Re: the Rolling Stones
Date: March 14, 2007 22:42
with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> There's been all kinds of great stuff since '81
> or '83 or whenever. It goes largely unrecognized
> ...
> Sure there's filler on the latter-day albums, but
> the best stuff shows off the Stones in very
> interesting and creative ways ...
> The Stones' audience is just old and conservative
> and basically uninterested in welcoming new music
> into the pantheon ...
> Status is conferred on rock'n roll records by
> airplay and by the way those records wind up being
> used by the people ... <<
>
> wow - thank you for posting these very worthy
> insights, Rev Robert W!
> sorry to chop it up like that for brevity's sake -
> really i'd happily re-post your whole statement
> on about 11 different current threads that it
> seems directly relevant to.
>
> i'd debate whether age is the reason for the
> crotchety conservatism you're observing in the
> Stones' audience -
> maybe because i'm an antique myself, it looks to
> me like the culprits are tiredness and
> fearfulness,
> not age. yeah, a lot of people grow more weary &
> fearful with age, but not everybody, and the
> opposite happens too;
> and on the fan boards, at least, chronic weary
> fearfulness doesn't appear to be a specialty of
> the older fans.
>
> in any case, weariness & anxiety are of course
> real far from what the music is for.
>
> "their energy is incredible, and it gives
> everybody courage for years and years and years."
> - Giorgio Gomelsky
Hey, if they put out a great album, I'm all over it! They just HAVEN'T in a looooooong time.