I loved their music from the very beginning. I remember hearing Satisfaction for the first time, on a little transistor radio with an ear plug, as I walked from school (9th grade) to the bus stop for the ride back to East LA. Those first albums were classics, and I wore them out! But as they evolved as a group, so did my musical tastes. So, when they came out with JJF, I was ready. I always eagerly anticipated their new songs, and was never disappointed.

When I saw them at the Hollywood Bowl in '66, they were still a "pop"-like band. THere were screaming girls everywhere! But, at the LA Forum in "69, it was obvious they had become a different band, more blues-oriented and brilliant live. THink about it - how many of the songs on that tour were new? Almost all of the set were songs being introduced live for the first time. There were no screaming girls, but an audience mesmerized by what we were seeing and hearing.

The Stones had grown up and so had I, and I loved it all . . . .

...wow, thanks DaveG.....and didn't I read here that someone broke into your car and stole your radio while you were at that Forum show in 1969?

Right Luke, but I wish it HAD been my radio - it was my leather fringe jacket!!!

...dang, that's even worse!!

Quote
DaveG
I loved their music from the very beginning. I remember hearing Satisfaction for the first time, on a little transistor radio with an ear plug, as I walked from school (9th grade) to the bus stop for the ride back to East LA. Those first albums were classics, and I wore them out! But as they evolved as a group, so did my musical tastes. So, when they came out with JJF, I was ready. I always eagerly anticipated their new songs, and was never disappointed.

When I saw them at the Hollywood Bowl in '66, they were still a "pop"-like band. THere were screaming girls everywhere! But, at the LA Forum in "69, it was obvious they had become a different band, more blues-oriented and brilliant live. THink about it - how many of the songs on that tour were new? Almost all of the set were songs being introduced live for the first time. There were no screaming girls, but an audience mesmerized by what we were seeing and hearing.

The Stones had grown up and so had I, and I loved it all . . . .

The only "oldies" the played in '69 were Carol, Little Queenie, Satisfaction, I'm Free, and Under My Thumb. Everything else was vintage '68 or '69. They played the new stuff because they KNEW it was good. Only one other time, in 1978, did they feel that strongly about their new material.

Question: Did the notion of a "rock and roll band" even exist in 1966? Or were even relative heavyweights like the Yardbirds still regarded as "pop groups". See, it wasn't just the Stones that evolved, it was rock music in general. When Mick was interviewed in Rolling Stone Magazine in 1968, and asked Why don't the Stones go on tour?, he said someting like "I don't want to go out and sing Paint It Black to a bunch of screaming girls". He hadn't really gotten it yet that groups like Cream and Hendrix and the Who, not to mention all the San Francisco bands, had completely changed the concert experience. He was still stuck in the show biz world of 1966, and couldn't understand that he was going to have a (relatively) quiet, respectful audience who just wanted to sit and listen to their amazing new material. And, also, in 1968, he had no way of knowing that a kid named Mick Taylor was going to have a huge impact on what they could play and how they could play it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-24 16:05 by tatters.

>> Question: Did the notion of a "rock and roll band" even exist in 1966? <<

if you mean "rock band", i agree with your doubts about whether such a thing as a "rock group"
was a widely perceived concept at the time. by 1966 of course rock & roll per se was quite "retro".
(the way people use these terms gets quite confusing sometimes - i too often use "rock & roll"
in the broad sense of "rock", but in this case i think it'll be clearer to distinguish the two.)

>> The only "oldies" the played in '69 were Carol, Little Queenie, Satisfaction, I'm Free, and Under My Thumb. <<

the Stones hadn't played Little Queenie before 1969, so if it counts as an "oldie",
so do Prodigal Son and You Gotta Move.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-24 18:03 by with sssoul.

SFTD was the first song that really registered with me. I was in seventh grade in '70 or so. I of course new "Satisfaction" but not much else.

>> Question: Did the notion of a "rock and roll band" even exist in 1966? <<

if you mean "rock band", i agree with your doubts about whether such a thing as a "rock group"
was a widely perceived concept at the time. by 1966 of course rock & roll per se of course was quite "retro".
(the way people use these terms gets quite confusing sometimes - i too often use "rock & roll"
in the broad sense of "rock", but in this case i think it'll be clearer to distinguish the two.)



Yes, I meant to say "rock band". It would be interesting to know when that term was first used and to whom it was first applied. It had to be no later than '67. I can't imagine that even in the "straight" press, the Dead were ever described as a "pop group".



>> The only "oldies" the played in '69 were Carol, Little Queenie, Satisfaction, I'm Free, and Under My Thumb. <<

the Stones hadn't played Little Queenie before 1969, so if it counts as an "oldie",
so do Prodigal Son and You Gotta Move.



Yes, if you want to nitpick.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-24 17:21 by tatters.

Quote
mexicostone
i am 15 , at 11 ( in 2004) , i came to my daddy's studio ( without permission , hahaha) and i was searching for good shit cd's.
i just took hot rocks.
then , i took it to my room and listened to all of it , i got mad , and i liked all of the songs.
i got more mad every day , i kept downloading on lime wire the next 2 years , and i bought ABB , it was fantastic , i just told my dad to buy tix for mexico city and monterrey on feb 26 and march 1 2006.
they were amazing and i couldnt believe what i saw!!!
it was THE ROLLING STONES!!!! Live!!
yeah!!!!
by middle 2006 , i got all of the original cd's of the stones.
and also i went to vegas on nov. 11 2006 , amazing again!!
by 2007 i was collecting bunches of bootlegs , and i was just tuned here on IORR for the european tour 2007. i followed every show review here on IORR , i was begging my dad to bring me to the "last" show of the stones on London.
and my dream came true , we purchased two hot seats.
i realized on those years that the stones were the BEST that could have happened to me , no other thing could be better. theyre my soul , they are just .... no word for it.
waiting for the next tour , ill be in so many more shows this time .
anyone can say they can be old or any bad stuff , but after having proves and going to at least a show , you know what it is in reality , a kick-ass show that wont ever let you down , and i dont know how to write my love to them , so i say theyre HOT.

Wow, mexicostone, you discovered the Stones by yourself...and are
already an addict, aged 15! Congratulations! Right choice!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-24 18:09 by TooTough.

>> Yes, if you want to nitpick. <<

smile: yeah, everyone needs a hobby! i call it "keeping the historical details straight".
and i think the point you were making was how much of what they played on the 69 tour
was stuff that they hadn't played in concert before 1969 - Little Queenie included.
and something like a third of the setlist (depending on the show) was stuff that hadn't been released yet.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-24 18:19 by with sssoul.

Well, young musicians (even the Yardbirds) were definitely still "groups" throughout the 60s, at least in the UK. A "band" were usually older, and played jazz or light-classical music on brass instruments. "Rock and Roll" by the mid-60s was thought of as old-fashioned stuff, Bill Haley and early Elvis and so on, to be danced to by "rockers" - leather-jacketed bikers and their girlfriends. The "modern" teenagers liked the newer pop groups, and were the "Mods". And they hated each other to the point of having pitched battles when they met. When other musicians called Keith a "rocker" in those days it wasn't exactly a compliment.

We were just beginning to learn that there was something new, called "rock", which was played by people who wanted to be taken more seriously than a mere "pop group". "Pop" was thought of as trashy commercialised music for teenage girls to scream at because they fancied the singer, and "rock" was heavyweight stuff for boys to listen to because they wanted to be the singer (or the guitarist).

When the Stones first became famous, the "rock band" wasn't a role that had been invented yet. They had to spend some years being a pop group because that was then the only known way of being young professional non-classical musicians. So they got the full Beatles treatment with the screaming girls and the fan publicity aimed at young teenagers - which most of us were.

During the time they were off the road in the late 60s things changed. Pop music was being taken more seriously and some groups had already started down the road to becoming Very Serious Progressive Rock Musicians. That was what the Stones discovered when they went to the States in 1969 - and I think it came as a pleasant surprise.

The thing is that the Stones were never really any of those things. They played at being a pop group when they needed to, and they became a rock band when they needed to do that (and I think if Mick Taylor hadn't left when he did they would have become even more like all the other Serious Rock Bands that the punks hated so much). But they don't really fit any of those descriptions. They do what they need to do to stay on the road and keep playing their music - which is pop, and blues, and rock, and folk, and country, and punk, and reggae, and whatever else they fancy, and above all FUN. Which is why they are not a "rock band". "Rock & Roll" is as good a description as you're going to get.

Somebody asked Keith "what is success?" and he replied, "The opportunity to continue".

Quote
TooTough

Quote
mexicostone
i am 15 , at 11 ( in 2004) , i came to my daddy's studio ( without permission , hahaha) and i was searching for good shit cd's.
i just took hot rocks.
then , i took it to my room and listened to all of it , i got mad , and i liked all of the songs.
i got more mad every day , i kept downloading on lime wire the next 2 years , and i bought ABB , it was fantastic , i just told my dad to buy tix for mexico city and monterrey on feb 26 and march 1 2006.
they were amazing and i couldnt believe what i saw!!!
it was THE ROLLING STONES!!!! Live!!
yeah!!!!
by middle 2006 , i got all of the original cd's of the stones.
and also i went to vegas on nov. 11 2006 , amazing again!!
by 2007 i was collecting bunches of bootlegs , and i was just tuned here on IORR for the european tour 2007. i followed every show review here on IORR , i was begging my dad to bring me to the "last" show of the stones on London.
and my dream came true , we purchased two hot seats.
i realized on those years that the stones were the BEST that could have happened to me , no other thing could be better. theyre my soul , they are just .... no word for it.
waiting for the next tour , ill be in so many more shows this time .
anyone can say they can be old or any bad stuff , but after having proves and going to at least a show , you know what it is in reality , a kick-ass show that wont ever let you down , and i dont know how to write my love to them , so i say theyre HOT.

Wow, mexicostone, you discovered the Stones by yourself...and are
already an addict, aged 15! Congratulations! Right choice!

thanks , TooTough!
let's bring thousands of new stones lovers.
yeah , this is the right choice, green day , simple plan , or coldplay are just pretenders , that's what the majority listens to , but theyre just pretenders , no band could ever bring you happiness nor excitement like the stones do.

>> They do what they need to do to stay on the road and keep playing their music -
which is pop, and blues, and rock, and folk, and country, and punk, and reggae, and whatever else they fancy,
and above all FUN. Which is why they are not a "rock band". "Rock & Roll" is as good a description as you're going to get. <<

beautiful post, Green Lady - thanks

Well this is a great question.I am one of the original Rolling Stones fans.I have seen them in concert live in the 60's,70's,80's.90's and 2000's.In the beginning you must realize they had only a few speakers and the show was small but loud.As time progressed the stages got larger and the music sounded much better live.In the early days the live music did not sound close the the studio version.I for one am still amazed that they have survived all these years and are still together.When I see people critize a concert it makes me sick.Reason is there is going to come a day soon that you will not be able to ever see them play live again.When I go to a show I can flash back and see how far they have come as a band.I like the old songs as well as some of the new ones but I did not like all the old ones.I have been and shall always be a TRUE ROLLING STONES FAN.Take the great with the bad and when you get to see your next show just remember it might be the last time and you will not whine or bitch it was off key or to loud or any other lame reason to critize the greatest rock and roll band of all time.Best the is or ever will be.And yes I saw the Beatles,Led Zeppelin and many others but in the end there is only one.

Quote
with sssoul
>> Yes, if you want to nitpick. <<

smile: yeah, everyone needs a hobby! i call it "keeping the historical details straight".
and i think the point you were making was how much of what they played on the 69 tour
was stuff that they hadn't played in concert before 1969 - Little Queenie included.
and something like a third of the setlist (depending on the show) was stuff that hadn't been released yet.

I'm glad someone is interested in keeping the historical details straight. I'm always amazed and annoyed when I read stuff in the press, written by people who should know better, that's full of historical inaccuracies. I remember Jerry Garcia saying that every time he saw or read something about himself or his band, the press got about half the facts wrong. So, he said, if they get half the facts wrong on a story in which he KNEW what the true facts were, doesn't it stand to reason that they get half the facts wrong on everything else, too?

Quote
Green Lady

Somebody asked Keith "what is success?" and he replied, "The opportunity to continue".

They've always been granted that opportunity because they've always managed to satisfy their customers. Definition of a successful business transaction: The buyer and the seller both want to do it again.