I don't know if it's just me or not but I feel that bands like Led Zeppelin, Queen or The Beatles are treated with more respect than the Stones and they're also seen as sort of bands which are cool to like whereas the Stones are seen as a band that's not cool to like and they don't get much respect seeing as how everyone and their mother jokes about their age or says that they only tour for the money, etc... Many people say that the Stones should retire because they're too old and they're always accused of touring for the money. However, people like Paul McCartney or Eric Clapton, who are as old as the Stones, still do tours everyonce in a while as well and I don't see people saying they should retire because of their age or accusing them of being greedy just because they tour. I don't really get that.

What do you think?

If it is that way, it's because we "fans" always do bash our own band.

The Stones are too cool for most people, that's it. Maybe, people are jealous about their own uncoolness?

The tallest object will attract the lightning hence The Stones are the lightning rod for old guy jokes since their tours and new albums draw the most attention. I think a lot of it also has to do with the way The Stones act. Clapton and Macca are seen as pop guys who sit there playing their guitars and pianos while The Stones still act the way they did thirty years ago- hence the ridicule by some people.

I think younger people think artists like Zep or Hendrix are cooler due to the fact that they stopped at an earlier age and are seen in that light as opposed to The Stones who went on and are seen as old men by younger people.

The title of this topic would have been an issue 30 years ago.

I don't think it is anymore. For many years--off and on--the Stones defined cool. The world we live in now is the one that they played a major part in creating.

Whether or not some young weenie insists that they are not "cool" doesn't really matter. Because they have their own style.

And they are legends.

Just wait to the day the Stones are not around anymore (very long from now, of course...) and everybody will praise them and talk about them as the true legends of music they actually are.

It works like this most of the time, but it's not our problem. We already know they are cool and they're legends.

"Is It Me Or Are The Stones Seen As Uncool By Most People Nowadays?"

It is you. Obviously... I think the so called "general public" does accept what the Stones do nowadays in a clearer way compared to late 80s and 90s , at time when the "old farts" theory was much more popular IMO. Also the huge majority of the Press seems to speak in flattering terms of the Stones atleast when they are on tour (or when they are offering us albums like "SAL"...)

On the other hand the Stones have fanatic enemies. That's absolutely explanainable IMO. They're so successful, especially as live act... They have survived after the death of newer musical kinds- not only of particular bands... They 're demolishing theories and boring cliche about "how old rockers should smooth" blah, blah, blah.. The Stones are denying stereotyped ideas about rock and roll and this fact bothers many people around...

Baboon Bro wrote: "If it is that way, it's because we "fans" always do bash our own band". Fortunately, real life is out there, Baboon!

Quote
Memo From Tina Turner
I don't know if it's just me or not but I feel that bands like Led Zeppelin, Queen or The Beatles are treated with more respect than the Stones and they're also seen as sort of bands which are cool to like whereas the Stones are seen as a band that's not cool to like and they don't get much respect seeing as how everyone and their mother jokes about their age or says that they only tour for the money, etc... Many people say that the Stones should retire because they're too old and they're always accused of touring for the money. However, people like Paul McCartney or Eric Clapton, who are as old as the Stones, still do tours everyonce in a while as well and I don't see people saying they should retire because of their age or accusing them of being greedy just because they tour. I don't really get that.

What do you think?

Of course they're seen as uncool. Its because of their age and we live in an age and appearance-obsessed society. Perfectly natural. You cant expect too many people half their age to think of them as 'cool' or being someone to look up to.

Significant difference between the comparisons between the Stones and the likes of Macca and Clapton who, as you correctly say, dont get the same nonsense for continuing to tour.

Its because theyre a 'group' and I suppose the idea of being seen to be in a 'gang' when youre that age is seen as uncool. That, plus theyre the really the only rock band still going uninterrupted at that age, so theres nothing else to compare it too.

To be honest, I think the whole 'ridicule' thing is overstated. While it was certainly the case some years ago, theres become more widespread media acceptance and respect for the Stones in recent years for being able to keep going. The whole 'who would have believed it..theyre on tour again...at their age' type nonsense has got a bit old and theres actually been less of that over the last couple of years as its become more accepted that they're here for the duration.

Younger fans don't carry the same baggage/expectations that older ones do.

They approach the Stones well aware they are as old as their parents (or grandparents) so it's a non-issue.

They don't even have to cross a psychic "generation gap" like someone who was a child of the '60's might contend with in developing an appreciation for Frank Sinatra.

The demographic for the "They Are Too Old" crowd seems to be people in their mid-40's. Too young to remember the '68-'72 golden age first-hand, and at just the right ripe age to swallow all of the "Stones are too old" propaganda of the punk era without question.

if "nowadays" means since about 1980, it's not just you.

From my experience people respect them and think they are very cool even if they don't know many things about them.

it's out of jealousy - people are jealous b/c the stones are the only 60's band still around actively - they are the last surviving artifact from the 60's really.... and with their age come the jokes - but it's all b/c of jealousy, b/c no one has done it this long before... zepp and hendrix are seen perhaps as more "cool" to younger kids b/c they are no longer around, dead, etc... whereas the stones are around so the kids probably figure, they can always hear the stones - very few of us have even known a world without the stones, but you cannot say the same about hendrix, the doors, or zeppelin and so i think that is a "cool"attraction to the college kids... when the day comes when the stones are not around and the jealous age jokes stop, i am sure that the stones will have their place of "cool" among college kids

I hear this alot also, most people are dumbasses anyways

I don't believe in the whole jealousy thing. I'm not sure why average joe's are jealous of musicians who are still touring? Musicians are jealous of musicians. Lotta people always try to end the conversation with "Oh they're just jealous." That argument doesn't always work.

Clapton and McCartney don't get crap because they don't jump or move around on stage. The Stones, of course, are an energetic band...a band that is known for its energy: Mick dancing especially. Also, they've had that terrible stigma of the whole "Sex Drugs and Rock and Roll" image---assuming that they're still doing drugs and acting promiscous which is a bit odd in their old age. Of course, that's not really true....but the music and image still give the vibe that they're all still junkies. That's a cause for some of the ridicule, I see it.

Let's be honest about this, rock 'n rollers don't age very well. If they lose their hair / marbles / energy / looks they are generally written off. After a certain time they may acquire a certain antique value and then a certain amount of affection returns.
In Cuba, by contrast they obviously don't give a damn about age - look at the average age of the Buena Vista Club members.
Jazz musicians generally don't suffer the same ridicule either.

Stones fans in the early days were hardly respectful to Sinatra (or those of his ilk) so we can't expect a much different reaction from the Radio 1 listeners -or D.J's of today.
May be its down to the culture of the country concerned-in some places (more likely the third world) music and musicians are more likely to be revered.Here, its largely just another branch of show - biz i.e.it is vulnerable to changes in fashion and taste rather than an assessment of quality of music.
Of course Mick has said that fame (talking about the Stones longevity) is dowwn to 80% luck, 10% hard work and 10% talent which seeems about right, so I don't imagine he's too hung about it.

I actually think that Clapton and Dylan have still retained their "cool" but they are exceptions to the rule. The group/gang thing does not help - Lennon was very damning of this in his post Beatle interviews

Also-and this is just a personal opinion - the drug/acohol personna that still pervades (some band members) doesn't look well with with age. I mean we aren't talking about tortured souls here - so "why can't they just get their act together" (quote).

Best thing would be to produce a critically acclaimed album - Johnny Cash delivered one (just before he died).That might answer the critics etc.

Who defines what is cool or uncool? Dylan gets an easy ride with music journalists etc and still produces critically acclaimed work. On the other hand, the last gig I went to was tedious as hell and a lot of empty seats. I think if you showed his photo to most teenagers today they wouldn't recognise him. On the other hand, most teenagers still know who the Rolling Stones are and recognise Mick and, since Pirates, Keith. They still sell more tickets than any band who tours to a comparable extent. That's probably different from being cool, although (and we've had this argument before) a lot of teenagers wear tongue logo gear. I'm not sure even McCartney is seen as cool by anyone these days and I have long argued that the Beatles pre eminent reputation rests on the fact they disbanded more or less at their peak, whereas the Stones are de valued for having carried on through hell and high water.

Depends what you mean by people.

Most people under 18 wouldn't give a flying hoot about Dylan, Stones, Macca.

Under 30's can probably appreciate past achievments

60's and under on general are probably gobsmaked there still going, don't think they are as good as in their day or plain silly old buggers!

Is It Me Or Is Elmo Seen As Uncool By Most People Nowadays?




"No Anchovies, Please"

Quote
Lady Jayne
Who defines what is cool or uncool? Dylan gets an easy ride with music journalists etc and still produces critically acclaimed work. On the other hand, the last gig I went to was tedious as hell and a lot of empty seats. I think if you showed his photo to most teenagers today they wouldn't recognise him. On the other hand, most teenagers still know who the Rolling Stones are and recognise Mick and, since Pirates, Keith. They still sell more tickets than any band who tours to a comparable extent. That's probably different from being cool, although (and we've had this argument before) a lot of teenagers wear tongue logo gear. I'm not sure even McCartney is seen as cool by anyone these days and I have long argued that the Beatles pre eminent reputation rests on the fact they disbanded more or less at their peak, whereas the Stones are de valued for having carried on through hell and high water.

Dylan's critical resurgence has only been in the last 10-15 years or so. It hadnt been that way since the mid 70s. It sure as hell wasnt during the 'Born Again' era.

I'd agree that Mccartney (and Clapton who was mentioned in this thread) arent seen as 'cool' by too many people of any age.

Dont think the Stones tongue logo means anything. Most people I've ever met under 25 who wear that are pretty much unfamiliar with its origins. Its regarded as just a cool looking logo, like 'FCUK' or stuff like that. Mick would mainly be recognisable to young people because as a major celebrity his face is in the paper a lot. It wouldnt be for his music.

Youre correct in the way the Stones/beatles are regarded by the wider public because one stopped when tyhey were young, whereas the other has been seen as 'old' now for about two generations!

The main thing that stops the Stones being seen as 'cool' by people under 25 is that their concerts are financially inacessible. Its significant that when the Stones played the Isle of Wight festival last year - which attracts a primarily younger audience to what they usually do - they went down a storm with an audience which, for the most part, was seeing them for the first time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-12 18:02 by Gazza.

I remember in the mid 80's being a 'closet' Stones fan - people thought it was laughable to really like the Stones, particularly young kids (as in teenagers, early twenties) that was most uncool.
Think today more young folks really like them - it's the old farts who bash them now.

Nah, Elmo, you're stone stone cool, man.

Right back at you, Bro!

Dylan made, to me, some terrible records in the 1980s. I think fans and critics alike were slammed when he made Time Out Of Mind - he was back to making a good record.

I think the Stones have made - whether or not they are as good as Exile or Some Girls is a moot point - some decent records (Voodoo, Bridges), some by the numbers records (Dirty Work, Steel Wheels) and one considerable one (A Bigger Bang) when you compare them to the rest.

Because they keep going.

Goddamn right they're cool. I used to hear people say Oh they're old. And then I'd tear them a new ass about whoever. Now people are saying Wow they keep going, they keep making records and they keep touring and they sound great.

Willie Nelson puts out 15,000 albums a year and tours all the time. No one seems to give him any crap about his age. There are a lot of acts that are old, getting old or are older than the Stones. The Stones get the jokes because they've earned that respect - what is the world without ANOTHER Rolling Stones tour? So even if there is the old jokes and just whatever - it's because the point has been delivered.

The biggest problem is it's not Have you heard the new Stones album? It's amazing isn't it? - no, it's Oh those mummies are back on tour...and so on.

The Stones would've been 'cooler' if they'd quit after Exile and didn't allow themselves to grow old as a band. Simple as that. They are not stuck in the 60's like The Beatles.

As Gazza pointed out, the tounge logo means jack.

Slightly OTT, but on the subject of t-shirts, I used to wear a Tamla Motown t-shirt and was once asked by a girl, "Tamla Motown, what is that? Are they an NME band?"

A lot of kids (from 13 to 30) I know seem to have found a new love in the Stones this last summer. Many of them saw the band live for the first time and were impressed by the energy and the way those "guys, older than my grandparents" pulled off the shows. And they've started listening to their music. I'd say the Stones are considered a lot cooler no0wadays than only five or ten years ago. The audience is getting younger! (Thank god!)

Gazza just pointed out that not a lot of people know the orgins of the tongue and lips. But people DO know it's The Rolling Stones.

Quote
skipstone
Gazza just pointed out that not a lot of people know the orgins of the tongue and lips. But people DO know it's The Rolling Stones.

True, but they don't know more than Satisfaction and thats only because they saw their grandparent's dance to it at a family wedding.

Ho ho ho - I've never heard Satisfaction played at a wedding!!!

Quote
Gazza
The main thing that stops the Stones being seen as 'cool' by people under 25 is that their concerts are financially inacessible. Its significant that when the Stones played the Isle of Wight festival last year - which attracts a primarily younger audience to what they usually do - they went down a storm with an audience which, for the most part, was seeing them for the first time.

They received an outstanding reception at Wight (and gave an outstanding performance, IMO) but they were hugely anticipated by the younger than usual crowd. By that I mean there was no question who everybody was waiting to see which leads me to think their music is way more embedded in younger culture than we give credit.

I'm sure that the young crowd was excited to see the Stones at the Isle of Wight Festival because younger fans are for the most part shut out of Stones concerts on tours because of the incredible prices. How can people ages 14-18 afford $450 floor seats by themselves? They can't really go with friends and have a good time when the price for tickets are that high.

For a large part of the people in attendance at Isle's were probably ecstatic that they got to see the Stones for the price they paid.