What happened to the original video of "In The Stars"? You know, the one with lyrics and footage of some old dudes playing and having fun in the studio? It doesn't count anymore? It is not allowed to be watched anymore?

I mean, if someone does not like the new video with AI features, why not to watch the old one if the new one hurts eyes or morality...

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2026-05-18 19:22 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

What happened to the original video of "In The Stars"?

It's still there:



[www.YouTube.com]

"Could you imagine the "alternate" version of this video, where we have the crowd as a bunch of baby boomers with walkers and canes swaying from side to side, attempting to dance, maybe falling, huddled in a bathroom taking drugs (statins and blood pressure meds, shooting up ozempic) and Mick the only person in the room capable of actual movement?"

That's actually a great idea Treaclefingers.

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
PalaisRoyale
The podcast review is spot on regarding the In The Stars video. The AI use is more an interpretation of the Stones with glimpses of how they looked. The youthful images of Jagger are not always the best as his jaw lines and famous lips are not always accurate in the video, appearing thinned out at times. There are much better representations of youthful Stones AI on other platform apps capturing the Exile era. I think they dabbled in the use of the technology but should have went full tilt, similar to the the moving classic images in the Angry video but with "Brand new" young stones footage.

So to confer what you actually want from the Stones is more of the Stones that isn't real.

What's the point of the Stones at all if you want full tilt fakery Stones.

My actual preference would be non AI but since the Stones ventured into the technology, there are much better versions of the Stones AI out there but the guide lines of this site don't really allow for it. Again, they opened the door for this music video, they need to go all in and make full use of the technologies capabilities.
I see it as a one off for this song.

I dunno, maybe it’s the beer talking, but what should a Rolling Stones video in 2026 be like? Whilst I don’t like this AI one, part of this can be chalked down to the fact, meh, I’m not really interested. IMO, Love Is Strong was the last ‘great one’. Wasn’t that a big hit on MTV? I remember, as a youngster, it being featured on Beavis and Butthead.

I wonder if they considered rhyming Jar with Card?

Some people seek their fortune with the turn of a carrrrd
Or throwing some bones in a whis-key jarrrr

The next couplet rhymes luck with struck

Well BV is not critical about the Stones,only Jagger,but that,s nothing new

Quote
Big Al
I dunno, maybe it’s the beer talking, but what should a Rolling Stones video in 2026 be like? Whilst I don’t like this AI one, part of this can be chalked down to the fact, meh, I’m not really interested. IMO, Love Is Strong was the last ‘great one’. Wasn’t that a big hit on MTV? I remember, as a youngster, it being featured on Beavis and Butthead.

Yeah that was great, still raunchy with plenty of girls but would you know it, it had the Stones in the video too, what a concept. Saint Of Me was pretty good too.

Ps. all the good stuff comes when the beers talking.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2026-05-18 22:27 by keefriffhards.

….



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2026-05-18 21:43 by Big Al.

Yeah, the the 90’s Stones, in retrospect, is quite interesting. There dinosaurs, in their mid-to-late 50’s, still bossing it on MTV and defying the odds. Of course, then, the idea of England’s premier rock outfit going strong at such an age was unthinkable; we’ve learnt so much about longevity since. After all, has U2’s age been mentioned at all? Green Day are all in their 50’s, surely? It doesn’t matter now. The reason? The a stones got their first!

Quote
Big Al
Yeah, the the 90’s Stones, in retrospect, is quite interesting. There dinosaurs, in their mid-to-late 50’s, still bossing it on MTV and defying the odds. Of course, then, the idea of England’s premier rock outfit going strong at such an age was unthinkable; we’ve learnt so much about longevity since. After all, has U2’s age been mentioned at all? Green Day are all in their 50’s, surely? It doesn’t matter now. The reason? The a stones got their first!

Thats something that's always fascinated me, in the 80's the media portrayed the Stones as Wrinkly Rockers, Dinosaurs etc. Then they can't put a foot wrong, media 100% behind them.
I think they joined the elite club if you know what i mean.

Didn't it go quiet recently regarding the friends they keep.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2026-05-18 23:09 by keefriffhards.

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
ProfessorWolf
...
but seriously it seems to me if they leaned into there age and the age of there fanbase like your described above in an over the top parody of reality they would come off as more cool and authentic to the younger generations there trying to attract

JC, again, back to the Giant sized Stones in Love Is Strong ... they weren't trying to portray themselves as Giants and they weren't trying to attrack an audience of Giants.

It's just a video, I hardly doubt the Stones at this age think they are going to attrack a younger audience. No youth is really ever going to see the video, pretty sure they are aware of that.

Oh, and as another pointed out ... LOOK AT THE COVER of the upcoming album!!
Is it their intent to attrack a younger audience?

i'm sorry but to me attracting gen z is very clearly the point of the video

Clearly? ... So how does that work, exactly? They were in a meeting, and 1 said ... hey, let's fool gen z into thinking we're really younger than we are. 2nd person:... But don't they have the internet and/or already know how old we are?
1st person ... nah, I don't think they know how to use the internet.

Furthermore, and once again ... if that is the goal, explain the album cover. Or making appearances on public tv. ** edited: I guess the album cover could be explained in that they were clearly appealing to folks in Old Age homes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2026-05-19 00:07 by LeonidP.

A sad ending.

Quote
roby
A sad ending.

Agree! When looking at it from a curmudgeonly point of view.

Several others feel the same, but most seem to see it otherwise, as best as I can tell.

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
ProfessorWolf

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
ProfessorWolf
...
but seriously it seems to me if they leaned into there age and the age of there fanbase like your described above in an over the top parody of reality they would come off as more cool and authentic to the younger generations there trying to attract

JC, again, back to the Giant sized Stones in Love Is Strong ... they weren't trying to portray themselves as Giants and they weren't trying to attrack an audience of Giants.

It's just a video, I hardly doubt the Stones at this age think they are going to attrack a younger audience. No youth is really ever going to see the video, pretty sure they are aware of that.

Oh, and as another pointed out ... LOOK AT THE COVER of the upcoming album!!
Is it their intent to attrack a younger audience?

i'm sorry but to me attracting gen z is very clearly the point of the video

Clearly? ... So how does that work, exactly? They were in a meeting, and 1 said ... hey, let's fool gen z into thinking we're really younger than we are. 2nd person:... But don't they have the internet and/or already know how old we are?
1st person ... nah, I don't think they know how to use the internet.

Furthermore, and once again ... if that is the goal, explain the album cover. Or making appearances on public tv. ** edited: I guess the album cover could be explained in that they were clearly appealing to folks in Old Age homes.

maybe your right

making a music video for a song that sounds like modern pop music meets the stones (not a dig at the song which i like)

hiring a young band to play them and (badly) welding they're younger faces on them, surrounding them with young people bouncing around and going nuts and having a hot and popular gen z girl lick faux mick's face is clearly meant for there longtime fan base in there 60's, 70's and even 80's

the album cover looks like a mixture of images of them in the 70's when they were in there 30's so i'm not sure how that's relevant

but yeah with all they're tv appearances and the very obvious and easy to discover fact that there a band whose members are in there eighties

it all makes very little sense and i suspect that it wasn't just the band behind this but also universal attempting to market the new album to a larger group of people and repeat the success of the angry video which also featured a hot popular gen z girl becoming excited to images of the younger stones

to be fair i understand what your getting at but still i can't get around what i wrote above as an explanation for the video

Quote
roby
A sad ending.

except for those that don't hate the band as it is now

you know the majority here

The track is one thing, but there is a lot of negative feedback about the AI video, and the confusion is palpable even among long time Stones fans.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2026-05-19 10:16 by roby.

Quote
Big Al
Yeah, the the 90’s Stones, in retrospect, is quite interesting. There dinosaurs, in their mid-to-late 50’s, still bossing it on MTV and defying the odds. Of course, then, the idea of England’s premier rock outfit going strong at such an age was unthinkable; we’ve learnt so much about longevity since. After all, has U2’s age been mentioned at all? Green Day are all in their 50’s, surely? It doesn’t matter now. The reason? The a stones got their first!

Did you have ChatFRO "write" that?

I watched it once.

There are several Stones video singles I've watched once.

It's not because of the AI.

It's just not interesting.

The One Hit video is more interesting and that's a huge stretch.

On 1st listen, hated the song. 2nd listen, liked it OK. 3rd and 4th, love it. I had a similar progression to most of Hackney Diamonds, TBH. Video is meh, doesn't offend me, but not nearly as good as the Doom & Gloom or Ride 'Em On Down or Angry videos.

I also understand that they want to make the Stones look young. Rock & roll music is about being young, a teenager, rebelling against your parents, against society, chasing after the girls, no stability. When the Stones were 30, they were already called too old for rock music. Now they are over 80, it actually makes no sense that old people make this kind of music nowadays. I'm glad they're doing it though.

Quote
NilsHolgersson
I also understand that they want to make the Stones look young. Rock & roll music is about being young, a teenager, rebelling against your parents, against society, chasing after the girls, no stability. When the Stones were 30, they were already called too old for rock music. Now they are over 80, it actually makes no sense that old people make this kind of music nowadays. I'm glad they're doing it though.

Years ago, I read an interview with Keith; he must have been around 40 at the time. He was indignant when asked at what age he planned to retire. He said there’s no set age for it—why shouldn’t we be able to play rock and roll when we’re over 80? It made me laugh; I thought it was such a silly thing for Keith to say—it seemed absolutely impossible to me. I thought they’d look and sound truly ridiculous by then. Now, after 64 years, they haven’t lost any of their charm, or instrumental and vocal prowess. I still enjoy listening to HD, and these two new songs as well. With all the misery and wars around the world, the Stones are a ray of hope for me, and I can happily focus on the new album and the positive and negative reactions to it.

Translated by Deepl.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Big Al
Yeah, the the 90’s Stones, in retrospect, is quite interesting. There dinosaurs, in their mid-to-late 50’s, still bossing it on MTV and defying the odds. Of course, then, the idea of England’s premier rock outfit going strong at such an age was unthinkable; we’ve learnt so much about longevity since. After all, has U2’s age been mentioned at all? Green Day are all in their 50’s, surely? It doesn’t matter now. The reason? The a stones got their first!

Did you have ChatFRO "write" that?

I have no idea what 'ChatFRO' is. I do, however, now know the effects of one-too-many bottles of the very fine Fullers Extra Special Bitter

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
roby
A sad ending.

Agree! When looking at it from a curmudgeonly point of view.

Several others feel the same, but most seem to see it otherwise, as best as I can tell.

I don't think most think otherwise, just some that insist they love everything no matter what, not sure they are interested in their legacy, I'm not sure the Stones themselves are interested either. If they like this, perhaps they like anything as long as it's got a young girl/woman/boy dancing in the video.

It's been going on for some time, this obsession with youth in Stones videos, it was okay 20 years ago, it's just that it becomes sad when you are in your 80's, i mean come on who are they kidding, do they truly believe that's the Stones fan base.

No actually their fan base is men and women in their 40s 50s 60's 70's etc that are still kicking ass, we are not all old farts and we don't have to fake being young to feel accepted. .

Is just a music video that helps sell the song. You can like it or not.
No need to blow it out of proportion. We can worry about all the things
in the world that we are not allowed to to talk here, all more concerning.

In the stars is stucked in my head and that’s a joy. It’s 2026 and we should
feel blessed for still getting new music from the Stones.

Quote
gotdablouse

Quote
exilestones
I love the "In the Stars" video. I don't know why, but I like the song better with the video. Is the music any different?

Good question, I didn't go back to the streaming track or lyric video but it does sound a bit different, the guitars seem to stand out more.

Indeed, a good question. The guitars sound more prominent to me as well, but perhaps "It's Just My Imagination".

Anyone know?

Drew

There are many ways of making a music video, even if you think you - and your fans - are too old to play a part in the movie.

The Norwegian music group a-ha made the video "Lifelines" using an award winning short movie documentary about an abandoned remote place in the north of Norway. It is an example of a creative idea, and it works. The video is as strong as the song.

The Stones could do the same. Their "In The Stars" video reminds me a bit about the "It's Only Rock'n Roll" video, soap bubbles, sailor uniforms, kind of rookie video not up to the standards.

I really liked the "Angry" video, with pictures from the streets in Hollywood, where they finished Hackney Diamonds. Unfortunately the "In The Stars" video does not appeal to me; it is not The Stones really.

Bjornulf

The hayday era of music videos was when MTV was big in the 80s and 90s. These days they seem to outsource the video making to the record company or other external actors.
They don't put much effort into it. And seldom partake in it. It's just a marketing tool for the first single. I wonder if Keith has even seen it?

Quote
bv
There are many ways of making a music video, even if you think you - and your fans - are too old to play a part in the movie.

The Norwegian music group a-ha made the video "Lifelines" using an award winning short movie documentary about an abandoned remote place in the north of Norway. It is an example of a creative idea, and it works. The video is as strong as the song.

The Stones could do the same. Their "In The Stars" video reminds me a bit about the "It's Only Rock'n Roll" video, soap bubbles, sailor uniforms, kind of rookie video not up to the standards.

I really liked the "Angry" video, with pictures from the streets in Hollywood, where they finished Hackney Diamonds. Unfortunately the "In The Stars" video does not appeal to me; it is not The Stones really.

Clearly this video is marketed towards a younger audience, not lifelong Rolling Stones fans. This video isn’t about being more successful it's about image, and that for many Stones fans is disappointing.

I never paid much attention to Rolling Stones videos, maybe that's why I don't mind this one and the fact that they used AI. I think beyond that there are some nice references in the video (a musician wearing Brian's white sweatshirt, one who looks a lot like Mick Taylor, etc.). Regarding the AI, I would have loved it if Mick had used it for the Deluxe takes where he recorded new vocals that don't match the material from the '70s.