Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?
Posted by: Turd On The Run ()
Date: July 17, 2007 22:58

The latest affront to my idealism and naiveté and near-inexplicable dedication to my/our favorite performers (i.e. the private Barcelona gig) is still fresh in my mind. I knew someone fortunate enough to be invited…a banker…nice-enough guy…but in my heart I was resentful and really disgusted. I felt like the guy in high-school who REALLY loves a girl - wanting her and dreaming of her and really loving everything about her and pouring heart and soul and hard-earned bread into making her notice me – and hearing about some over-privileged cad who is taking her to the prom and hardly knows or really appreciates her. Irrational, perhaps…but so it is. And then I thought about it and realized that my anger was misdirected. I shouldn’t be angry with the lucky, undeserving scoundrel…I should be pissed at the girl (the Stones)! But then…he’s richer and taller and handsomer and more mature and interesting and more socially advantageous…so can I even blame her (the Stones)? The eternal question of those stricken by unrequited love…and disgusted by the crass calculating commerce of a band already rich beyond words and bleeding mystique by the bucketload…

When I was a young teenager back in 1974 the Stones released “It’s Only Rock And Roll”. The music was cool and glammy and sophisticated, but there was something strangely dispiriting about the title…as if the Stones were trying to tell us something we really didn’t wanna know. In those days many of us relied on the Stones to tell us What Was Going Down…what the deal was, so to speak. The Stones defined the Zeitgeist to an extent, and we trusted them to let us in on the action and Shine A Light on the meaning of it all.

When Jagger told us about seeing the woman with a bleeding man in her glass we knew what he meant, sort of…and felt his melancholy and injured pride at her deceptions…and when he went to the barricades and railed at the King and all his servants, well, we knew that took courage…even though as a poor boy in London town all he could do was sing about it…and when he warned us of the threatening storm and that love is just a kiss away, we listened earnestly…and when he incriminated us in the killing of the Kennedy’s we accepted part of the blame…even the fun stuff like tastes good like a black girl should and only get my rocks off while I’m sleepin’ had significance…because the Stones were the Soul Survivors…and we hung on every word and every chord change as they brought harbingers of Apocalypse and Riots and Orgasms and illicit Highs. They were our Royalty…Outlaws, Pirates and Wisemen.

So hearing that it’s only rock and roll was a bit dismaying. It kinda shattered my naïve teenage illusions of revolutions and free love and put a lot of us fans in our places…we were consumers and admirers [like on the cover of the album]…and willing accomplices in the Rock And Roll Circus…but there would be no more revolutions…no more Apocalypse…it was showbiz, baby…nothing more and nothing less…fun stuff but hardly ROMANTIC, ya know?

So I took the hint and woke up and got with it and even loved THAT version of the Stones…if you can’t rock me, somebody will… when the whip comes down… we’re all starfukcers…yea…if decadence was the new idealism then, shit, I’m in. So it was all about being louche, making tons of money, screwing fashion models, doing the best drugs, and being a jet-setter and a junkie millionaire playing 3 chord Chuck Berry derivations…well, it’s only rock and roll, after all…gotcha…I’ll leave the needle and spoon out of my menu, thank you, but the rest of it sounds tremendous…I’m down with that!

So when the Stones turn our Rock Dreams into tawdry nightmares - by accepting the coin of the realm and entertaining a group of sponsors and bankers and corporate bigwigs like concubines at a private Palace Party - they once again Shine A Light on the meaning of it all and blind us with the necessary and unforgiving glare of the Truth…they shatter our Delusions and show us what it’s all about…What Is Going Down…what the real deal is, so to speak…like all those years ago…

The Rolling Stones have been businessmen and cynics for decades now…yes, they are cruel…but fair…Mick is happy to stick a pen in his heart and spill it all over the stage for us…but he’ll set a damn pretty price for it…don’t forget it’s a business…a commodity…a product…hearts for sale, indeed…nothing is sacred…the Prodigal Son left the coop long ago…and returned as Jumping Jack Flash…flaunting gaudy diamond-studded teeth and Cocaine Eyes…they warned us over and over…It’s Only Rock and Roll, baby…and I’m a Fool to Cry…but it makes me wonder why…

P.S. Next time you guys decide to sell your integrity and wares to the moneyed Elite for utterly vulgar sums remember that Myth and Legacy are precious and priceless things…commodities, if you will…and that once squandered, they are nearly impossible to recover…

P.S.S. You could have done the same gig but in front of thousands of dedicated fans (and your moneyed sponsors too) and donated the peons’ entry fee to a worthy cause helping sick children or others less fortunate than most of us…you could have kept your bundle of lucre and still had our admiration along for the same price…

…as you once asked…will all of your money buy you forgiveness, keep you from sickness, keep you from cold…? Will all of your money keep you from sadness, keep you from madness…when you’re down in the hole? Maybe so...maybe you know more than the rest of us...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-18 17:45 by Turd On The Run.

Re: Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?
Posted by: David700 ()
Date: July 17, 2007 23:04

i certainly agree with you about it's only rock and roll, although the album did have some good moments i really could not see the sense of the title track and i certainly agree with your comment about it being "strangely dispiriting"
to this day i would rather they did not play it live.

Re: Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?
Posted by: pgarof ()
Date: July 17, 2007 23:09

P.S.S. You could have done the same gig but in front of thousands of dedicated fans (and your moneyed sponsors too) and donated the peons’ entry fee to a worthy cause helping sick children or others less fortunate than most of us…you could have kept your bundle of lucre and still had our admiration along for the same price…



I thought they already do give away there own money to all sorts of charities but without all the media hype

Re: Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?
Posted by: noughties ()
Date: July 17, 2007 23:21

If you were still a Stones fan in 1974, you`d have to be quite stubborn. They`d been old school rock and roll for many years by then.

Re: Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?
Posted by: David700 ()
Date: July 17, 2007 23:22

absolutely, they were really old back then!!!!

Re: Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?
Posted by: Dan ()
Date: July 17, 2007 23:50

I couldn't read all that.. but.. a legacy is an arbitrary invention and most often in the eyes of the fans. I think, as always, the priority is on getting paid. And it's not really doing anything to their so called legacy, it's not like anyone remembers Muhammed Ali's last fights nowadays.

Re: Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?
Posted by: bassplayer617 ()
Date: July 18, 2007 00:09

Well, that was a long-winded way of saying you're disillusioned, but the idealism that fostered the notion that rock n roll could change the world really only lasted for a few years.

You really don't think that Mick & Keith's musical idols held that notion, do you?

Mick clued us all in when he wrote, "but what can a poor boy do, 'cept sing in a rock n roll band..." . The cynicism had definitely set in by 1968, and perhaps even earlier.

I don't know if you wanted to start a philosophical discussion, but in 1968 I was an 11-year old TV kid who watched in horror as Western Civilization seemed to be on the brink of dissolving into anarchy.

By the time I reached 16, and started thinking about playing in a band, the reasons were not out of any naieve idealism, but simply to make some money and meet girls. I learned early on that all of it was "only rock n roll".

Addendum -- frankly, I'd be worried if the Stones became absorbed by their own self-importance, unlike several artists who shall remain un-named.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-18 00:16 by bassplayer617.

Re: Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?
Posted by: scaffer ()
Date: July 18, 2007 00:21

"Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?"

Answer: they don't.

Re: Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?
Posted by: cc ()
Date: July 18, 2007 00:23

cue square sockpuppet windbag defenses...

Re: Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?
Posted by: Lukester ()
Date: July 18, 2007 00:30

I agree with the turd 100% on this.......a legacy is priceless. There are few things in life I know with certainty, but one thing I know for sure is that a person can spend a whole career building up a good reputation for his or her self, but it only takes one grossly selfish or greedy deed to tarnish it........the idea the turd presents regarding a thousand dedicated fans and worthy charitable causes would indeed have been priceless, in my opinion....................and turd, I loved the analogy of the scoundrel and the prom date....good stuff, good stuff......

Re: Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?
Posted by: sjs12 ()
Date: July 18, 2007 00:33

I can'r really argue with turds sentiments. When we're young we all feel the same. When we grow up. we change but we don't expect our heros to change so that we can live out our youth through them. So why do the stones debase their legacy so frivolously?

For the money of course. Let's face it, they don't really need it. But they don't get the cash from what is their real legacy after all - the 60s material. And I think that that is where you see a change in the stones - they finished the 60s in debt and recorded Exile in the basement of Keith's house. No wonder by the time IORR came along they had learnt the hard way that it's only rock n roll!

Re: Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?
Posted by: MartinB ()
Date: July 18, 2007 00:36

Who cares about the private gigs... As long they perform well in their normal gigs

Re: Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?
Posted by: windmelody ()
Date: July 18, 2007 00:38

The Stones are doing great records for a long time, I prefer BtB to Iorr and I prefer the 90's shows to many seventies recordings. In 2007 Richards and Wood played some bad shows, that is true, but the Stones do not debase their legacy. By the way, money always played a big roll in Rock'n'Roll. Of course the Stones are overdoing the moneything, but they are excessive guys in every aspect. I assume that they will stop rolling soon, and they will be abled to look back at a fantastic career.

Re: Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?
Posted by: Lukester ()
Date: July 18, 2007 00:41

.....but I think the point is a legacy is something that will "live" long after a person has died. For example, Bill Clinton's legacy should be that he was one of the brightest most innovative presidents the USA has ever had. Instead, his legacy may be that people remember him as the president who had a blow job while talking on the phone discussing foreign policy..........I hear that The Stones "don't need the money," so wouldn't these last years of their career be a great time for them to further their legacy as the Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World?.......as opposed to the Greediest.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-18 00:48 by Lukester.

Re: Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?
Posted by: oldkr ()
Date: July 18, 2007 01:11

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.

OLDKR

Re: Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?
Posted by: schillid ()
Date: July 18, 2007 01:13

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.
>
> OLDKR


Good answer.

Re: Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?
Posted by: Lukester ()
Date: July 18, 2007 01:18

...uh, if you say so.....so they in fact are not the greatest rock and roll band in the world, oldkr and schillid?

Re: Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?
Posted by: schillid ()
Date: July 18, 2007 01:21

Lukester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> so they in fact are not
> the greatest rock and roll band in the world,
> oldkr and schillid?


Uhh...
That's not what he said, your honor.

Re: Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?
Posted by: oldkr ()
Date: July 18, 2007 01:21

mick and keith dont sit there thinking to themselves, oh ive made such a huge impact over my lifetime i better preserve it. They sit there thinking how can i make the most money in the shortest time doing what i love. As for the greatest rock n roll band in the world. That is a tour creation. Theyre not even really a rock n roll band. They do however still put on the best show money can buy- if you're into large stadium style circus rock!

OLDKR

Re: Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?
Posted by: sjs12 ()
Date: July 18, 2007 01:21

Lukester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .....but I think the point is a legacy is
> something that will "live" long after a person has
> died.

But why would you care what people thought of you AFTER you died? After all, it's not as though you'd be around to hear what was being said.

Re: Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?
Posted by: madmaxx ()
Date: July 18, 2007 01:29

Turd On The Run Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I knew someone fortunate enough to be invited…a banker…nice-enough guy… <


Prey tell me what did the really nice guy have to say about his experience.

Would be interesting to know.

Re: Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?
Posted by: Lukester ()
Date: July 18, 2007 01:34

.....of course a dead person doesn't "care," sjs12.....although I think you are being argumentative with your question, to give you the benefit of doubt I will answer it. I care NOW because I want my children (and possibly grandchildren) to be proud of their father's accomplishments.....and I would like to feel some pride in my lifetime knowing that I have accomplished something positive, not negative......so of course other people like the Stones could have similar desires, right?......hopefully you do too, sjs12.

Re: Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?
Posted by: oldkr ()
Date: July 18, 2007 01:34

wrong thread



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-18 01:38 by oldkr.

Re: Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?
Posted by: sjs12 ()
Date: July 18, 2007 01:45

Lukester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .....of course a dead person doesn't "care,"
> sjs12.....although I think you are being
> argumentative with your question, to give you the
> benefit of doubt I will answer it. I care NOW
> because I want my children (and possibly
> grandchildren) to be proud of their father's
> accomplishments.....and I would like to feel some
> pride in my lifetime knowing that I have
> accomplished something positive, not
> negative......so of course other people like the
> Stones could have similar desires,
> right?......hopefully you do too, sjs12.

But if their father had already changed the face of rock n roll, wrote and recorded many of the best songs ever and helped change the world - would your children really notice a gig to a handful of bankers played near your retirement? And, even if it was noticed, would they actually care about it in relation to the other accomlishments?

By the way, the comparison with Clinton is valid. However, the more accurate comparison to the stones would be about Keith's tree fall or the father snorting stories. These trivial jokes will be the things which actually affect the stones legacy. Let alone the old stories of Keith changing his blood or even the Marrianne Faithful marsbar story. All of this detracts from the real legacy of the stones.

But outside of this board (and one or two german bankers), who in the world actually knows or cares about this private gig? No-one.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-18 01:46 by sjs12.

Re: Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?
Posted by: Glam Descendant ()
Date: July 18, 2007 01:56

I don't get the outrage -- they've done private corporate gigs before. Why is playing for Deutsche Bank worse than playing for Pepsi?

Look around, there are bigger issues to get upset over than who a rock band is playing for and who's paying them.

Re: Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?
Posted by: Lukester ()
Date: July 18, 2007 01:57

good point, sjs12.....good point....

Re: Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?
Posted by: brainer ()
Date: July 18, 2007 02:02

In the 60s /70s a show for bankers would have been there last show!!!

Re: Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?
Posted by: Bingo ()
Date: July 18, 2007 02:30

The Stones live...is not nearly the show it use to be. They're like beer, not wine, they got worse with age.

So, the casual fan they are playing for today, according to what I read here, that's who they play for, is getting an old skunky beer. To bad they didn't play for the hard core Stones fan, maybe they would've aged like a nice bottle of wine, if they took chances and not played it "safe."

It hurts that I have to write those above words, I thought I would never say that about The Stones.


Re: Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?
Posted by: sweetcharmedlife ()
Date: July 18, 2007 02:40

Of course they don't care about thier legacy. First of all, I think they have been so sheltered from reality,they really don't have any idea what their legacy is. They plan tours,do records, go on and on as long as people still pay the money and care enough about the band.
This is pretty much the way they have always seemed to operate. They have never been a "fan friendly" type of band. It's more like this is how we are, take it or leave it. And 45 years later people are still taking it.

Re: Why do the Stones debase their legacy so frivolously?
Posted by: Sway65 ()
Date: July 18, 2007 03:03

Well normally I don't read really long posts in their entirety, just 'skim' them to get the gist. But Turd On The Run I must say (sincerely) that was one of the best, most thoughtful and eloquent posts I have ever read- you should be a writer (maybe you are!).

If I had more time I would probably post a longer reply, but I must say that I am at times a little 'disappointed' in some of the money-making enterprises that the Stones have cooked up in recent times.

The analogy between 'the girl' (the Stones) and yourself as the devastated suitor is well made. Another example of this kind of thing is where a sports fan devotedly attends every game his team plays, and then when his team makes the Superbowl, Cup Final or whatever and he would walk over broken glass for a ticket, his ticket goes to a chardonnay sipping yuppie so he can do some'networking'. And don't 'start me up' on all the deluxe concert packages available on rollingstones.com. Isn't this the kind of stuff that Keef has expressed a fair level of disgust with over the years?

In defence of the Stones, I really think the last few years with the Licks and Bigger Bang tours will come to be viewed as a bit of a golden period for them . IMHO the Stones concert performances in recent times have been phenomenal, and one thing I really love about the recent concerts has been that the band have revisited thair musical legacy and played a good number of the tracks known and loved by ardent fans, rather than just the casual 'greatest hits' concert-goer.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 1090
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 9627 on January 2, 2024 23:10

Previous page Next page First page IORR home