Quote
ProfessorWolf
there fine as a live act seriously how much better could you excect a band whose primary members are in there eighties to sound then they did last year

there better then any cover/tribute band i've seen doing there songs even if they do play the songs technically better it doesn't sound like the stones

when mick, keith and ronnie are dead and gone nobody will ever sound exactly like this ever again





they are irreplaceable

Given the prices they charge, their advanced ages cannot be used to excuse the ordinariness of their performing standards. If you put yourself out there expect to be judged by how well you perform. Not by how old you are. Gazing on a group of old men drifting through broadly the same set list, tour after tour, does not cut it for me. I am long past the stage of being excited by simply being in the presence of The Stones.

Are The Stones irreplacable? Certainly not. Others will disagree of course. Fair enough. But for me they reached their sell-by date decades ago. Yes there have been a few last hurrahs - Hackney Diamonds had a few moments. Lonesome & Blue had rather more moments. Ghost Town was decent enough. But there were not nearly enough to make their presence in my life something irreplacable.

So sad!

Quote
24FPS
Hackney Diamonds is great. I know because I'm still playing it every few weeks. I've played it many more times than Voodoo/Babylon/Bang combined. I'm so glad they finally got the bass right, after years of non-consequential bottom to the band. My god, how could anyone grouse about McCartney and Bill Wyman on the same record? Plus Keith on Angry, and Ronnie on a cut too. I really thought Blue and Lonesome was going to be their swan song.

As a live act they haven't cut it in a long time. At least not like the band from 1999 and before. They certainly aren't worth mortgaging your house to see them bang out their Greatest Hits. I know the day isn't far off when they'll finally end. I'll just be grateful for the late one/two combo of El Mocambo and Hackney Diamonds.

There is no big deal about McCartney and Wyman being on the same record with their phoned-in performances. I doubt they were even in the studio, but rather had their contributions added electronically from remote locations. As for Keith and Ronnie being on various tracks, I would expect nothing less. The are, after all, members of the band..!!!

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
ProfessorWolf
there fine as a live act seriously how much better could you excect a band whose primary members are in there eighties to sound then they did last year

there better then any cover/tribute band i've seen doing there songs even if they do play the songs technically better it doesn't sound like the stones

when mick, keith and ronnie are dead and gone nobody will ever sound exactly like this ever again





they are irreplaceable

Given the prices they charge, their advanced ages cannot be used to excuse the ordinariness of their performing standards. If you put yourself out there expect to be judged by how well you perform. Not by how old you are. Gazing on a group of old men drifting through broadly the same set list, tour after tour, does not cut it for me. I am long past the stage of being excited by simply being in the presence of The Stones.

Are The Stones irreplacable? Certainly not. Others will disagree of course. Fair enough. But for me they reached their sell-by date decades ago. Yes there have been a few last hurrahs - Hackney Diamonds had a few moments. Lonesome & Blue had rather more moments. Ghost Town was decent enough. But there were not nearly enough to make their presence in my life something irreplacable.

So sad!

your entitled to your opinion and i respect that

but i was not trying to excuse there performance because of there age but saying they exceed my expectations of what people there age should be able to do

i honestly believed they performed very well last year regardless of there ages

yes diminished from there prime but still good (and irreplaceable to me)

i agree with you that blue & lonesome had more moments then hackney diamonds which i personally don't think is any better or worse then anything else since steel wheels

my stones are the band i discovered when i was sixteen in 2007 from my mom's childhood copies of between the buttons, flowers and buying my first new album by them a bigger bang

to me there still that band who recorded a bigger bang (or close enough) and i'm okay with that but if i had had live with them as a fan from the 60's - 70's onward maybe i would have a different opinion

If The Rolling Stones were a Gaussian curve I would put the local maxima between 1968 and 1972 and the local minima at 1964 and 1982. That was the period when they shot to fame and their output really mattered. After that their musical output mattered less and less but their tours were more and more successful. I kind of view it as sow and reap. To narrow it down even more I would say their defining years were between 1964 and 1972.

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
24FPS
Hackney Diamonds is great. I know because I'm still playing it every few weeks. I've played it many more times than Voodoo/Babylon/Bang combined. I'm so glad they finally got the bass right, after years of non-consequential bottom to the band. My god, how could anyone grouse about McCartney and Bill Wyman on the same record? Plus Keith on Angry, and Ronnie on a cut too. I really thought Blue and Lonesome was going to be their swan song.

As a live act they haven't cut it in a long time. At least not like the band from 1999 and before. They certainly aren't worth mortgaging your house to see them bang out their Greatest Hits. I know the day isn't far off when they'll finally end. I'll just be grateful for the late one/two combo of El Mocambo and Hackney Diamonds.

There is no big deal about McCartney and Wyman being on the same record with their phoned-in performances. I doubt they were even in the studio, but rather had their contributions added electronically from remote locations. As for Keith and Ronnie being on various tracks, I would expect nothing less. The are, after all, members of the band..!!!

McCartney was in the studio with The Rolling Stones.

Wyman's playing was overdubbed in London, with Andrew Watt there.

Elton John was in the studio with The Rolling Stones.

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
ProfessorWolf
there fine as a live act seriously how much better could you excect a band whose primary members are in there eighties to sound then they did last year

there better then any cover/tribute band i've seen doing there songs even if they do play the songs technically better it doesn't sound like the stones

when mick, keith and ronnie are dead and gone nobody will ever sound exactly like this ever again





they are irreplaceable

Given the prices they charge, their advanced ages cannot be used to excuse the ordinariness of their performing standards. If you put yourself out there expect to be judged by how well you perform. Not by how old you are. Gazing on a group of old men drifting through broadly the same set list, tour after tour, does not cut it for me. I am long past the stage of being excited by simply being in the presence of The Stones.

Are The Stones irreplacable? Certainly not. Others will disagree of course. Fair enough. But for me they reached their sell-by date decades ago. Yes there have been a few last hurrahs - Hackney Diamonds had a few moments. Lonesome & Blue had rather more moments. Ghost Town was decent enough. But there were not nearly enough to make their presence in my life something irreplacable.

So sad!

your entitled to your opinion and i respect that

but i was not trying to excuse there performance because of there age but saying they exceed my expectations of what people there age should be able to do

i honestly believed they performed very well last year regardless of there ages

yes diminished from there prime but still good (and irreplaceable to me)

i agree with you that blue & lonesome had more moments then hackney diamonds which i personally don't think is any better or worse then anything else since steel wheels

my stones are the band i discovered when i was sixteen in 2007 from my mom's childhood copies of between the buttons, flowers and buying my first new album by them a bigger bang

to me there still that band who recorded a bigger bang (or close enough) and i'm okay with that but if i had had live with them as a fan from the 60's - 70's onward maybe i would have a different opinion

Erudite and gracious comments sir. I respect what you have said in response to me AND how you have set out the context. Needless to say as a fellow Stones fan I welcome any and all comments from those of a similar persuasion whether they began their journey in 1964 like I did or much much later like yourself. Heaven help us all if everyone on this forum was as old, opinionated and grumpy as myself.

And I totally agree with your views re. Hackney Diamonds and how it stacks up against everything from Steel Wheels onwards.


...Come on along you can lose your lead. Down the road, down the road, down the road apiece..

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
24FPS
Hackney Diamonds is great. I know because I'm still playing it every few weeks. I've played it many more times than Voodoo/Babylon/Bang combined. I'm so glad they finally got the bass right, after years of non-consequential bottom to the band. My god, how could anyone grouse about McCartney and Bill Wyman on the same record? Plus Keith on Angry, and Ronnie on a cut too. I really thought Blue and Lonesome was going to be their swan song.

As a live act they haven't cut it in a long time. At least not like the band from 1999 and before. They certainly aren't worth mortgaging your house to see them bang out their Greatest Hits. I know the day isn't far off when they'll finally end. I'll just be grateful for the late one/two combo of El Mocambo and Hackney Diamonds.

There is no big deal about McCartney and Wyman being on the same record with their phoned-in performances. I doubt they were even in the studio, but rather had their contributions added electronically from remote locations. As for Keith and Ronnie being on various tracks, I would expect nothing less. The are, after all, members of the band..!!!

McCartney was in the studio with The Rolling Stones.

Wyman's playing was overdubbed in London, with Andrew Watt there.

Elton John was in the studio with The Rolling Stones.

Thank you. Very much appreciated. I'm really pleased to hear PM and EJ were there in person. Call me old fashioned (many do) but I still think that human contact is important where recording is concerned. My opinion of HD remains as it was, but somehow I feel just a little warmer towards it..

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
24FPS
Hackney Diamonds is great. I know because I'm still playing it every few weeks. I've played it many more times than Voodoo/Babylon/Bang combined. I'm so glad they finally got the bass right, after years of non-consequential bottom to the band. My god, how could anyone grouse about McCartney and Bill Wyman on the same record? Plus Keith on Angry, and Ronnie on a cut too. I really thought Blue and Lonesome was going to be their swan song.

As a live act they haven't cut it in a long time. At least not like the band from 1999 and before. They certainly aren't worth mortgaging your house to see them bang out their Greatest Hits. I know the day isn't far off when they'll finally end. I'll just be grateful for the late one/two combo of El Mocambo and Hackney Diamonds.

There is no big deal about McCartney and Wyman being on the same record with their phoned-in performances. I doubt they were even in the studio, but rather had their contributions added electronically from remote locations. As for Keith and Ronnie being on various tracks, I would expect nothing less. The are, after all, members of the band..!!!

McCartney was in the studio with The Rolling Stones.

Wyman's playing was overdubbed in London, with Andrew Watt there.

Elton John was in the studio with The Rolling Stones.

Thank you. Very much appreciated. I'm really pleased to hear PM and EJ were there in person. Call me old fashioned (many do) but I still think that human contact is important where recording is concerned. My opinion of HD remains as it was, but somehow I feel just a little warmer towards it..

from what i understand short of the two tracks with charlie everything on hackney diamonds was recorded quickly with most of them in the same room

Quote
GerardHennessy
Erudite and gracious comments sir. I respect what you have said in response to me AND how you have set out the context. Needless to say as a fellow Stones fan I welcome any and all comments from those of a similar persuasion whether they began their journey in 1964 like I did or much much later like yourself. Heaven help us all if everyone on this forum was as old, opinionated and grumpy as myself.

And I totally agree with your views re. Hackney Diamonds and how it stacks up against everything from Steel Wheels onwards.


...Come on along you can lose your lead. Down the road, down the road, down the road apiece..

1964?

jeez that's incredible most of the older fans here seem to have come in around the early to late 70's not the early 60's your like a unicorn

and it does certainly help my understand your perspective better

gotta ask when you first saw a show almost nobody is left here who saw them with brian

i personally am glad there's a lot of older fans on here it be weird and boring if we were all of the same age and mind on the band

as far as steel wheels onward goes i love them all and hackney diamonds but the stones are a blues band at heart (a very good one) and if your a fan of the genre and can't enjoy an album worth of them playing gritty blues basically live in the studio i do find it a little odd

is it a grand artistic achievement like exile no but its a damn good time

could have better sound quality though

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
ProfessorWolf
there fine as a live act seriously how much better could you excect a band whose primary members are in there eighties to sound then they did last year

there better then any cover/tribute band i've seen doing there songs even if they do play the songs technically better it doesn't sound like the stones

when mick, keith and ronnie are dead and gone nobody will ever sound exactly like this ever again





they are irreplaceable

Given the prices they charge, their advanced ages cannot be used to excuse the ordinariness of their performing standards. If you put yourself out there expect to be judged by how well you perform. Not by how old you are. Gazing on a group of old men drifting through broadly the same set list, tour after tour, does not cut it for me. I am long past the stage of being excited by simply being in the presence of The Stones.

Are The Stones irreplacable? Certainly not. Others will disagree of course. Fair enough. But for me they reached their sell-by date decades ago. Yes there have been a few last hurrahs - Hackney Diamonds had a few moments. Lonesome & Blue had rather more moments. Ghost Town was decent enough. But there were not nearly enough to make their presence in my life something irreplacable.

So sad!

They are irreplaceable, and have been since 1962.
So happy.

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
GerardHennessy
Erudite and gracious comments sir. I respect what you have said in response to me AND how you have set out the context. Needless to say as a fellow Stones fan I welcome any and all comments from those of a similar persuasion whether they began their journey in 1964 like I did or much much later like yourself. Heaven help us all if everyone on this forum was as old, opinionated and grumpy as myself.

And I totally agree with your views re. Hackney Diamonds and how it stacks up against everything from Steel Wheels onwards.


...Come on along you can lose your lead. Down the road, down the road, down the road apiece..

1964?

jeez that's incredible most of the older fans here seem to have come in around the early to late 70's not the early 60's your like a unicorn

and it does certainly help my understand your perspective better

gotta ask when you first saw a show almost nobody is left here who saw them with brian

i personally am glad there's a lot of older fans on here it be weird and boring if we were all of the same age and mind on the band

as far as steel wheels onward goes i love them all and hackney diamonds but the stones are a blues band at heart (a very good one) and if your a fan of the genre and can't enjoy an album worth of them playing gritty blues basically live in the studio i do find it a little odd

is it a grand artistic achievement like exile no but its a damn good time

could have better sound quality though

Thank you very much. I appreciate what you have said.

I did see The Stones in the Brian Jones years. Twice in fact. Once in 1965 in Ireland (I'm Irish) and again in 1966 in London. Both occasions happened to be in the month of September, but one year apart of course.

Back then the entire concert experience was completely different to today. The Stones were merely at the top of a bill of touring bands and at each concert played for little more than 25-30 minutes. Brian Jones really was the main man albeit he was the lead guitarist and not the singer. And he loved it too. The girls all flocked to his side of the stage, screaming his name and trying to touch him.

While both events were extraordinaily dramatic and exciting, the actual audio quality of the music was poor, and most of what The Stones played was drowned out by the screaming. In Ireland I could only make out three of the 10-11 numbers played - Off The Hook, Pain In My Heart and I'm Moving On. In London it was even worse and I failed to hear anything except Lady Jane and Satisfaction. Everything else was inaudible.

Incidentally in Ireland The Stones topped a bill which also included The Checkmates and a local band called The Banshees. In London both The Yardbirds with Jimmy Page and The Ike and Tina Turner Review also played .

Thase really were the days!

wow so you saw them on the tour of ireland that they filmed charlie is my darling

that's amazing

from you description of how it sound i guess the few audience recordings from the brian years are pretty accurate representations of how it sounded in person

thanks for sharing



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-03-17 05:13 by ProfessorWolf.

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
GerardHennessy

Quote
24FPS
Hackney Diamonds is great. I know because I'm still playing it every few weeks. I've played it many more times than Voodoo/Babylon/Bang combined. I'm so glad they finally got the bass right, after years of non-consequential bottom to the band. My god, how could anyone grouse about McCartney and Bill Wyman on the same record? Plus Keith on Angry, and Ronnie on a cut too. I really thought Blue and Lonesome was going to be their swan song.

As a live act they haven't cut it in a long time. At least not like the band from 1999 and before. They certainly aren't worth mortgaging your house to see them bang out their Greatest Hits. I know the day isn't far off when they'll finally end. I'll just be grateful for the late one/two combo of El Mocambo and Hackney Diamonds.

There is no big deal about McCartney and Wyman being on the same record with their phoned-in performances. I doubt they were even in the studio, but rather had their contributions added electronically from remote locations. As for Keith and Ronnie being on various tracks, I would expect nothing less. The are, after all, members of the band..!!!

McCartney was in the studio with The Rolling Stones.

Wyman's playing was overdubbed in London, with Andrew Watt there.

Elton John was in the studio with The Rolling Stones.

Thank you. Very much appreciated. I'm really pleased to hear PM and EJ were there in person. Call me old fashioned (many do) but I still think that human contact is important where recording is concerned. My opinion of HD remains as it was, but somehow I feel just a little warmer towards it..

from what i understand short of the two tracks with charlie everything on hackney diamonds was recorded quickly with most of them in the same room

Yes. "Quickly" meaning years of work had gone into the songs and, hell, let's do them fresh.

However, what is your view? The Rolling Stones is... what? There are recordings where Keith isn't involved. Mick isn't involved.

Are you picky? Certain songs aren't Rolling Stones because ABC?

The Rolling Stones are.

That's it. It doesn't matter who's doing what when. EOMS, DIRTY WORK... Charlie didn't drum on everything, Keith didn't play on everything. Keith played everything. Mick played bass. Taylor played bass. Wyman played keyboards.

So what.

LET IT BLEED and BLACK AND BLUE - two albums that are Stones in motion of other.

Granted, LIB is insanely awesome and quivers as their best ever, for me, yet STICKY FINGERS... and in the latter, SOME GIRLS.

The albums are what they are from a band that was what it was. It's no big deal. It certainly wasn't for them.

yes i meant that except the two tracks with charlie they re-recorded the other tracks based on older recordings they had worked on in previous years

as for what i consider the rolling stones well that's a hard one to answer

as i said above my introduction to them as a fan (not counting hearing them on the radio) was between the buttons, flowers and a bigger bang and that all sounds like the stones to me

then again so does keith's work with the winos and some of mick's solo work and a lot of ronnie's

there's nothing they do as the rolling stones that isn't the rolling stones to me

but are black and blue or hackney diamonds less rolling stonesy because of the involvement of other musician and the lack of certain band members on the album or some tracks?

to me no because mick and or keith are involved in there creation and give there blessing to them as rolling stones songs/albums and because they sound like the rolling stones to me

sorry if this isn't the answer you want i'm just not that critcal of a fan or as musically articulate as some on here

and if i missed the point entirely i apologize

as much as i like reading your comments sometimes there difficult for me to decipher like a riddle i'm not always sure i'm getting the answer right to

Over the years, here on Tell Me, there’s been a number of contributors who saw the Stones live with Brian. I do agree with ProfessorWolf, however: the largest group, here, does seem to made-up of those who discovered the Stones circa Some Girls, or a few years’ later, with Emotional Rescue.

Quote
Big Al
Over the years, here on Tell Me, there’s been a number of contributors who saw the Stones live with Brian. I do agree with ProfessorWolf, however: the largest group, here, does seem to made-up of those who discovered the Stones circa Some Girls, or a few years’ later, with Emotional Rescue.

digging through old threads on this site it's always a joy to me when i come across someone who saw them back then descriping there experiences because i know precious few are left who still can describe what it was like to see the band with brian

here on iorr or else where

also there's those who found them in the taylor years

and there's the contingent of fans who seem to have found them in the late 80's early 90's and got hooked during the steel wheels or voodoo lounge/babylon tours

then a much smaller group of younger fans who found them from the mid 2000's onward like me



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-03-17 09:00 by ProfessorWolf.

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
Big Al
Over the years, here on Tell Me, there’s been a number of contributors who saw the Stones live with Brian. I do agree with ProfessorWolf, however: the largest group, here, does seem to made-up of those who discovered the Stones circa Some Girls, or a few years’ later, with Emotional Rescue.

digging through old threads on this site it's always a joy to me when i come across someone who saw them back then descriping there experiences because i know precious few are left who still can describe what it was like to see the band with brian

here on iorr or else where

also there's those who found them in the taylor years

and there's the contingent of fans who seem to have found them in the late 80's early 90's and got hooked during the steel wheels or voodoo lounge/babylon tours

then a much smaller group of younger fans who found them from the mid 2000's onward like me

I discovered I 'liked' them in 1999, aged 15, when I realised there was a 60's group capable of vying for the attention I was already lavishing on the Beatles.

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
Big Al
Over the years, here on Tell Me, there’s been a number of contributors who saw the Stones live with Brian. I do agree with ProfessorWolf, however: the largest group, here, does seem to made-up of those who discovered the Stones circa Some Girls, or a few years’ later, with Emotional Rescue.

digging through old threads on this site it's always a joy to me when i come across someone who saw them back then descriping there experiences because i know precious few are left who still can describe what it was like to see the band with brian

here on iorr or else where

also there's those who found them in the taylor years

and there's the contingent of fans who seem to have found them in the late 80's early 90's and got hooked during the steel wheels or voodoo lounge/babylon tours

then a much smaller group of younger fans who found them from the mid 2000's onward like me

I assume you mean there's 'precious view' that are presently active on these here forums? We're not talking Second World War veterans!

Yeah far from every Stones fan or even casual concert goer from the time is on this forum I would imagine

ok good point there not in there 90's after all

it's more a matter of there not being many on iorr

I appreciate the aspect of Keith walking on stage and... (enter song riff here) and the show begins. Start Me Up 1989-90. Street Fighting Man in 2003. Honky Tonk Women in 1975.

On and on.

Fantastic!!!!


I saw Nirvana in 1993.

Awesome!


Better? Than what? No comparison. Different. That's why "relevant" and music...

WTF when has Beethoven NOT been relevant?

What does "relevant" even mean in regard to music? Being modern?

It's beyond stupid.


You know what the difference is in seeing The Rolling Stones and Nirvana?

Is one, or anyone else, that more exciting than...?

No. They simply are.

I'm not a fan of Elton John. I like some of his music/songs. Are his shows exciting?

Absolutely.

Pearl Jam, Bruce, U2, Metallica...

They're all exciting. Exceptional. Whatever else.

They are who they are.

Are the Stones actually "better" than?


IT DOESN'T MATTER. There's no trophy.


The Greatest Rock'N'Roll Band In The World.

I'm sure there are people who are better than I am, there must be, because I'm not very good. But I don't really care. The Rolling Stones have never said they were the best rock and roll band or the greatest, ever.

- Mick Jagger, 1975

Somewhere on timeisonourside. I got severely sidetracked looking for more.


Charlie Watts: I didn't believe it. What about Little Richard?...

Not going to bother linking since it doesn't allow copying.


The Rolling Stones are the best at what they do.

Some article, clickbait, I dunno, going on this week about how Mick Jagger sucks at being a country singer but he has "an affinity" for it.

No mention of his solo songs Hang On To Me Tonight and Evening Gown.

Just how... he was for Faraway Eyes.


It's astounding and disgusting regarding what sites will do for clicks.

It's just a matter of time until people get rid of ABCEFG "news" app on their phone etc.

No, ‘precious few’ is grammatically correct.

I’m also from the generation who got on board in 1964. I saw the band with Brian 4 times and it was as described, pandemonium of screaming girls and impossible to hear the music but incredible as an ‘experience’.

I was at the ‘Leeds lungs’ concert with the Groundhogs and Noir also on the bill and tickets cost less than a cup of coffee today.

I fell out of love with the band when Mick Taylor left but my last concert was at Roundhay Park in the early 80s and I’ve bought very few records since then.

The ‘irreplaceable’ aspect of the band is as pioneers of the British R&B movement, some great pop songs in the Sixties and their change up to the fabulous early Seventies. Since then the band has been a cabaret act and money making machine and I’m sad about that, they left me behind when that started.

I hope they retire now and release what’s missing from the archives because that’s what us old fans want, not what they send out these days

Quote
Elmo
No, ‘precious few’ is grammatically correct.

I’m also from the generation who got on board in 1964. I saw the band with Brian 4 times and it was as described, pandemonium of screaming girls and impossible to hear the music but incredible as an ‘experience’.

I was at the ‘Leeds lungs’ concert with the Groundhogs and Noir also on the bill and tickets cost less than a cup of coffee today.

I fell out of love with the band when Mick Taylor left but my last concert was at Roundhay Park in the early 80s and I’ve bought very few records since then.

The ‘irreplaceable’ aspect of the band is as pioneers of the British R&B movement, some great pop songs in the Sixties and their change up to the fabulous early Seventies. Since then the band has been a cabaret act and money making machine and I’m sad about that, they left me behind when that started.

I hope they retire now and release what’s missing from the archives because that’s what us old fans want, not what they send out these days

Great post, Elmo

Quote
Big Al

Quote
Elmo
No, ‘precious few’ is grammatically correct.

I’m also from the generation who got on board in 1964. I saw the band with Brian 4 times and it was as described, pandemonium of screaming girls and impossible to hear the music but incredible as an ‘experience’.

I was at the ‘Leeds lungs’ concert with the Groundhogs and Noir also on the bill and tickets cost less than a cup of coffee today.

I fell out of love with the band when Mick Taylor left but my last concert was at Roundhay Park in the early 80s and I’ve bought very few records since then.

The ‘irreplaceable’ aspect of the band is as pioneers of the British R&B movement, some great pop songs in the Sixties and their change up to the fabulous early Seventies. Since then the band has been a cabaret act and money making machine and I’m sad about that, they left me behind when that started.

I hope they retire now and release what’s missing from the archives because that’s what us old fans want, not what they send out these days

Great post, Elmo

Great post indeed. Black & Blue was the last album for me, then I stopped following. I expected a lot when Taylor rejoined , but to me that was a big disappointment; I expected too much. Some stuff from the vault with Taylor would be great. I don't expect that to happen though. Give the fans what the fans desire, but I don't expect that either. Funny thing is that I keep on posting here. Mostly about Stones' history. Indeed, the Rolling Stones are Irreplaceable.

the rolling stones

there a great bunch of bands!

There will never be another Stones, just as there will never be another Beatles. I guess you could say that about anyone, but two bands that really led and changed the course of everything. Got as big as they did back in their day. Yes there was Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix and The Who and The Kinks and so many others, but it really does just feel like (maybe that's just the history that's been passed down) that it was the Beatles and the Stones at that top top tier. Only other one I can think of is Elvis which really ushered in everything else, but of the 60s bands that got as big as ever in that time, it feels like its just those two.

We are all very lucky to be alive either when that happened, or get just a taste of walking the Earth now while they are still here. The Beatles obviously ceased being the Beatles in 1970. The Stones, IMO, were never really the same after their Tattoo You tour in 82. But they do still exist, and while I don't care for many of the albums, I'm happy we still have latter day live performances. They still touch some speck of that greatness, especially Mick who really holds it all together. I'm grateful for everyday they are still out there playing, cause they don't have to be, and while so many other bands are also irreplacable, to me there is no Mt Rushmore of Rock. There are the Beatles and the Stones and then there is everyone else, and in that way its really really cool, even if its a far cry from the 70s, that Mick and Keith are out there today and you could actually see that. And still a big stadium. I'm not sure that'll ever happen again in music over such a long period of time, as listening habits have changed so drastically over the years. Maybe Taylor Swift will still be around in 50 years but will she still be playing stadiums and as good? You really never know. Its crazy the Stones still are.