I understand that this will get me lambasted for sure here by many. But we all know how difficult it is being a fan of The Rolling Stones - that's no secret. It's been a frustrating experience being a follower of them for sure. We've all invested our hearts, sweat and tears (and cash) for these guys for decades - that's no secret either.

We also know that some artists are considered 'timeless' due to their legacies. This is always carried over by younger generations, the creme rises to the top. Certain bands/artists have that 'cool' factor that keeps them in the ears and hearts of music fans for future generations. Yong people today STILL love The Beatles, Zeppelin, Pink FLoyd, The Doors, etc. During the youth of Generation X, The Stones were also VERY MUCH part of that elite bunch of classic groups. From what I see (as a musician and DJ), this is no longer the case, and hasn't been at all since the recession.

It's hard for hardcore fans to believe much less accept, but we're the only ones left who remember or care that they were once "The World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band". Today's youth are aware that a) they've been calling themselves that the whole time and b) they exist to be a Cash Cow Band - just like KISS.

The Beatles remain hugely popular, kids today drool over Zeppelin and Floyd as well with religious fervour. I feel that The Stones slipping out of this view is something brought upon themselves. Now since the Stones have sizeable resources, would they be aware of this? Do they sense the scoffing at their ticket prices? Their lack of good material in 30 years?

Their image now, to be frank, is a bunch of old, fruity millionaires who can't stand each other. Older people get off on the ridiculous soap opera, but for the newbie, it's a huge, HUGE turn-off - maybe that's it? Younger fans are choosing to not support a group that has no connection to reality whatsoever.

I'd like to hear some thoughts, especially from those who know what I'm talking about (the hard-cores will offer their Austin Powers "but that's rock and roll baby, yeaaaahhhhh", "Keef is the man, good to be gold rings anywhere" or "Jagger's highly prolific", etc - you can save those; I've heard them all).

Maybe it's a North American thing?

____________________________________________________________________

Brand new track 06/12/13
TIGER PUNCH
[www.reverbnation.com]

I've heard young kids at Stones shows many times saying they were more interested in the opening act (talking before the show.)
After the show, these same kids would be glad they came to see the boys.

Perhaps it's just what the kids hear on the radio before coming to see them live for the first time.
Zeppelin, Floyd, etc. have that heavier sound that younguns like, but seeing the Stones live usually changes their minds.

True Edith, but The Stones playing live... hasn't happened since 2007.

____________________________________________________________________

Brand new track 06/12/13
TIGER PUNCH
[www.reverbnation.com]

JD - your point is understandable. The Stones however, will always be many things to many people. Over the 50 year legacy, there is no "sonic constant" as there is with the Beatles of Floyd or Zeppelin. It is not easy to "discover" the Stones. They will never have the mass appeal that the other bands you listed seem to have becasue there is almost no easy listening framwork around which the Stones have operated. Jagger's voice and Richards guitar playing simply do not suit the "gift for melodY" approach around which most pop music operates. Despite being somewhat limited musicians, the "range" that the Stones have demonstrated (and Jagger in particular has braved) is what is their distinguishing legacy.

My very personal and very subjective experience lately is that young musicians are still being turned on to the Stones, and that the "classic" period records (Exile, etc) are held in very high esteem. Now, that's musicians, which admittedly is not the population at large, but it is very gratifying nonetheless.

Jamesfdouglas, you are raising quite a delicate question. The problem ain`t about getting young people to their concerts, IMO. It`s getting them to buy their records. - And here we end up with the "demographic thing": Young people doesn`t seem to buy new albums by old people.

However, you have a point. People behind the counter selling "classic" rock today ain`t able to figure out why albums by The Stones don`t sell, "although the music is real good", as they say. Ain`t it heavy enough? - Hmmmm, the lightness of their music is what I like `bout The Stones, but I`m born in the 50s...

JFD admire you for posting your thoughts.

Sadly agree with most of what you've said.

Jagger is an aging workhorse who still loves music and an audience. He is a professional in the best sense of the word. Charlie is a jewel. If Bill comes back for the next tour he will definitely kick some musical ass because he's such a solid player the others have to respond.

I have very mixed feelings about going to any of the gigs except maybe Paris (cause they generally do their best there) or the LA Forum. I have great memories and feel lucky to have seen so many concerts at key moments.

There's no doubt the Stones legacy is being ground down at the moment,
unintentionally by Keith and intentionally by Mick and the PR apparatus.

But once the Stones are officially over, which I think will be by
next year at the latest, Mick and the PR apparatus will switch sides and begin to
re-pump them up.

Also, even without the help of the PR apparatus, a new dynamic dominates once you
are over. People stop thinking of you as you are, and start
thinking mostly of the high points of your career. For example, the death of
Michael Jackson has substantially rehabilitated even his reputation already.

Moving further out into the future, history and popular memory will put the
astonishing career of Mick, Keith, and the Stones back where it belongs.
At the top. This current sad part of the story will be but a blip on the screen.

Thank you for explaining to us idiots.

Quote
jamesfdouglas
The Beatles remain hugely popular, kids today drool over Zeppelin and Floyd as well with religious fervour. I feel that The Stones slipping out of this view is something brought upon themselves. Now since the Stones have sizeable resources, would they be aware of this? Do they sense the scoffing at their ticket prices? Their lack of good material in 30 years?

Their image now, to be frank, is a bunch of old, fruity millionaires who can't stand each other. Older people get off on the ridiculous soap opera, but for the newbie, it's a huge, HUGE turn-off - maybe that's it? Younger fans are choosing to not support a group that has no connection to reality whatsoever.

Interesting post, James. I wonder if I'd be able to "represent" the younger crowd...being 27 years old. I'm perhaps on the cusp of being too old to speak on their behalf but I'll do it anyway haha!

You have valid points but in my experience, subjects like the soap opera drama, lack of another classic album in the last 30 years, or high ticket prices really haven't come into play with younger people. All throughout high school and college I knew a lot of people that got the Stones. They dug their music and knew what they were all about. But then, there was a huge percentage of people that hated them. A variety of superficial reasons ranging from "Mick Jagger's gay." "Jimmy Page is a better guitar player than Keith Richards" "They don't rock as hard as so-and-so." I never really heard that they hated the Stones because they couldn't stand hearing about Ronnie Wood's troubled life after his divorce or about Todger-gate.

As others mentioned, the Stones very much do matter...to the right people: both musicians and non-musician folk. It's a very weird dynamic with the Stones...because unlike Zeppelin or The Beatles...they're still around. Not only are they around but they're crapped on for no apparent reason just because they're old. It's a weird hostility I see from people of all ages. One time I heard a buddy say to me, "Ugh, the Rolling Stones? Just quit already. Give someone else a chance to be number one." What does that even mean? I didn't bother arguing with him. The fact that they're up there, prancing around, running around and playing rock and roll in their sixties--apparently pisses a lot of people off. So if anything, the fact they they're just OUT THERE deducts them brownie points. Even if they were charging $50 a ticket--people would sneer. This is not the same attitude people have Paul McCartney or Roger Waters or any other classic rock artist.

I personally viewed that the only reason the Stones were sort of an afterthought to Zeppelin, especially was the lack of archival releases throughout the years proving their power as a live band. After Ya-Ya's, there really wasn't another classic live album that solidified WHY they were The World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the world. The seventies went by with just Love You Live representing that period...and the next one wasn't until Still Life. What a huge shame. That's why I've been saying that these Archive Releases are literally reshaping people's thoughts about the Stones. I truely believe that if all these Archieve Releases were released when they were recorded: 1973, 1975, 1981---the respect for the Stones would be as bulletproof as any other band you can think of today, in 2012. Even the folks at the Steve Hoffman board (who are a mix of various ages--mostly older) are doing 180 revisions of the Stones just from those releases. A lot of people are doing a double take...totally not aware how much the Stones could kick ass live on stage. It's wonderful to see but it's a little bittersweet these recordings weren't there to do their job 30 years ago. Ah well better than nothing. The Ladies and Gentelman DVD was never officially available. The Some Girls Ft Worth show was nowhere to be found for the casual fan. I believe these gaping holes had an effect on their overall legacy and this effected fans of all ages--not just young fans.

In the end I see your point but I will say I don't think the outlook is as bleek as you make it sound. A portion of your post seems to be actually YOU venting your own pet peeves about the band and not necessarily what others are actually thinking!

There is truth in what you say james. I feel this has to do with the fact the Stones are still around. I of course am VERY glad they are still an active unit (lots of time off I know) but had they had broken up, say in '78 or '85-'86 they would be much more popular with young people. The magic and mystery is not there when you are still around. It's not that Zep and Floyd are better per se (though I love them both) but they have been gone (mostly) since the 70's. This allows them to be captured in time, forever young, forever in black&white. Mysterious. Larger than life. The Stones don't have that...there they still are in full color HD, old and wrinkly..human. When you are great and then die young or break up while on top, the legend grows and becomes bigger than the reality. As a high schooler in the 90's first discovering 70's legends, all i had were old pics, posters, and album covers. This makes it more...special and exciting.

Once (dred the day!) our boys die, you will see the Stones legend grow..the old records will shoot to the top of itunes and youngins' everywhere will be wearing Stones shirts and they will be loved like Zep is now.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-06 07:56 by Palace Revolution 2000.

The Stones' biggest historical issue is they continued after a quite logical point of stopping - REWIND. After that it's been a joke for the most part. The combined ages for each tour, rehab, how much money they've made.

Nothing to do with being a creative artistic "band".

The reason Pink Floyd, Led Zep etc are still so big is they've not been around for quite a while. The Stones, no matter how hard they attempt at writing new great songs, will never escape Start Me Up/Shattered/Jumpin' Jack Flash and the others that go no further than 1981.

Hmmm, the "- been long gone/ mythical thing" considering The Beatles, The Doors, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, sounds a bit vague to me. If so, it`s goofy, weak and elusive, showing that people act like sheep, not able hear music as it is in itself.

If you go read superrevvys post about that cover band in Seattle called "The Rolling Stones" and go read the linked articles written about the small sized gigs they have been playing, in front of younger kids(20-27 yrs old ) in bars... anyway.... it says something like... there is no hoopla or build up... it is just a band playing... and the kids do not even think about who it is.... they are just dancing and having a blast. It is all about the music and having fun as the band plays Rolling Stones songs. It is about having fun to the music, it is not about being cool... and in xx years.... when the dust settles... the music will stand firmly on its own.... all of the Stones music will... all of it from 196x to 201x. There will be courses taught about the far and wide range of musical sounds this band produced as several periods of music styles came and went... and people will hear it and say... "Whoa, these guys are/were too fkn cool, I am so sad I missed it while it was happening. I bet it must have been fun to be there while it was happening live".



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-05 19:35 by Max'sKansasCity.

I've been wondering this for years. Why don't the Stones have the same 'cool' factor as other 60s, even 70s bands? Like Dylan, Neil Young etc...
I think it has to do with longevity. They're still around, touring, making music.
Or maybe the Stones have always been too commercially-oriented or acclaimed and accessible.
I think the same argument can be made for an artist like Aretha Franklin. Younger fans, hipsters, are more likely to 'discover' Etta James, or Betty Levette.
Aretha is too. like the Stones, still here.
We've seen her falter, release crap music in the 80s etc.....
I think the Exile re-release brought some cool back to the Stones' legacy.
For a long time, the Stones, Mick especially, refused to go back to that legacy, content, determined to try and be 'current'.
Also, I think Jagger's trajectory in the 80s and the accompanying tabloid existence in that period, really did a lot of damage to his 'cool' factor. I was a fan, and I didn't even think he was cool anymore. To me, the uncoolness started with She's the Boss.

Quote
noughties
Hmmm, the "- been long gone/ mythical thing" considering The Beatles, The Doors, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, sounds a bit vague to me. If so, it`s goofy, weak and elusive, showing that people act like sheep, not able hear music as it is in itself.

It is a point, certainly not definitive, that may be part of how their legacy is viewed.

Justin, thanks for your perspective.
I think you made some excellent points in there.

No one except hard core fans that I've come across has any
interest or information on the 'soap opera' stuff, so I agree,
that is largely irrelevant to the young fans.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Love is strong..."


byTeafoe

Nonesense. As soon as they are no more, the Stones' long and medium term legacy will be their great work. Perhaps there might be some minor residual tarnish, as with Sinatra, where his crotchety elderly persona has become a negative element of his legend, but the Rolling Stones will be quickly reevaluated as the great live performance band of the rock and roll era.

Quote
TeddyB1018
Nonesense. As soon as they are no more, the Stones' long and medium term legacy will be their great work. Perhaps there might be some minor residual tarnish, as with Sinatra, where his crotchety elderly persona has become a negative element of his legend, but the Rolling Stones will be quickly reevaluated as the great live performance band of the rock and roll era.

period

PERFECTLY SAID!

Amen to both MaxsKansasCity and TeddyB1018. I just have no time for the whole bloody "cool" business. It would have been "cool" for the band to have broken up in the early 70s, or even "cooler" for them all to have died in a plane crash, or for one or more to have OD'd - that way they could have been romantically young and dead and tarnish-proof, and we wouldn't have quite a lot of their music, or the hope of any more. Most long-lived artists go through a period of unfashionability late in their careers - it's a drag getting old - but in the long term the music (all of it) is going to be just fine, both in its original form and as an enduring influence, and if you think that anything the Stones do now can stop that from happening, I don't think you've been listening!

(and the end of the story hasn't been written yet)

Quote
Green Lady
Amen to both MaxsKansasCity and TeddyB1018. I just have no time for the whole bloody "cool" business. It would have been "cool" for the band to have broken up in the early 70s, or even "cooler" for them all to have died in a plane crash, or for one or more to have OD'd - that way they could have been romantically young and dead and tarnish-proof, and we wouldn't have quite a lot of their music, or the hope of any more. Most long-lived artists go through a period of unfashionability late in their careers - it's a drag getting old - but in the long term the music (all of it) is going to be just fine, both in its original form and as an enduring influence, and if you think that anything the Stones do now can stop that from happening, I don't think you've been listening!

(and the end of the story hasn't been written yet)

Amen Sister!!! And the end of the story hasn't been written yet!!!

Interesting thread.

I just interviewed my 14 year-old daughter - reading your question to her. Now, I realize 14 is really young but she's a Beatle's fan and has listened to her fair share of Stones.
Here's what she said:
I like the Beatles because they write songs I can relate to - like the loneliness in Eleanor Rigby and Hey Jude and Let It Be as love songs. Rocky Raccoon and Piggies are really funny. As a teenager, I identify more with their songs than the Stones. I don't really understand a lot of the Stones songs (as a mother, this was a relief to hear - ) but - she goes onto say I really like Angie and Wild Horses.

These comments make sense to me because I think the Beatles were probably better story tellers and definitely speak to adolescent girls more than the Stones.

She went on to address the "cool" factor. She said a lot of kids her age wear Nirvana t-shirts...without really being big fans - not even knowing who or what Nirvana is/was. They just embrace it as a COOL thing to do. And when you think about it, things haven't changed that much. There were always "cool" bands to follow (or "pretend" to follow).

Back to the Stones. The Stones are like a fine wine - they're NOT sweet and easy to swallow. Other than some of the "poppier" stuff from the 60s, the Stones represent, "advanced rock n' roll." Most of their music (at least the truly great stuff like Exile) is not necessarily for beginners...Regarding the "cool" factor - I've never been a follower of cool & this relative term is whimsical and is subject to change monthly.

I have to agree that YES the Stones in ways have become cash cows and their last albums haven't been AMAZING. But their catalogue remains unmatched by any other band. In terms of analyzing the jealousy and infighting in the band - the "general public" doesn't focus on these things - we do.

I'm convinced their legacy will stay in tact and will be valued in the years, decades, and centuries to come.

I can only write about what I know and what I have actually seen. At my last Stones concert, which was A Bigger Bang, I saw a lot of very young people yelling and screaming at the concert, and thoroughly enjoying themselves. The older people looked like they did not want to be there. They looked pissed off.

My job puts me in contact with a lot of teenagers. Most have never heard of the Rolling Stones. They seem to like mostly rap music and the popular music on the radio.

You have made a lot of generalizations about young people and the Stones. You need to back up your observations with fact and, at the very least, offer at a little anecdotal evidence to support your hypotheses.

Quote
jamesfdouglas
The Beatles remain hugely popular, kids today drool over Zeppelin and Floyd as well with religious fervour. I feel that The Stones slipping out of this view is something brought upon themselves. Now since the Stones have sizeable resources, would they be aware of this? Do they sense the scoffing at their ticket prices? Their lack of good material in 30 years?

Their image now, to be frank, is a bunch of old, fruity millionaires who can't stand each other. Older people get off on the ridiculous soap opera, but for the newbie, it's a huge, HUGE turn-off - maybe that's it? Younger fans are choosing to not support a group that has no connection to reality whatsoever.

Interesting post, James. I wonder if I'd be able to "represent" the younger crowd...being 27 years old. I'm perhaps on the cusp of being too old to speak on their behalf but I'll do it anyway haha!

You have valid points but in my experience, subjects like the soap opera drama, lack of another classic album in the last 30 years, or high ticket prices really haven't come into play with younger people. All throughout high school and college I knew a lot of people that got the Stones. They dug their music and knew what they were all about. But then, there was a huge percentage of people that hated them. A variety of superficial reasons ranging from "Mick Jagger's gay." "Jimmy Page is a better guitar player than Keith Richards" "They don't rock as hard as so-and-so." I never really heard that they hated the Stones because they couldn't stand hearing about Ronnie Wood's troubled life after his divorce or about Todger-gate.

As others mentioned, the Stones very much do matter...to the right people: both musicians and non-musician folk. It's a very weird dynamic with the Stones...because unlike Zeppelin or The Beatles...they're still around. Not only are they around but they're crapped on for no apparent reason just because they're old. It's a weird hostility I see from people of all ages. One time I heard a buddy say to me, "Ugh, the Rolling Stones? Just quit already. Give someone else a chance to be number one." What does that even mean? I didn't bother arguing with him. The fact that they're up there, prancing around, running around and playing rock and roll in their sixties--apparently pisses a lot of people off. So if anything, the fact they they're just OUT THERE deducts them brownie points. Even if they were charging $50 a ticket--people would sneer. This is not the same attitude people have Paul McCartney or Roger Waters or any other classic rock artist.

I personally viewed that the only reason the Stones were sort of an afterthought to Zeppelin, especially was the lack of archival releases throughout the years proving their power as a live band. After Ya-Ya's, there really wasn't another classic live album that solidified WHY they were The World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the world. The seventies went by with just Love You Live representing that period...and the next one wasn't until Still Life. What a huge shame. That's why I've been saying that these Archive Releases are literally reshaping people's thoughts about the Stones. I truely believe that if all these Archieve Releases were released when they were recorded: 1973, 1975, 1981---the respect for the Stones would be as bulletproof as any other band you can think of today, in 2012. Even the folks at the Steve Hoffman board (who are a mix of various ages--mostly older) are doing 180 revisions of the Stones just from those releases. A lot of people are doing a double take...totally not aware how much the Stones could kick ass live on stage. It's wonderful to see but it's a little bittersweet these recordings weren't there to do their job 30 years ago. Ah well better than nothing. The Ladies and Gentelman DVD was never officially available. The Some Girls Ft Worth show was nowhere to be found for the casual fan. I believe these gaping holes had an effect on their overall legacy and this effected fans of all ages--not just young fans.

In the end I see your point but I will say I don't think the outlook is as bleek as you make it sound. A portion of your post seems to be actually YOU venting your own pet peeves about the band and not necessarily what others are actually thinking! [/quote]

The music is too good to worry about this nonsense.

Quality talks, bs walks.

wanderingspirit66 wrote:

"They will never have the mass appeal that the other bands you listed seem to have becasue there is almost no easy listening framwork around which the Stones have operated. Jagger's voice and Richards guitar playing simply do not suit the "gift for melodY" approach around which most pop music operates."


The failure in having the "gift for melody" is something that many a good band has fallen victim to. Roxy Music/ Bryan Ferry is an obvious example. They don`t have many "hits".

People having entered their musical comfort zone may look at The Stones as only a bunch of noise makers. In the comeback years of the 90s, I`ve seen paying people in their 40s flee the stadium because the music was too loud. The very same people have no problem at being lulled into a trance-like state of mind when Pink Floyd were playing “Another Brick in the Wall, Part Two” at the same stadium.

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
TeddyB1018
Nonesense. As soon as they are no more, the Stones' long and medium term legacy will be their great work. Perhaps there might be some minor residual tarnish, as with Sinatra, where his crotchety elderly persona has become a negative element of his legend, but the Rolling Stones will be quickly reevaluated as the great live performance band of the rock and roll era.

period

PERFECTLY SAID!

Agreed, this is exactly right.

Quote
Send It To me
The music is too good to worry about this nonsense.

Quality talks, bs walks.

Nice to be able to just agree with some coherent posts.

I think it'll be fine. The last thing they did as a band that was newsworthy (or artistically relevant for those that like that term) was to have their videos banned from MTV for being too violent. That will be the last true band aspect of their legacy that matters in regard to the pre-Vegas/only touring for the money years...

No matter. Most people will remember them for Satisfaction, Under My Thumb, Jumpin' Jack Flash, Sympathy For The Devil, Brown Sugar, Angie, It's Only Rock'N'Roll, Miss You, Beast Of Burden, Shattered and Start Me Up. In general, anything after Start Me Up, with the only exception being Waiting On A Friend, is not known and has zero interest for people in general.

Which means for a lot of people they didn't suffer with Dirty Work...

James, I respect people who really think, and it's clear you do. However, I completely disagree with your hypothesis which I contend is full of excremental matter. Lack of good material in 30 years? There has been, in fact, plenty. Comparisons with groups that stopped 40 years ago? Unfair. North American perception? What, are you Canadian or something? (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

For @#$%&'s sake, be happy these 70-year-old men are still on the scene, and, to paraphrase Keith, cut the crap.