during the 1960's and 70's is astounding! Like how many artists can be that prolific and maintain that high standard that the Stones achieved during their heyday? Many musical artists would give their left nut to have the catalogue of songs that the Stones possess in their arsenal!
Overall, the Stones solidified their importance to mainstream culture a while ago, through their music, fashion industry (tongue logo), and the arts (movies).
Another factor that does not get touched upon often enough that the general concert goer is not even aware of is how the Stones revolutionized and changed the concert business-and I don't mean just during the Michael Cohl years. It goes farther back to the time the Stones returned to America on the '69 tour. Prior to '69, there was no staging, props, lighting effects, even public address systems in arenas across America were woefully inadequate and designed primarily for sporting events rather than concerts. When the Stones returned to the concert stage in 1969, they utilized their own lighting designer, brought in their own PA system, chose their own opening acts, etc. Their shows became spectacles with high production values. The Stones and their vision changed expectations as to what a rock and roll show should be like and essentially created the template that many artists copied.
Talk about relevance to mainstream culture! lol...
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2023-08-01 06:51 by Sighunt.
Re: The Rolling Stones relevance to mainstream culture
Posted by:
Koen
()
Date: July 31, 2023 16:50
I haven’t seen so many people wearing the tongue logo! So they still must be relevant.
Re: The Rolling Stones relevance to mainstream culture
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: July 31, 2023 16:55
Thanks for your comment, Sighunt. You have some valid points there. I don't think the Rolling Stones changed the technology of rock/pop concerts though.
I think that would have happened anyway regardless of them. They were one of the pioneers in that respect though.
I think that would have happened anyway regardless of them. They were one of the pioneers in that respect though.
Re: The Rolling Stones relevance to mainstream culture
Posted by:
Sighunt
()
Date: July 31, 2023 18:45
Quote
Stoneage
Thanks for your comment, Sighunt. You have some valid points there. I don't think the Rolling Stones changed the technology of rock/pop concerts though.
I think that would have happened anyway regardless of them. They were one of the pioneers in that respect though.
I think the Stones contribution to the concert industry cannot be understated. Prior to their '69 tour, the arenas in the 1960's werent suited or equipped for rock concerts. The Stones and their organization were such forward thinkers that they not only changed how rock concerts were presented, but it allowed them to launch even greater and bigger spectacles over the years. Also the model the Stones used for the 69 tour changed the way rock shows were financed (in order to make a profit) which many big artists copied.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-08-01 06:53 by Sighunt.
Re: The Rolling Stones relevance to mainstream culture
Posted by:
NilsHolgersson
()
Date: July 31, 2023 20:11
Quote
Koen
I haven’t seen so many people wearing the tongue logo! So they still must be relevant.
It's just a brand like Nike or Reebok, the kids don't know it's a band
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-07-31 20:12 by NilsHolgersson.
Re: The Rolling Stones relevance to mainstream culture
Posted by:
Hound Dog
()
Date: July 31, 2023 21:14
But line no rock music is relevant to mainstream music today. Pop music is, and what they call country today is pop music. If you look at someone like Taylor Swift, she doesn't play one instrument on her albums. And she doesn't write songs by herself... Many will not believe this but its true see here..
[en.wikipedia.org]
I have even heard people say that these artists are also using AI. I am just hoping for a Stones album that I enjoy, don't care what the mainstream says or thinks.
[en.wikipedia.org]
I have even heard people say that these artists are also using AI. I am just hoping for a Stones album that I enjoy, don't care what the mainstream says or thinks.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
alexander paul , DEmerson , Fletchesus , jimpietryga1 , keefmick , livefromuk , makemeburnthecandle , Martin90 , mmarloe , monkeymantoo , [email protected] , More Hot Rocks , Nankstone , nbutton , NedKellyBandit , PaintMonkeyManBlack , perkmo , Rockfirexxl , StonedRambler , timmyj3
Guests:
1985
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10