I read the Rhino interview with Mick Taylor and found the whole piece a great read, but particularly the last paragraph:

"... Ultimately, Taylor continues to follow the lead of the blues heroes that originally fired his imagination in the 1960s and, to some degree, pointed to life beyond the Rolling Stones when he left the band some three decades ago. "It's a life and a lifestyle," concludes Taylor. "There's no reason why you can't keep doing it. That's what guys like Muddy Waters did."..."

Exactly... for Bill "Whiney" Whyman, and some of those other detractors, they'd be well to listen to Mick Taylor... great musicians play until they're tired of playing... like Muddy Waters, end of story...

PS: I never heard anyone complain about BB King being too old and he's greyer than a ghost, diabetes, etc... still up there 150 nites a year.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-06-27 08:29 by bv.

I agree, but I would also argue that there's a HUGE difference between energetic rocknroll performances and blues performances. Blues is a very laidback style to begin with. Rocknroll on the otherhand is full of so much energy that i needs some 'uph' in it to sustain itself. At age 80 I just cant see the Stones doing it. Not because they dont have the talent, just because its not the same energy.

-Drake

Mick said in an interview: "I know this won't last. I give the Stones another two years." It was in June... 1964.

I just hope they will continue, and if the energy is good enough for an amazing blues concert, they should go back to their roots, and sort of have "pensionist's night shifts". Yes, like BB King. Like Buddy Guy, Salomon Burke (even though he can't move and walk - nobody kan take THAT voice away). And how old was John Lee Hooker? He almost died on stage.
I know Keith has talked about going on "'till I drop", but I don't see the stadium band - The Rolling Stones, going on that many new tours. However, I they really want to, if the money's not so important, a tour of blues clubs... God, wouldn't that be wonderfull?! But then there's a huge difference between BB King, Buddy, MudDy, John Lee etc - and the Stones. The first haven't obtained financial independence, not even in their 70's and 80's. They don't have £ 1 BILL(ion) between them. So they have to work. However, the Stones - they really don't have to work. If they continue - it must be for the love of their music. Not for increased pensions. Sometimes I think I sense - there are moments - that it's obvious they just love playing their music.

I never really understood the comparison between The Stones and old bluesmen. Come on...I know it sounds very romantic but the Stones are not really a blues band. Sure they have some blues roots but at the same time they have reggae, disco, country, pop and whatever roots. The Stones are an energetic rock 'n' roll band with many styles and not a blues band and they can't do what they are doing at the age of 80. Of course nobody thought in 1967 that they will and can still doing it in 2006 but you have to face reality that the Stones are coming to an end now. Even the Stones become od and sick as you can clearly see. Mick will never sit on a chair and singing old blues tunes though I think he is much more pop orientated and into commercial music than into blues. Back Of My Hand is more of a alibi tune than that is coming from his heart. He knows that the fans expected a blues song and so he delivered. But the comparison Stones=Old Bluesmen stinks IMO.

Bockwuchsd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I never really understood the comparison between
> The Stones and old bluesmen. Come on...I know it
> sounds very romantic but the Stones are not really
> a blues band. Sure they have some blues roots but
> at the same time they have reggae, disco, country,
> pop and whatever roots. The Stones are an
> energetic rock 'n' roll band with many styles and
> not a blues band and they can't do what they are
> doing at the age of 80.

So, the point is that bluesplayers, orchestra guys, classical composers, etc. can play til they drop but there's a retirement age limit on rockers ?

Why doesn't someone tell Jerry lee Lewis that... isn't it as much a frame of mind as an age ?

And lastly, if the FANS can rock, why can't the band ??



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-06-25 13:31 by TombstoneShadow.

welll ... fortunately your opinion isn't one of the ones that actually matters. :E
(nor is mine.)
swing on, gentlemen, to your beautiful hearts' content!


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

TombstoneShadow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bockwuchsd Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I never really understood the comparison
> between
> > The Stones and old bluesmen. Come on...I know
> it
> > sounds very romantic but the Stones are not
> really
> > a blues band. Sure they have some blues roots
> but
> > at the same time they have reggae, disco,
> country,
> > pop and whatever roots. The Stones are an
> > energetic rock 'n' roll band with many styles
> and
> > not a blues band and they can't do what they
> are
> > doing at the age of 80.
>
> So, the point is that bluesplayers, orchestra
> guys, classical composers, etc. can play til they
> drop but there's a retirement age limit on rockers
> ?
>
> Why doesn't someone tell Jerry lee Lewis that...
> isn't it as much a frame of mind as an age ?
>
> And lastly, if the FANS can rock, why can't the
> band ??


From the physical aspect there is some kind of a retirement age for rockers. Rock and Roll has to do with energy, moving around and rocking the shit out of your instrument.

Jerry Lee Lewis is in a complete different league than the Stones. The Stones are the worlds greatest Rock and Roll Band. They should quit before it's too late and they're still on top.

Bockwuchsd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TombstoneShadow Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Bockwuchsd Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>>
> From the physical aspect there is some kind of a
> retirement age for rockers. Rock and Roll has to
> do with energy, moving around and rocking the shit
> out of your instrument.
>
> Jerry Lee Lewis is in a complete different league
> than the Stones. The Stones are the worlds
> greatest Rock and Roll Band. They should quit
> before it's too late and they're still on top.

Interesting point... HOWEVER it's also about "moving around and rocking the shit out of YOUR FANS!!...

And if half the Stones fans are in the nursing home, then what's wrong with Keith and Mick up there are crutches singing "... it's a gas gas gas..." on a tour sponsored by Maalox ???

90% of the rock show energy comes from the AUDIENCE not the band... and if those ggeezers in the rest home are loving the music, why shouldn't the stones still be playing for them ? After all, those ARE the Stones Fans!! Just take a look at the front row of most Stones gigs and you'll see one pot-belly after the other.

When you think about it, this "experiement" has never been tried... a legendary rock band playing into their 70's and 80's... but then again the audience side has never been tried either... a stadium full of people mostly in their 60's and 70's... so who cares... let's give it a go!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-06-25 21:19 by TombstoneShadow.

They now have to become a bluesband...if...everyone in the band can still function.I loved their blues always...anyway.

x



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-08 02:32 by Beelyboy.

I can see Mick and Keith sitting on stools in a club in 10 years playing acoustic material. Probably cost you a leg to see it, but it can happen.

blues is a laid-back style? hmmm. you've really gotta get out more, drake!

Blues IS laid back! Doesnt mean its not emotional, compelling or energetic, its just more laid back. (I'll point out that Rambler is very bluesy, yet not in the "traditional" style. Its very much straightup rocknroll with a blues sound.) Its not a big stretch for Muddy Waters to be sitting on a barstool doing his act, whereas Jagger sitting on a chair the entire show doing ROCKNROLL numbers would be very akward. Seriously, you have to admit it would be akward!!! Can you see Jagger singing JJFlash sitting on a stool?!? Might as well have the whole band in rockin chairs on my backportch. I think it would look completely rediculous.

-Drake

disagree. you ever see footage of Wolf? Nothing laid back there. How about Elmore? you can find laid back folks in any genre of music - JJCale in rock - but to make a general comment about a certain kind of music - especially blooze - being laid back is INCORRECTO!

I think it is fair to say blues performers on average are more laid back than rock performers, and that blues lends itself more easily to a laid back performance - it is easier to imagine someone doing a blues sitting on a stool and not moving than to imagine someone doing a rock version of Jumpin' Jack Flash sitting on a stool not moving.

But I agree that there are some pretty damn energetic blues players, jumpin' around, screamin' and hollerin', testifyin' and all that. It's not the stereotypical blues image (ie, an old guy sitting on a stool with a guitar), but they're out there. Similarly, although it's not the norm there are rock bands that just stand there. Pink Floyd for one.

And yes, I know their music as a whole is more laid back than the Stones, but they have quite a few hard rockers like Run Like Hell and Young Lust and they just stand there on those. And it works. Same thing with Robert Plant, he basically just stands there these days, maybe shimmies a little or makes a few hand gestures, but he's not dancing and strutting all around the stage like in the '60s and '70s. Which is fine with me.

So that makes me think Mick and Keith could still perform JJF and other rockers at 80, health willing, not sitting on stools but just standing there playing and singing. I enjoy Jagger's energetic dancing as much as anyone, and some of Keith's stage moves are pretty entertaining, but I could do without either of those and not feel cheated. The music is the most important thing, anyway.

So as I'm sitting here listening to 'Salt Of The Earth,' I realize that at 20, there's one thing I've never understood: retirement.

In the line of work that I'm intent upon, I never plan on retiring. I've never understood why you'd want to stop doing what you love, or making a get-rich-quick scheme your one life's ambition.

Though the Stones may make loads of cash, I don't think for one second that it's about the money, it seems like passion.

Anyone - bluesmakers, rockers, singers, actors - people who do what they love should be able to pursue it until the day they die.

For many, it's what defines them. Take away your definition and then what are you?

I'd love to be 80 and still doing what I love.

Walk on, boys!

rooster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They now have to become a
> bluesband...if...everyone in the band can still
> function.I loved their blues always...anyway.

More blues, more slower numbers, more acoustics, absolutely... with the occasional rocker thrown in there...

Moonlight Mile
As Tears Go By
Dead Flowers
Sweet Virginia
Salt of the Earth
Time is On My Side

Those type of numbers will become the staple if the Stones are to play into their 70s... and let's sure hope they give it a try !!!

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> blues is a laid-back style? hmmm. you've really
> gotta get out more, drake!

Well they can play the slower blues like Love In Vain... beautiful stuff...

Jumpin'JackFrash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So as I'm sitting here listening to 'Salt Of The
> Earth,' I realize that at 20, there's one thing
> I've never understood: retirement.
>
> In the line of work that I'm intent upon, I never
> plan on retiring. I've never understood why you'd
> want to stop doing what you love, or making a
> get-rich-quick scheme your one life's ambition.
>
> Though the Stones may make loads of cash, I don't
> think for one second that it's about the money, it
> seems like passion.
>
> Anyone - bluesmakers, rockers, singers, actors -
> people who do what they love should be able to
> pursue it until the day they die.
>
> For many, it's what defines them. Take away your
> definition and then what are you?
>
> I'd love to be 80 and still doing what I love.
>
> Walk on, boys!

JJF you are one wise 20 yr. old... here's to ya!

OK, so BB King and John Lee Hooker perform/ed till their 80s but they play a different kind of music. When I saw Hooker at age 80 he had a young, energetic band who ran the show, and he only threw in some guitar licks and vocal lines. He appeared as a legend, and it was great but he did not really perform like in his younger years.
With BB King it is similiar. He has a great, great band which supports him massively. His guitar playing is brillant as ever but of course his voice has suffered. It is great to see such a musician on stage and I would go anytime because seeing such a legend is really something very special but for me it is no pleasure listening to the live recordings after 2000.
That means that both of those old bluesmen were always able to change musicians in their band if necessary. But the Rolling Stones would not be the Stones anymore if Charlie, Ron or Keith would no more be able to appear with them - not talking about Jagger who is the center of it all.

drake Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree, but I would also argue that there's a
> HUGE difference between energetic rocknroll
> performances and blues performances. Blues is a
> very laidback style to begin with. Rocknroll on
> the otherhand is full of so much energy that i
> needs some 'uph' in it to sustain itself. At age
> 80 I just cant see the Stones doing it. Not
> because they dont have the talent, just because
> its not the same energy.


Fully agree Drake. But how cool would it be if the Stones did some sit-down concerts? That would rock. Like Elvis' '68 comeback.

JumpingKentFlash

My favorite part of the fan club cd is when they show Keith and Ronnie just sitting on a sofa trading licks. You throw in Mick on a stool and Charlie with a small kit and I would pay good money for a couple hours of that!

jerry lee lewis sits down...he's old and he's the very definition of rock'n'roll. so stick that in your hatfield and smoke it!

I hate to tell everyone this, but so many of the things in life we worry and mull over, searching for answers, then, suddenly, almost magically, life has a way of making the decision for us, a natural progression. It need not be a sullen, grave event that causes the next chapter.

The Stones theatre dates on the licks tour gave an impression of what they can do on a small stage, without all the razmataz of the circus they have to drag round the world (huge staging, lighting, fireworks and all this crap) - it's like a bloody ball and chain round their necks.

I admire Clapton for his inocuous 7 nights at the Albert Hall, London he does every year - no big show, just playing because he loves playing.

If the Stones could calm theselves down to realising they don't need a mobile Las Vegas everytime they want to perform in public - they could go on a long time.

drake Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree, but I would also argue that there's a
> HUGE difference between energetic rocknroll
> performances and blues performances. Blues is a
> very laidback style to begin with. Rocknroll on
> the otherhand is full of so much energy that i
> needs some 'uph' in it to sustain itself. At age
> 80 I just cant see the Stones doing it. Not
> because they dont have the talent, just because
> its not the same energy.

agree...but energy comes in many ways....
energy is indesctructible it can only change shapes

drake Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Blues IS laid back! Doesnt mean its not
> emotional, compelling or energetic, its just more
> laid back. (I'll point out that Rambler is very
> bluesy, yet not in the "traditional" style. Its
> very much straightup rocknroll with a blues
> sound.) Its not a big stretch for Muddy Waters to
> be sitting on a barstool doing his act, whereas
> Jagger sitting on a chair the entire show doing
> ROCKNROLL numbers would be very akward.
> Seriously, you have to admit it would be akward!!!
> Can you see Jagger singing JJFlash sitting on a
> stool?!? Might as well have the whole band in
> rockin chairs on my backportch. I think it would
> look completely rediculous.


No - I can't see Jagger sitting on a stool singing JJF either......but hey.....Sittin' on a Fence, Angie, Love is Strong, Love in Vain, Sleep Tonight, Down in the Hole, Waitin' on a Friend, Need I Go On? *lol*

They would of course have to reconstructure their whole set-up and hey - maybe reinterpret a few of their old songs....SMU in reggae fashion (seing that was how it started out)(incidentially - did anyone ever hear the reggae version? I've got load of boots...but that one "slipped away")

And yeah...they could be a tight little bluesband, should they so chose....Ron on bass, Keef on guitar, Charlie on drums, Jagger (ever notice how almost everyone always use the Christian names for the first three and almost always the last name for Jagger?) on harp and vocal......YEAH!!!

Brothas and sistas! Brothas and sistas! Everybody jus cool out!

We can debate what the word "energy" means but I'd rather not. This is a direct parallel to the whole "sit/standup at a show" debate. Almost everyone on this entire friggin board wants to stand and dance and tap our toes the entire concert. And we get pissed off when we're told to sit down. (When I was told to sit down at Soldier Field in 05 I yelled "WHO THE @#$%& SITS DOWN AT A STONES CONCERT?!?!" and was never bothered again.)

The point is, if we all dont want to sit at a Stones show then it would be insulting for our entertainers to be rocking out sitting in chairs. It would be totally rediculous. BLUES on the otherhand would be just fine n dandy sitting down. No problem. The entire audience can be sitting down. Its not a big stretch. But everyone singing along on IORR would be rediculous with everyone in the audience and everyone on stage sitting down. Its just stupid. It would look stupid. Its that simple.

NOW, I can definately dig exactly what mofur said... Sitting on a Fence, Angie, As Tears Go By, etc.... I can see all that, just not ROCKNFUCKINROLL!!! ITS ROCK N ROLL!!!! HOW CAN YOU BE SITTING DOWN AT A STONES CONCERT??? HOW CAN THE STONES SIT DOWN AND ROCK MY ASS OFF!?!?!?!?!? (thats all I gots to say)

-Drake

I think Mick will call it quits when HIS performance starts to slip. KR and RW will play til death. Charlie will go back to the house ASAP.