Look at Barry Bonds legacy. Yeah lots of home runs, but a cheater with his head the size of Rhode Island. I hope The Stones legacy isn't money grubbing sellouts. I would hope people remember the music.

oldkr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> they don't have a legacy and selling out doesnt
> exist. Both are creations of over zealous fans
> looking to cling to their youth vicariously
> through the music of that time. That is where the
> disillusionment comes from, the band dont fit your
> needs anymore.
>


I gotta say that while lots of people have made good points and I do understand Turd On The Run's disillusionment, I gotta agree with oldkr here.

All of this percieved debasing of the legacy is just that....percieved....by the fans.

J.J.Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Look at Barry Bonds legacy. Yeah lots of home
> runs, but a cheater with his head the size of
> Rhode Island. I hope The Stones legacy isn't money
> grubbing sellouts. I would hope people remember
> the music.

I don't get the Barroid (Bonds) analogy. It would be a better analogy if it was discovered that The Stones had ghost writers write their songs and then put the Jagger/Richards label on them. That would be damaging to their legacy- just like cheating is damaging to the legacy of Barroid.

Funny how the only place I hear all this talk about greed is here in this forum. When having causual conversations with people outside this forum no one even mentions the greed aspect. Some people may snicker at their age and stuff like that but I don't think ticket prices enter the mind of the general public in a legacy damaging sort of way.

Lastly I wish people would get over this silly notion that rock and roll is supposed to change the world. That nonsense lasted for a few years in the sixties and The Stones were never one of those super serious/have to change the world type bands. Thank God for that.

Look at the original rock stars. Elvis, Chuck Berry, Frankie Valli etc. They weren't about changing the world. They were about rocking and rolling and having a blast.

Rock and roll can't change the world- it can just enhance it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-18 06:39 by FrankM.

bascially I believe music and rock and roll have transformative powers. more than just partying, its about soul. It can change the world without trying to do it in a heavy handed way.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-18 08:07 by ryanpow.

... time for rockman to step in with a photo or neutral ter line,,,

bassplayer617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> but the idealism that fostered the
> notion that rock n roll could change the world
> really only lasted for a few years.

damnit, why couldn't someone have pointed this out to me decades ago?!? AAAAARGH! what have i done?

Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?

..greed

their legacy and reputation took a battering, here in the UK, when they cancelled the B2B tour in 1998 for 'tax reasons'.
Uk music fans and Stones fans, have never quite forgiven them, and having been promised a series of club dates in 1999,as compensation, and for it to be proven, yet another empty, hollow promise, did the band no favours.

fast forward to 2006..... The Spanish 2006 shows get cancelled at VERY short notice, due to illness and injury.
Spanish fans are some of the most passionate and enthusiastic anywhere in the world, it was much discussed on the message boards, that if any country 'deserved' a special club show, it was Spain.
What happens???.. the band play a club show.
A private club show, for a bank... big bucks for the band.
no general public, no local spanish fans, who were so let down in 2006,
-closed doors.
greed rules.

I think there is some sort of legacy issue here but it’s hard to say what it actually is. Sadly, in the end, their legacy may be that they did big expensive shows.

I’ve been a fan a long time but I’m not bothering to see them this year. Reasons:
1. Cost – whatever one says about it, to charge £150 to see them in a stadium is an outrage. I could afford it but I’d rather not. Perhaps it’s the fans in this last instance that run the risk of debasing the Stones’ legacy by continuously buying into this concept.
2. They’re not that exciting or, more importantly, interesting. That counts for a lot I’m afraid, and I don’t want to come away saying 'I’m glad I went’ but really thinking 'that was a bit dull.’
3. They way they sell themselves now – you might as well get the DVD. Some will say,’ you can’t beat the live experience’ and they’re right – but I don’t really believe people that come away from recent shows saying the band were ‘awesome.’

Rock and roll is still important to me but the Stones don’t deliver on that front anymore. I’ve said it before, but they keep doing it because it’s hard for them to stop being the Stones – and that is something they well struggle with as they get older – particularly Jagger whose whole persona is built around youth. So, it’s not just the money.

If people want to follow the Stones round the world that’s fine, but try to get it in perspective.

At the risk of pissing many people off I must say that some people need to realise that the Stones will not give them comfort in their dying moments. A rather extreme comment perhaps, but some of you talk as if they are the most important thing in your lives – or even the only thing! Believe me, if you ‘let go’ a bit you’ll feel less anxious about their performance, health, future, legacy etc. And then, when you play their records some day you’ll think ‘yes, they were ****ing good, they were the best, no doubt about it’ (as I did listening to Let it Rock live on the ‘B’ side to Brown Sugar the other day). Then you can go and do other things in your life too. And the Stones won’t mind a bit – and you’ll all be a lot happier.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-18 11:04 by Rock'n'roller.

Adrian-L Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do the Stones debase their legacy so
> frivolously?
>
> ..greed
>
> their legacy and reputation took a battering, here
> in the UK, when they cancelled the B2B tour in
> 1998 for 'tax reasons'.
> Uk music fans and Stones fans, have never quite
> forgiven them, and having been promised a series
> of club dates in 1999,as compensation, and for it
> to be proven, yet another empty, hollow promise,
> did the band no favours.
>
> fast forward to 2006..... The Spanish 2006 shows
> get cancelled at VERY short notice, due to illness
> and injury.
> Spanish fans are some of the most passionate and
> enthusiastic anywhere in the world, it was much
> discussed on the message boards, that if any
> country 'deserved' a special club show, it was
> Spain.
> What happens???.. the band play a club show.
> A private club show, for a bank... big bucks for
> the band.
> no general public, no local spanish fans, who were
> so let down in 2006,
> -closed doors.
> greed rules.


That´s what I thought the other day: playing a high-society clubshow
THERE was the cherry on the pile of shit.

i don't have an intelligent reponse to your post totr, but that won't surprise any of the regulars here...heh

i DO have to say...the post was so beautifully written and clearly perceived and movingly articulated...yadda yadda...seriously, it near brought me to tears...very gifted writer and thinker and i found it very moving, ty.

Very good insight totr. Eloquently written. I'd agree with most everything you said. I wouldn't mind if the Stones continue the way that they have for many years, if they would occassionly throw us hard-core fans a bone once in a while.
Maybe a special concert for us, or an exclusive cd or dvd release. After all if it wasn't for our exitement/interest nobody else would pay attention to them. Just my two cents.

That the Stones don't give a damn about you, Turd, says nothing about their legacy. Just as, I might add, the fact that the pretty girl in high school would screw some rich, buffed-up jock instead of a slobbering moron drooling all over her says nothing of her character.

idealism appears to rule on iorr! that is a shock! there is no legacy to debas. people this whole discussion is founded on a fantasy

OLDKR

Raoul Duke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That the Stones don't give a damn about you, Turd,
> says nothing about their legacy. Just as, I might
> add, the fact that the pretty girl in high school
> would screw some rich, buffed-up jock instead of a
> slobbering moron drooling all over her says
> nothing of her character.

Yea...but what if I (we Stones fans) wasn't a "slobbering moron" but a likable, sensitive, fine-looking chap with a good character...and the "buffed-up jock" was an unappreciative, predatory, spoiled cad...? Isn't that more the case in this situation? What then? Wouldn't THAT say something about the pretty girls' (the Stones) character?

I disagree with you..that the Stones don't give a damn about me (us...you...the real fans...not the casual CEO dropping in to a gig by Limo between meetings in Shanghai and a long weekend in Marbella) DOES say something - rather unbecoming - about their legacy...

if you want to know what the stones think of the fanatics have a look at that painting ron did of the bstage

OLDKR

Rock with stones in a fantasy! Brian Jones!

As a long time fan it does bother me that I always hear so many people mention stuff about their money grabbing ways and their greed in regards to that. Many of these people that say these things are not big fans of their music. It is kinda like all the jokes about their age. But with that at least they don't have control over it.

Funny you should write this post, there was a joke made on the Howard Stern show about the Stones greed with money, maybe they read your post..


By the way, look at how Dylan, Neil and so many of their fellow rockers are with this, complete opposites. Mick's too much of a business man to think like they do I guess.

Turd On The Run Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yea...but what if [...] the
> "buffed-up jock" was an unappreciative, predatory,
> spoiled cad...?

You mean like one of them?

I might be put off by the amounts they make if I really knew what they do with all that money.
But, they're pretty much a tight lipped bunch when it comes to publicity about charities, etc, so I say: go for it boys, if I were in your shoes I'd do the same thing.

well, they've gone to great lengths to avoid paying taxes for decades, so I can't imagine their charity amounts to much more than a drop from the bucket$. the taxes would arguably have been better used.

>By the way, look at how Dylan, Neil and so many of their fellow rockers are with this, complete opposites.


Dylan has played private corporate gigs as well. Observe what it's done to his legacy.

Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?

because they are the stones and they do as they damn well please

How many public shows have The Stones played over the last thirteen years? Why get so bent out of shape over a private show here and there? Having a private show will have about as much impact on their legacy as Mick Jagger having pancakes for breakfast instead of waffles.

It's not like they are only playing private shows and the fans are shut out from seeing them. Don't understand what all the fuss is about. Only thing I can figure is this is a good excuse for the disgruntled fans to take a shot at the band. Some fans here are apparently just disgruntled in general and will complain about anything and everything.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>... Only thing
> I can figure is this is a good excuse for the
> disgruntled fans to take a shot at the band. Some
> fans here are apparently just disgruntled in
> general and will complain about anything and
> everything.

That, I believe, is the truth of the matter. Transference of reasons for unhappiness upon something or someone you love. "Why am I so f*cked up? Because of YOU!"

Some past unfortunate events can be directly traced to this sort of internal pyschobabble.

it's probably less about the private shows specifically than that the private shows symbolize all that's uncool (that is, rapaciously and bizarrely money-hungry) about the band. you could be in denial or rationalize the rest if it weren't for the private shows. or, you can rationalize the private shows, as many like to do here as well.

wtf?.......psychobabble?.......in my opinion turd and Adrian both articulated very valid and specific reasons for being disgruntled......it's not "transference," or being "disgruntled in general" as FrankM alludes.

Lukester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> wtf?.......psychobabble?.......in my opinion turd
> and Adrian both articulated very valid and
> specific reasons for being disgruntled......it's
> not "transference," or being "disgruntled in
> general" as FrankM alludes.

So are YOU disgruntled, too?

actually i think fans that are undisgruntable are actually transferring their happiness onto the stones...just a theory i'm working on...haven't polished it up as yet

I wasn't referring to the private shows in my post. I am referring to the band cashing in every chance they can get and appearing lazy when it comes to doing things for their long time fans.

Having to pay a club fee just for a chance to buy ticket. Selling all kinds of crap merchandise. They seem to care more about their corporate sponsors than their fans.

The whole disney land thing the band has these days, music takes a back seat to everything it seems.

I have nothing against private shows, except I wish I was there.

Agree

__________________________