really get on my t1ts, is alright to critisize if there is a valid point to be made, but every time you open a newspaper and read a review of shine a light or anything else to do with the stones it always gets back to thier age and how they are no longer as good as they used to be, which is disapointing.

simply put no one can control what age they are and the fact the stones are still capable of putting on a show and write and record songs means they should be praised for thier efforts instead.

if anyone should get critisized it should be all the pretenders to the stones crown that are less than half thier age, bands who simply will never be anywhere near as good as the stones, oasis fall into this catagory.

its called envy

It's called people's opinions, which they have a right too.
The difference now is, even half of their fans are admitting it now as the quality of their performance gets worse every time.

[thepowergoats.com]

I have a different impression. I think they were dissed (for their age) much more harshly some ten to fifteen years ago. During the last few years the aging thing have seemed to start for work them. They are quite admired and respected for their non-natural stamina and energy.

- Doxa

A great many syocphants and apologists here, actually use the age factor of the Stones as a means of defending their occasional lapse and insipid performances.

So what's worst then, slagging off Rolling Stones because of their age, or defending them because of it?
To simply overlook it...well that's not fair either. It's difficult growing old

Quote
wee bobby lennox
really get on my t1ts, is alright to critisize if there is a valid point to be made, but every time you open a newspaper and read a review of shine a light or anything else to do with the stones it always gets back to thier age and how they are no longer as good as they used to be, which is disapointing.

We live in the same country and presumably have access to the same newspapers as each other, yet it seems you've been reading entirely different reviews to the ones I've seen which have almost unanimously praised both the album and the movie.

From what I can see, when theyre not touring or working, the Stones still manage to get an incredible amount of press coverage for a band who havent exactly been cutting edge for over three decades. The gossipy press may joke about their age a lot (not as much as they used to though as Doxa correctly points out) yet when they tour, the press reaction to their shows is almost universally favourable. And their last studio album got glowing reviews for the most part as has this new live one.

And when you were as magnificent as the Stones were in their prime, reading that they cant always keep that standard up hardly makes it a hatchet job. No one realistically expects anyone to deliver that level of consistency for decades and only the biggest sycophant would argue that they're doing so.

Personally, I think this siege mentality that some fans have over the press' attitude to the band is over the top.

Quote
Doxa
I have a different impression. I think they were dissed (for their age) much more harshly some ten to fifteen years ago. During the last few years the aging thing have seemed to start for work them. They are quite admired and respected for their non-natural stamina and energy.

- Doxa

This is correct

In Q 1994: "The interesting old farts" was the headline. This was a quote from Keith. Keith said they were viewed as boring old farts when the punk movement came around in 1978, but now they were interesting old farts.

The Stones nowadays are more respected than in the nineties, although their performances in this decade were fantastic. I remember that in 1990 the Stones often were described as old men, even though they were in their fourties only.

Quote
Doxa
I have a different impression. I think they were dissed (for their age) much more harshly some ten to fifteen years ago. During the last few years the aging thing have seemed to start for work them. They are quite admired and respected for their non-natural stamina and energy.

- Doxa

agree....i think part of the reason SAL was made was to show how
amazing these wrinkled creatures are. Scorsese is paying tribute to
their greatness and longevity. For press articles to focus on their
age should be no surprise. Most (as Doxa noted) admire their energy.
How could they not. Those that dismiss them as being old jokes
are just exposing their ignorance.


IORR............but I like it!

age alone is not a legitamate criticism. But... If you have a specific example of how age may be affecting their performance, than thats a valid critique. Like an increasing number of shows having to be cancled because Micks voice is going out.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-13 23:11 by ryanpow.

Face facts.

We are no longer talking about the naieve, stupid age-ist crticism that the Stones have had to deal with throughout almost their entire career. These latest lambastings are instead, based upon the gathering evidence that their advancing years are finally beginning to affect their ability to sing and play guitar.

Some of this "slagging off" is actually genuine crticism and sadly, to some degree, fully justifiable.

It's interesting how some artists go through an 'unhip' period during their later years, others slip easily into 'elder statesmen' roles. Armstrong, truly a giant of 20th century music, appeared a lot on TV during the '50s & '60s, yet because of his performing style and persona was seen, stupidly, to be an 'uncle tom' to some young (black & white) kids. Of course after his death much of his later work was reissued and embraced - because he never lost his warmth and heart and generosity even when his trumpet playing faltered. No one wpould write a big piece calling for Areth to retire due to fact that 95% of her best work was done for Atlantic between 1967 - 73. She's a 'diva'. Any 'rock' band can be 40 now, but when the Stones turned 30 they were already 'old' because staying together over a decade was then unprecedented.

Most of the press are jealous of the stones,all the reporters who write on the stones are FAT/UGLY & BALD,yea the joke is on them.

Quote
jamesfdouglas
It's called people's opinions, which they have a right too.
The difference now is, even half of their fans are admitting it now as the quality of their performance gets worse every time.

Man, you take the cake, slagging the band yet trying to make a few bucks by being in an alleged tribute group, and using the board for free advertising. You haven't earned any support from THIS musician.

Just checked out the Powergoat...Man they have deteriorated...they were better in 72....they suck now...just my opinion

Quote
zee
Just checked out the Powergoat...Man they have deteriorated...they were better in 72....they suck now...just my opinion

LOL!!!

i agree 100%..this drives me nuts.. who cares about their age??? i don't see any younger people doing what they do anyways!

Folks like Muddy Watters, Howlin' Wolf, Sonnyboy Williamson II practically played until they dropped, (even Frank Sinatra). And folks still alive like BB King, Tony Bennet, and Chuck Berry, can go on and on. For those who keep rocking...until the very end, I salute you!

Some of us believe, infact, that they really ARE old. I'm a diehard fan, 24 years old, and have seen 11 shows since '97, and was at the Beacon for both gigs. I can't sit here and type that I think they're the same or better than they were in the past.

I took 3 friends with me to see Shine A Light in our local Imax. The quality and sound was fantastic. Great performance. My friends agreed with me when I said that the Stones rock harder than most bands in existence. (that is, when we're talking straightup rocknroll, but who else is doing it?)

Keith looks like shit, and that detracts alot when you're up so close. This coming week I'm having some friends over to watch Hampton '81 on my HDtv & quadraphonic sound system. Not because SAL sucked, but because I feel its unfair to see this film without seeing the Stones in their prime.

I'm still pissed off at how little the film showed of THE STONES. Also, its the F*&#ING IMAX!! Where were the wide shots?? How bout some slow pans?? How about showing more than 5 seconds total of Charlie Watts!?!?

None of the folks I mentioned above were as good the last 10 years of their life as they were when they were younger, as a person who first picked up a guitar over 40 years ago, I fully appriciate those that keep going, even if the "good old days" has long passed them by.

Regardless of opinions and criticisms, the fcat remains that they still want to do it...and plenty of folks still want to see them do it.

Quote
Spud
...and plenty of folks still want to see them do it.

including me.

If the Stones or Mick jagger do think the have to show the audience how sexy somebody can be with 65 he is wrong. Jagger isn't and so is the movie, embarassing.And I fully understand why people complain about it.

age doesn't matter, unless you're a cheese....