Tell Me :
Talk
Yeah, im with youTreaclefingers.
Its kind off sad, but if they dont care anymore, they dont and its gone.............
but i am very happy with their legacy and their , for me, last gig at Stockholm.
Jeroen
Perhaps. But history has a way of making the certainties of today seem foolish.
Although I prefer the body of Bowie's work to that of The Stones, I admit I'm probably in the minority there.
Stones vs Dylan in terms of ultimate historical legacy? My money in the long run would be on Bobby Zim.
They don't, unfortunately. I'm not naive enough to REALLY believe The Stones don't have a THE NEXT DAY or MODERN TIMES left in them. But, damn, I really hoped they would!
It really is remarkable that The Stones can still perform at this level--there's no disputing that.
I would maintain that they are more "excellent for guys who are 70" than just "excellent" but I'm sure there are many here who would disagree!
Tosh. I have *never* heard a single hardcore fan express any such expectation, let alone even talk about the subject!
I don't even know what "Bly the greatest band, but GOP grossing of all time" means
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
But that doesn't mean that we have to be cheering for higher ticket prices to be hardcore fans - something that would be important for the Stones to be the most profitable band on Earth...
Not too sure about that though it depends what the legacy might focus on. For enduring popularity as a live act and commanding high ticket prices the Stones will win hands down. The Stones cultural legacy was made in the 60s, Bowie's in the 70s. More young bands today would cite Bowie as an influence than either the Stones or Dylan. Then there's the legacy of creativity - again, Dylan and Bowie have produced more work of a very high standard in their later career than the Stones. I know it's subjective but that is undoubtedly the mass critical consensus.
I think we need even higher prices. Keeps out the riff raff you know.
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
I can see by your handle that you're probably a Bowie fan, but I'd say to most, he's not even in the same hemisphere as Dylan or the Stones. Maybe in the UK and Europe it's different, but in the States he's been irrelevant critically and commercially since the mid-80s. I'd be surprised if most young bands here know much of him, though that's their loss.
I wouldn't disagree. You are correct that my comment is made entirely from a UK perspective.
Bowie's never had it easy in the US. He's never topped the charts (although he came close with The Next Day). His best work was only recognized years later ("Heroes" didn't even chart.
The Stones have always had a smooth road, commercially speaking. 50 years 25 or so albums - in the UK, I think they never missed the top 5, and in the US, only their debut missed the top 5. Hard as it may be to believe, history may very well view their "golden era" as the late 70's/early 80's, when they released their two best selling albums (Some Girls and Tattoo You), and even their post-80's studio output has all been at or near the top of most charts worldwide.
Not so hard to believe with two smash hits as Miss You and Start Me Up and (in Tattoo You's case) a tour that sold almost 3 million tickets in 3 months.
What I find almost impossible to believe is that they haven't had a hit single on par with Start Me Up in 33 years. It's like the well instantly not only dried but was filled with concrete.
Not that there haven't been some excellent songs, but it's like they've forgotten how to write a hit single.
In the US, you mean? Even SOL topped the charts
Supposedly, it topped the charts in Spain or Italy - hence my question.
Hardy har har!
I think SOL probably topped the charts in the Jagger household, Italy and Spain, and tanked everywhere else.
They had either top 5 or top 10 on every lead single in the 80s in the US, the decline didn't start until VL. If you want to look at a country that was a disappointment singleswise, it's the UK. The Stones lagged there from the early 70s on.
Yeah we're talking about a REAL hit single though.
Harlem Shuffle and Mixed Emotions don't really cut it.
100% correck. UK (with a few exceptions) discarded the Stones from early 70's. They prefer other artists in almost every poll.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Billboard boxscore figures for Europe
Posted by:
runrudolph
()
Date: July 21, 2014 22:39
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
LongBeachArena72
Coudn't care less about box office. Am more interested in legacies, artistic and otherwise.
The three rock artists I have cared most about over the years are Bowie, Dylan, and The Stones. All have taken very different paths in their "twilight" years.
Bowie disappears for a decade, then releases a magnificent album, then ... who knows?
Dylan tours constantly and has released some of the best records of his career since 1997.
The Stones haven't recorded anything of any merit since (arguably) the 70's and yet are fresh off what has apparently been one of their most successful—and possibly rejuevnating—tours of their career.
So who's doing it right? Who's playing for posterity? How will history judge their outputs and how they managed their careers in their latter stages?
My preference is for new music, always. I regard all of these men as artists and look forward to what they have to say, musically, about the changing times we live in. By that measure, The Stones have fallen flat. It's been decades since they had anything relevant to say, in my opinion, about what it's like to be alive today. Whereas new records by Dylan, and THE NEXT DAY, are fascinating portraits of modern times, are chronicles by great men looking at what the world has become.
But The Stones keep touring and touring and touring and playing the same old songs ... and millions of people around the world continue to pony up the cash to sustain the juggernaut. In 50 years, will the view be that they sullied their glorious legacy by the endless repetition of what are known here as "The Vegas Years"? Probably not. Their catalog will be remembered and revered.
I just miss them. Miss hearing what they have to say about growing old. About still playing together after all these years. About women, and children, and grandchildren, and fame, and money, and love, and sex. They wrote some great songs about all those things.
Bowie and Dylan still do.
But what can they do if they've lost their muse?
They don't seem to be able to create together anymore, which is where most of the great music of the past emanated from.
I'm with you, I'd like to see something new and great, but how do they get there if they don't care?
Yeah, im with youTreaclefingers.
Its kind off sad, but if they dont care anymore, they dont and its gone.............
but i am very happy with their legacy and their , for me, last gig at Stockholm.
Jeroen
Re: Billboard boxscore figures for Europe
Posted by:
Brstonesfan
()
Date: July 21, 2014 23:16
The Stones legacy certainly will be greater than Dylan or Bowies. No comparison ....
Re: Billboard boxscore figures for Europe
Posted by:
LongBeachArena72
()
Date: July 21, 2014 23:31
Quote
Brstonesfan
The Stones legacy certainly will be greater than Dylan or Bowies. No comparison ....
Perhaps. But history has a way of making the certainties of today seem foolish.
Although I prefer the body of Bowie's work to that of The Stones, I admit I'm probably in the minority there.
Stones vs Dylan in terms of ultimate historical legacy? My money in the long run would be on Bobby Zim.
Re: Billboard boxscore figures for Europe
Posted by:
LongBeachArena72
()
Date: July 21, 2014 23:33
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
LongBeachArena72
Coudn't care less about box office. Am more interested in legacies, artistic and otherwise.
The three rock artists I have cared most about over the years are Bowie, Dylan, and The Stones. All have taken very different paths in their "twilight" years.
Bowie disappears for a decade, then releases a magnificent album, then ... who knows?
Dylan tours constantly and has released some of the best records of his career since 1997.
The Stones haven't recorded anything of any merit since (arguably) the 70's and yet are fresh off what has apparently been one of their most successful—and possibly rejuevnating—tours of their career.
So who's doing it right? Who's playing for posterity? How will history judge their outputs and how they managed their careers in their latter stages?
My preference is for new music, always. I regard all of these men as artists and look forward to what they have to say, musically, about the changing times we live in. By that measure, The Stones have fallen flat. It's been decades since they had anything relevant to say, in my opinion, about what it's like to be alive today. Whereas new records by Dylan, and THE NEXT DAY, are fascinating portraits of modern times, are chronicles by great men looking at what the world has become.
But The Stones keep touring and touring and touring and playing the same old songs ... and millions of people around the world continue to pony up the cash to sustain the juggernaut. In 50 years, will the view be that they sullied their glorious legacy by the endless repetition of what are known here as "The Vegas Years"? Probably not. Their catalog will be remembered and revered.
I just miss them. Miss hearing what they have to say about growing old. About still playing together after all these years. About women, and children, and grandchildren, and fame, and money, and love, and sex. They wrote some great songs about all those things.
Bowie and Dylan still do.
But what can they do if they've lost their muse?
They don't seem to be able to create together anymore, which is where most of the great music of the past emanated from.
I'm with you, I'd like to see something new and great, but how do they get there if they don't care?
They don't, unfortunately. I'm not naive enough to REALLY believe The Stones don't have a THE NEXT DAY or MODERN TIMES left in them. But, damn, I really hoped they would!
Re: Billboard boxscore figures for Europe
Posted by:
LongBeachArena72
()
Date: July 21, 2014 23:37
Quote
drbryantQuote
LongBeachArena72
Coudn't care less about box office. Am more interested in legacies, artistic and otherwise.
The three rock artists I have cared most about over the years are Bowie, Dylan, and The Stones. All have taken very different paths in their "twilight" years.
Bowie disappears for a decade, then releases a magnificent album, then ... who knows?
Dylan tours constantly and has released some of the best records of his career since 1997.
The Stones haven't recorded anything of any merit since (arguably) the 70's and yet are fresh off what has apparently been one of their most successful—and possibly rejuevnating—tours of their career.
So who's doing it right? Who's playing for posterity? How will history judge their outputs and how they managed their careers in their latter stages?
My preference is for new music, always. I regard all of these men as artists and look forward to what they have to say, musically, about the changing times we live in. By that measure, The Stones have fallen flat. It's been decades since they had anything relevant to say, in my opinion, about what it's like to be alive today. Whereas new records by Dylan, and THE NEXT DAY, are fascinating portraits of modern times, are chronicles by great men looking at what the world has become.
But The Stones keep touring and touring and touring and playing the same old songs ... and millions of people around the world continue to pony up the cash to sustain the juggernaut. In 50 years, will the view be that they sullied their glorious legacy by the endless repetition of what are known here as "The Vegas Years"? Probably not. Their catalog will be remembered and revered.
I just miss them. Miss hearing what they have to say about growing old. About still playing together after all these years. About women, and children, and grandchildren, and fame, and money, and love, and sex. They wrote some great songs about all those things.
Bowie and Dylan still do.
I think all of us older fans can understand those thoughts and have similar feelings. But, did you see the video of Midnight Rambler from Stockholm? This
Forum is the only place where people think that Vegas sounds like that.
It really is remarkable that The Stones can still perform at this level--there's no disputing that.
I would maintain that they are more "excellent for guys who are 70" than just "excellent" but I'm sure there are many here who would disagree!
Re: Billboard boxscore figures for Europe
Posted by:
Beast
()
Date: July 22, 2014 00:53
Quote
Brstonesfan
It's a great thread worthy of a sticky. To gross so much and fill up stadiums is a significant accomplishment we all can be proud of. The hardcore fans want and expect us to be not Bly the greatest band, but GOP grossing of all time.
Tosh. I have *never* heard a single hardcore fan express any such expectation, let alone even talk about the subject!
Re: Billboard boxscore figures for Europe
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: July 22, 2014 01:06
Quote
BeastQuote
Brstonesfan
It's a great thread worthy of a sticky. To gross so much and fill up stadiums is a significant accomplishment we all can be proud of. The hardcore fans want and expect us to be not Bly the greatest band, but GOP grossing of all time.
Tosh. I have *never* heard a single hardcore fan express any such expectation, let alone even talk about the subject!
I don't even know what "Bly the greatest band, but GOP grossing of all time" means
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: Billboard boxscore figures for Europe
Posted by:
Brstonesfan
()
Date: July 22, 2014 02:01
There are not too many hardcore Stones fans left . We know that the Stones are far superior to any band or artist .
Re: Billboard boxscore figures for Europe
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 22, 2014 15:08
Quote
Brstonesfan
There are not too many hardcore Stones fans left . We know that the Stones are far superior to any band or artist .
But that doesn't mean that we have to be cheering for higher ticket prices to be hardcore fans - something that would be important for the Stones to be the most profitable band on Earth...
Re: Billboard boxscore figures for Europe
Posted by:
rebelrebel
()
Date: July 22, 2014 16:00
Quote
Brstonesfan
The Stones legacy certainly will be greater than Dylan or Bowies. No comparison ....
Not too sure about that though it depends what the legacy might focus on. For enduring popularity as a live act and commanding high ticket prices the Stones will win hands down. The Stones cultural legacy was made in the 60s, Bowie's in the 70s. More young bands today would cite Bowie as an influence than either the Stones or Dylan. Then there's the legacy of creativity - again, Dylan and Bowie have produced more work of a very high standard in their later career than the Stones. I know it's subjective but that is undoubtedly the mass critical consensus.
Re: Billboard boxscore figures for Europe
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: July 22, 2014 16:18
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Brstonesfan
There are not too many hardcore Stones fans left . We know that the Stones are far superior to any band or artist .
But that doesn't mean that we have to be cheering for higher ticket prices to be hardcore fans - something that would be important for the Stones to be the most profitable band on Earth...
I think we need even higher prices. Keeps out the riff raff you know.
Re: Billboard boxscore figures for Europe
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: July 22, 2014 16:21
Quote
treaclefingers
I think we need even higher prices. Keeps out the riff raff you know.
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: Billboard boxscore figures for Europe
Posted by:
StonesCat
()
Date: July 22, 2014 17:35
Quote
rebelrebelQuote
Brstonesfan
The Stones legacy certainly will be greater than Dylan or Bowies. No comparison ....
Not too sure about that though it depends what the legacy might focus on. For enduring popularity as a live act and commanding high ticket prices the Stones will win hands down. The Stones cultural legacy was made in the 60s, Bowie's in the 70s. More young bands today would cite Bowie as an influence than either the Stones or Dylan. Then there's the legacy of creativity - again, Dylan and Bowie have produced more work of a very high standard in their later career than the Stones. I know it's subjective but that is undoubtedly the mass critical consensus.
I can see by your handle that you're probably a Bowie fan, but I'd say to most, he's not even in the same hemisphere as Dylan or the Stones. Maybe in the UK and Europe it's different, but in the States he's been irrelevant critically and commercially since the mid-80s. I'd be surprised if most young bands here know much of him, though that's their loss.
Re: Billboard boxscore figures for Europe
Posted by:
Brstonesfan
()
Date: July 22, 2014 18:26
I agree. I like Bowie and he definitely was a pioneer of glam rock and influenced many bands, but I don't see him in the Stones league. Dylan , whether a fan or not(and I am not) cannot be denied his impact in terms of taking what Pete Seeger did and making it appeal to the counter culture of the 60's. He was/is a prolific song writer, but again, in terms of appeal, he could not sell out stadiums like the Stones still do. He is revered among many, but I think most would prefer listening to the Stones body of work as a whole. The Stones have been around for over 5 decades and provide something that almost any fan of music could appreciate.
Re: Billboard boxscore figures for Europe
Posted by:
rebelrebel
()
Date: July 22, 2014 20:10
Quote
StonesCatQuote
rebelrebelQuote
Brstonesfan
The Stones legacy certainly will be greater than Dylan or Bowies. No comparison ....
Not too sure about that though it depends what the legacy might focus on. For enduring popularity as a live act and commanding high ticket prices the Stones will win hands down. The Stones cultural legacy was made in the 60s, Bowie's in the 70s. More young bands today would cite Bowie as an influence than either the Stones or Dylan. Then there's the legacy of creativity - again, Dylan and Bowie have produced more work of a very high standard in their later career than the Stones. I know it's subjective but that is undoubtedly the mass critical consensus.
I can see by your handle that you're probably a Bowie fan, but I'd say to most, he's not even in the same hemisphere as Dylan or the Stones. Maybe in the UK and Europe it's different, but in the States he's been irrelevant critically and commercially since the mid-80s. I'd be surprised if most young bands here know much of him, though that's their loss.
I wouldn't disagree. You are correct that my comment is made entirely from a UK perspective.
Re: Polls
Posted by:
bye bye johnny
()
Date: July 22, 2014 21:31
Polls are a dime a dozen, and generally of little import. That said, the Stones are in the Top 10 of these UK polls.
[www.xfm.co.uk]
[www.britainexplorer.com]
[www.interestment.co.uk]
[news.bbc.co.uk]
[www.ehow.co.uk]
The last one ranks the Stones #1.
So, which UK poll might *we* be referring to?
[www.xfm.co.uk]
[www.britainexplorer.com]
[www.interestment.co.uk]
[news.bbc.co.uk]
[www.ehow.co.uk]
The last one ranks the Stones #1.
So, which UK poll might *we* be referring to?
Re: Billboard boxscore figures for Europe
Posted by:
Brstonesfan
()
Date: July 22, 2014 21:59
Too many to count. Bottom line is they are not given their due in the UK.
Re:
Posted by:
bye bye johnny
()
Date: July 22, 2014 22:05
So some nameless (imaginary?) poll dismisses the Stones, but *we* don't remember.
Carry on.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-07-22 22:06 by bye bye johnny.
Carry on.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-07-22 22:06 by bye bye johnny.
Re: Billboard boxscore figures for Europe
Posted by:
drbryant
()
Date: July 23, 2014 01:07
Quote
rebelrebelQuote
StonesCatQuote
rebelrebelQuote
Brstonesfan
The Stones legacy certainly will be greater than Dylan or Bowies. No comparison ....
Not too sure about that though it depends what the legacy might focus on. For enduring popularity as a live act and commanding high ticket prices the Stones will win hands down. The Stones cultural legacy was made in the 60s, Bowie's in the 70s. More young bands today would cite Bowie as an influence than either the Stones or Dylan. Then there's the legacy of creativity - again, Dylan and Bowie have produced more work of a very high standard in their later career than the Stones. I know it's subjective but that is undoubtedly the mass critical consensus.
I can see by your handle that you're probably a Bowie fan, but I'd say to most, he's not even in the same hemisphere as Dylan or the Stones. Maybe in the UK and Europe it's different, but in the States he's been irrelevant critically and commercially since the mid-80s. I'd be surprised if most young bands here know much of him, though that's their loss.
I wouldn't disagree. You are correct that my comment is made entirely from a UK perspective.
Bowie's never had it easy in the US. He's never topped the charts (although he came close with The Next Day). His best work was only recognized years later ("Heroes" didn't even chart.
The Stones have always had a smooth road, commercially speaking. 50 years 25 or so albums - in the UK, I think they never missed the top 5, and in the US, only their debut missed the top 5. Hard as it may be to believe, history may very well view their "golden era" as the late 70's/early 80's, when they released their two best selling albums (Some Girls and Tattoo You), and even their post-80's studio output has all been at or near the top of most charts worldwide.
Re: Billboard boxscore figures for Europe
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 23, 2014 01:37
Is it really hard to believe that SG and TY belonged to their "golden era" sales-wise?
Re: Billboard boxscore figures for Europe
Posted by:
georgelicks
()
Date: July 23, 2014 03:02
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Is it really hard to believe that SG and TY belonged to their "golden era" sales-wise?
Not so hard to believe with two smash hits as Miss You and Start Me Up and (in Tattoo You's case) a tour that sold almost 3 million tickets in 3 months.
Re: Billboard boxscore figures for Europe
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: July 23, 2014 05:23
Quote
georgelicksQuote
DandelionPowderman
Is it really hard to believe that SG and TY belonged to their "golden era" sales-wise?
Not so hard to believe with two smash hits as Miss You and Start Me Up and (in Tattoo You's case) a tour that sold almost 3 million tickets in 3 months.
What I find almost impossible to believe is that they haven't had a hit single on par with Start Me Up in 33 years. It's like the well instantly not only dried but was filled with concrete.
Not that there haven't been some excellent songs, but it's like they've forgotten how to write a hit single.
Re: Billboard boxscore figures for Europe
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 23, 2014 15:30
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
georgelicksQuote
DandelionPowderman
Is it really hard to believe that SG and TY belonged to their "golden era" sales-wise?
Not so hard to believe with two smash hits as Miss You and Start Me Up and (in Tattoo You's case) a tour that sold almost 3 million tickets in 3 months.
What I find almost impossible to believe is that they haven't had a hit single on par with Start Me Up in 33 years. It's like the well instantly not only dried but was filled with concrete.
Not that there haven't been some excellent songs, but it's like they've forgotten how to write a hit single.
In the US, you mean? Even SOL topped the charts
Re: Billboard singles chart
Posted by:
bye bye johnny
()
Date: July 23, 2014 16:05
Hardly. Peak US chart position for the 'Rough Justice'/'Streets Of Love' double A-side was #25 on Billboard's "Mainstream Rock Tracks".
[www.beatzenith.com]
[www.beatzenith.com]
Re: Billboard singles chart
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: July 23, 2014 16:13
Quote
bye bye johnny
Hardly. Peak US chart position for the 'Rough Justice'/'Streets Of Love' double A-side was #25 on Billboard's "Mainstream Rock Tracks".
[www.beatzenith.com]
Supposedly, it topped the charts in Spain or Italy - hence my question.
Re: Billboard boxscore figures for Europe
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: July 23, 2014 17:38
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
treaclefingersQuote
georgelicksQuote
DandelionPowderman
Is it really hard to believe that SG and TY belonged to their "golden era" sales-wise?
Not so hard to believe with two smash hits as Miss You and Start Me Up and (in Tattoo You's case) a tour that sold almost 3 million tickets in 3 months.
What I find almost impossible to believe is that they haven't had a hit single on par with Start Me Up in 33 years. It's like the well instantly not only dried but was filled with concrete.
Not that there haven't been some excellent songs, but it's like they've forgotten how to write a hit single.
In the US, you mean? Even SOL topped the charts
Hardy har har!
I think SOL probably topped the charts in the Jagger household, Italy and Spain, and tanked everywhere else.
Re: Billboard singles chart
Posted by:
StonesCat
()
Date: July 23, 2014 17:38
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
bye bye johnny
Hardly. Peak US chart position for the 'Rough Justice'/'Streets Of Love' double A-side was #25 on Billboard's "Mainstream Rock Tracks".
[www.beatzenith.com]
Supposedly, it topped the charts in Spain or Italy - hence my question.
They had either top 5 or top 10 on every lead single in the 80s in the US, the decline didn't start until VL. If you want to look at a country that was a disappointment singleswise, it's the UK. The Stones lagged there from the early 70s on.
Re: Billboard singles chart
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: July 23, 2014 17:50
Quote
StonesCatQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
bye bye johnny
Hardly. Peak US chart position for the 'Rough Justice'/'Streets Of Love' double A-side was #25 on Billboard's "Mainstream Rock Tracks".
[www.beatzenith.com]
Supposedly, it topped the charts in Spain or Italy - hence my question.
They had either top 5 or top 10 on every lead single in the 80s in the US, the decline didn't start until VL. If you want to look at a country that was a disappointment singleswise, it's the UK. The Stones lagged there from the early 70s on.
Yeah we're talking about a REAL hit single though.
Harlem Shuffle and Mixed Emotions don't really cut it.
Re: Billboard singles chart
Posted by:
Brstonesfan
()
Date: July 23, 2014 19:40
Quote
StonesCatQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
bye bye johnny
Hardly. Peak US chart position for the 'Rough Justice'/'Streets Of Love' double A-side was #25 on Billboard's "Mainstream Rock Tracks".
[www.beatzenith.com]
Supposedly, it topped the charts in Spain or Italy - hence my question.
They had either top 5 or top 10 on every lead single in the 80s in the US, the decline didn't start until VL. If you want to look at a country that was a disappointment singleswise, it's the UK. The Stones lagged there from the early 70s on.
100% correck. UK (with a few exceptions) discarded the Stones from early 70's. They prefer other artists in almost every poll.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
cowboytoast , eduardoacdc , erbissell , gavin95 , Halup , Handova , hasenfuss , henrik87 , hot stuff , mailexile67 , makim , manu3121 , maumau , MichaelLassen , Nankstone , philrock90 , Racca1962 , rastakeith , Rickster , spunky , tangerinegaz , TooTight , usetobesampeg
Guests:
1525
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10