Watching Scorsese's "The Band" the other night, it made me wonder:
I've always been amazed at the lack of any real "hipster" cool regarding the Stones.
Sure, people who know better, like us, certain artists, get the Stones, reference Exile, Some Girls etc.....
But among the "hipster" echelon, for what it would be worth since they're pretentious anyway....
the Stones are just a bunch of old farts.
Cash, Velvet Underground, The Stooges, Neil Young, the Who, The Band, the Doors in the 80s, 90s....and then all those "indie" heroes like Nick Drake etc......have all been sanctified and accepted as the ultimate in coolness and musical integrity.
But the Stones always seemed to me to be regarded as old farts by this same pack.
I don't if this Exile reissue can  that because Exile is so hard to listen to to uninitiated ears...
This was the band that did everything bigger than anyone else and did it well, that were associated with rock and roll chic and excess... cool, fascinating women like Anita, Marianne, Bianca and then there was Keith for God's sake!
and yet, they're not mentioned with the above icons.
I'd say that Dylan and the Beatles suffer the same fate: maybe, like the Stones, they were too associated with "mainstream" acceptance to win over the "hipsters", the college kids etc.
I'm old enough to remember the Stones in 78 after Some Girls, they were still the shit in rock and roll, the band to look to as cool personified....but that was the last time they had that.....
What happened after SG or maybe Tattoo...?
Did they tour too much? Did they try too hard to stay relevant? Too commercial? Did Mick linger too long in the tabloids? What? It doesn't make sense to me and never has.
Because we all know that this band has it all, always did and always will...even when they falter.
It's damn near impossible to explain to a kid who listens to all this "indie" shit and references all the right retro influences just how fucking untouchable the Stones are in rock and roll history...

I think It was definitely because they were too popular. And I also think that their hits were too poppy. Everyone thinks of Start me up or satisfaction when they think of the Stones. Radio stations just don't play the good stuff. That said, everyone I know from the age of 15 who knows anything about music history recognizes Keith Richards as the ultimate badass.

no worries....theres the Stones..then everything else...........

"  Radio stations just don't play the good stuff.  "


http://www.grioo.com/images/rubriques/7/1005.jpg !!!!

The reason is too many obviously terrible albums in the 80's and 90's and 00's.

Grossly overpriced concert tickets.

Besides that the hipsters can fuck themselves anyway.

Stones were hip in the sixties. Now they're just cool.  :wtf1

They used to have beaucoup hipster status...in the case of Beatles v. Stones, for instance, the hipsters went for the Stones hands down.

They have perhaps not retained that status because it's been a very long time since they've actually done anything to prove it.  Personally, I think it boils down to money. The decline of their hipness coincided with them becoming filthy rich from price gouging their fans. Capitalism is hardly ever "hip". Hipsters, hippies, hippos - they're all commies.  Most of the bands you've mentioned with hipster cred are broke, or were for most of their careers.  

Jeez, if you'd read some Marx or some Alinsky, you'd KNOW this stuff. It's all class warfare.

dweebs

Holden wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2010 at 3:22pm:

I think It was definitely because they were too popular. And I also think that their hits were too poppy. Everyone thinks of Start me up or satisfaction when they think of the Stones. Radio stations just don't play the good stuff. That said, everyone I know from the age of 15 who knows anything about music history recognizes Keith Richards as the ultimate badass.

That's definately part of it. But I think the tide has turned a little in the last few years. Jagger has managed to stay away from the tabloids, Keith has been rediscovered by younger people...my neice, who loves everything from the popular - Lady Gaga, Coldplay etc - to shit I've never heard of.....loves Tumbling Dice..so there is hope in the near future that Stones have just be revisited by a whole new generation....

I would consider myself as a young Stones fan ( i'm 16) and whenever people of
my age see that I'm a fan they think it's a bit weird cause they see the stones as old and washed up or aimed at old people. I think that the band should really try to place emphasis on their early seventies image and push this Exile re-issue. Hopefully if they get the media into the same sort of overdrive as the Beatles remasters did, people will see them at their peak of being the coolest rock n roll band of all time!

Fake Buddy Holly glasses and  Stones shirts don't mix!!! Even if they are  t shirts from Urban Outfitters.

http://8millionstories.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/609_x231_cover.jpg

SoulPlunderer wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2010 at 5:11pm:

I would consider myself as a young Stones fan ( i'm 16) and whenever people of my age see that I'm a fan they think it's a bit weird cause they see the stones as old and washed up or aimed at old people. I think that the band should really try to place emphasis on their early seventies image and push this Exile re-issue. Hopefully if they get the media into the same sort of overdrive as the Beatles remasters did, people will see them at their peak of being the coolest rock n roll band of all time!

Damn, 16! I was 13 in 79 when I discovered the Stones through Some Girls......
I always wondered how kids these days get into the Stones.
I'd love to hear how you got Stoned. .....
I hope this reeissue starts that change in attitude toward the Stones...
The video looks cool as shit and Plundered My Soul has s great, great groove...so let us hope for a new generation of stonesdom.

texile wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2010 at 8:33pm:

SoulPlunderer wrote on Apr 22nd, 2010 at 5:11pm: I would consider myself as a young Stones fan ( i'm 16) and whenever people of my age see that I'm a fan they think it's a bit weird cause they see the stones as old and washed up or aimed at old people. I think that the band should really try to place emphasis on their early seventies image and push this Exile re-issue. Hopefully if they get the media into the same sort of overdrive as the Beatles remasters did, people will see them at their peak of being the coolest rock n roll band of all time! Damn, 16! I was 13 in 79 when I discovered the Stones through Some Girls...... I always wondered how kids these days get into the Stones. I'd love to hear how you got Stoned. ..... I hope this reeissue starts that change in attitude toward the Stones... The video looks cool as shit and Plundered My Soul has s great, great groove...so let us hope for a new generation of stonesdom.

That would be like asking a teenager from 1981 to get into Glenn Miller
, The Andrew Sisters and Tommy Dorsey

The hispters don't get the Stones because the Stones are pure sex drive. They listen to Old Man by Neil Young and Nic Drake and the Velvet Underground and these other acts that have ZERO sex drive. Put on Honkey Tonk Woman or Tumbling Dice and see what that does to the ladies.  

My advice to our 16 year old newcomer is to realize the back beat by Charlie Watts has done more for carnal pleasures than just about anything else in the 20th and 21st centuries.

I'm not sure exactly what hipsters you guys hang out with, or how you define it, but most of the "hipsters" I am acquainted with have Stones love, or at least love of "good Stones".  Whenever I DJ for a room full of hipsters, Stones songs are generally well received and greeted with all due respect and appreciation.

But if there is an impression of the Stones as old farts, it's because the Stones have been old farts for the last dozen  years.  Their bigger-is-always-better stage shows and gussied up shooting-for-platinum-and-missing-embarassingly albums lack the sort of earthiness or fauxthenticity that seems essential for success in some hypothetical hipster marketplace (this being the reason for Dylan's somewhat more prominent apparent hipster cred).

So, yeah, I know no music nerd or snob or musician or human being claiming they have a modicum of taste that doesn't love, say, LET IT BLEED.  But seriously, those of us in the crazies circle should probably accept that anything recorded and/or released after 1983 is strictly for the converted and/or the die-hards and will otherwise fall on deaf ears.  Anyone who responds to UNDERCOVER is in a very select club, and I'm all for them, because I love UNDERCOVER.  And Dirty Work.  And I really like Bridges to Babylon.  But those records are for folks with the Stones gene only, and don't belong out there in the gen-pop, where they're kind of an embarrassment.

Now, if you're talking about those assholes at Pitchfork and their clueless trashing of, say, the Ya Ya's reissue, then I'm on board.

p.s.  Saying that the Velvet Underground has zero sex drive is utterly ridiculous.

i got alot of shit from my punk friends in the late '70's for being a Stones fan... i was told they were disco sell outs ... ya whatever, Stones dont give a fuck...

fuck hipster status...


http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l83/pdogsf/n1095776546_30065412_6146.jpg

Nasty Habits wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2010 at 8:01am:

I'm not sure exactly what hipsters you guys hang out with, or how you define it, but most of the "hipsters" I am acquainted with have Stones love, or at least love of "good Stones".  Whenever I DJ for a room full of hipsters, Stones songs are generally well received and greeted with all due respect and appreciation. But if there is an impression of the Stones as old farts, it's because the Stones have been old farts for the last dozen  years.  Their bigger-is-always-better stage shows and gussied up shooting-for-platinum-and-missing-embarassingly albums lack the sort of earthiness or fauxthenticity that seems essential for success in some hypothetical hipster marketplace (this being the reason for Dylan's somewhat more prominent apparent hipster cred). So, yeah, I know no music nerd or snob or musician or human being claiming they have a modicum of taste that doesn't love, say, LET IT BLEED.  But seriously, those of us in the crazies circle should probably accept that anything recorded and/or released after 1983 is strictly for the converted and/or the die-hards and will otherwise fall on deaf ears.  Anyone who responds to UNDERCOVER is in a very select club, and I'm all for them, because I love UNDERCOVER.  And Dirty Work.  And I really like Bridges to Babylon.  But those records are for folks with the Stones gene only, and don't belong out there in the gen-pop, where they're kind of an embarrassment. Now, if you're talking about those assholes at Pitchfork and their clueless trashing of, say, the Ya Ya's reissue, then I'm on board. p.s.  Saying that the Velvet Underground has zero sex drive is utterly ridiculous.

pitchdork

"Damn, 16! I was 13 in 79 when I discovered the Stones through Some Girls......
I always wondered how kids these days get into the Stones.
I'd love to hear how you got Stoned.
I hope this reeissue starts that change in attitude toward the Stones...
The video looks cool as shit and Plundered My Soul has s great, great groove...so let us hope for a new generation of stonesdom."

It was strange because I just had this riff stuck in my head and it was getting to the point of annoying me. Of coure, it was Satisfaction. I rushed to download it and was immediately hooked. Then I kinda became more interested in the Stones but didn't know too much about them. I had mentioned listening to them to people in school though, and one of the more knowledgeable people said, "they have a song called Brown Sugar don't they" I replied yes but I had never actually heard the song cause I had only been a "fan" for like two minutes. But I went home and got the song onto my iPod. I listened to it that night and from then on it has been a total obsession!!!


:smilemick  :interestingstuffronnie  :retarded  :forfucksake  :areyoufuckingserious

why hasn't Joey obtained hipster status?

What the fuck is a "hipster"?  :wtf3

It’s all quite simple: the Stones allowed themselves to slip into mediocrity. If they’d called it quits after Exile on Main Street, they’d be up there with the Reeds and Morrison’s of the rock and roll world.

The Stones were very Hip in the 60's, how many bands have copied The Stones in the 60's ? dozens, everyone one from The Chocolate Watchband to Toronto's Ugly Ducklings, Alice Cooper was a Stones Clone band when they started in the 60's (when they were called The Spiders) The Stones were the inspiration for all these bands along with English bands, David Bowie's The Mannish Boys were a Stones influenced band in the 60's, how about The Pretty Things, not only bands copied them but a lot of us by the way they looked in dress & attitude, The Stones were "Cool"
So I believe they are Hipsters right up front & center, their too old now to be what is considered Hip, their not new, but they sure were in the 60's & 70's.

Alma Wade wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2010 at 7:21pm:

What the fuck is a "hipster"?  :wtf3

hipsters of today, suck... take everything once cool and they make it soooooo lame!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BywaterKeepOffHipstersStepsB.jpg

READ ON!!! This will help explain.

wiki rules.



Christian Lorentzen of Time Out New York claims that metrosexuality is the hipster appropriation of gay culture, as a trait carried over from their "Emo" phase. He writes that "these aesthetics are assimilated—cannibalized—into a repertoire of meaninglessness, from which the hipster can construct an identity in the manner of a collage, or a shuffled playlist on an iPod."[3] He argues that "hipsterism fetishizes the authentic" elements of all of the "fringe movements of the postwar era—Beat, hippie, punk, even grunge," and draws on the "cultural stores of every unmelted ethnicity" and "gay style," and then "regurgitates it with a winking inauthenticity" and a sense of irony. He claims that this group of "18-to-34-year-olds," who are mostly white, "have defanged, skinned and consumed" all of these influences.[3] Lorentzen says hipsters, "in their present undead incarnation," are "essentially people who think of themselves as being cooler than America," also referring to them as "the assassins of cool." He also criticizes how the subculture's original menace has long been abandoned and has been replaced with "the form of not-quite-passive aggression called snark."[3]
In a Huffington Post article entitled "Who's a Hipster?", Julia Plevin argues that the "definition of 'hipster' remains opaque to anyone outside this self-proclaiming, highly-selective circle". She claims that the "whole point of hipsters is that they avoid labels and being labeled. However, they all dress the same and act the same and conform in their non-conformity" to an "iconic carefully created sloppy vintage look".[14]
Rob Horning developed a critique of hipsterism in his April 2009 article "The Death of the Hipster" in PopMatters, exploring several possible definitions for the hipster. He muses that the hipster might be the "embodiment of postmodernism as a spent force, revealing what happens when pastiche and irony exhaust themselves as aesthetics," or might be "...a kind of permanent cultural middleman in hypermediated late capitalism, selling out alternative sources of social power developed by outsider groups, just as the original 'white negros' evinced by Norman Mailer did to the original, pre-pejorative 'hipsters'—blacks...." Horning also proposed that the role of hipsters may be to "... appropriat[e] the new cultural capital forms, delivering them to mainstream media in a commercial form and stripping their inventors... of the power and the glory...".[15] Horning argues that the "...problem with hipsters" is the "way in which they reduce the particularity of anything you might be curious about or invested in into the same dreary common denominator of how 'cool' it is perceived to be," as "...just another signifier of personal identity." Furthermore, he argues that the "hipster is defined by a lack of authenticity, by a sense of lateness to the scene" or the way that they transform the situation into a "self-conscious scene, something others can scrutinize and exploit."


Time writer Dan Fletcher states that "Hipsters manage to attract a loathing unique in its intensity".
Dan Fletcher in Time seems to support this theory, positing that stores like Urban Outfitters have mass-produced hipster chic, merging hipsterdom with parts of mainstream culture, thus overshadowing its originators' still-strong alternative art and music scene.[4] According to Fletcher, "Hipsters manage to attract a loathing unique in its intensity. Critics have described the loosely defined group as smug, full of contradictions and, ultimately, the dead end of Western civilization."[4]
Elise Thompson, an editor for the LA blog LAist argues that "people who came of age in the 70s and 80s punk rock movement seem to universally hate 'hipsters'", which she defines as people wearing "expensive 'alternative' fashion[s]", going to the "latest, coolest, hippest bar...[and] listen[ing] to the latest, coolest, hippest band." Thompson argues that hipsters "...don’t seem to subscribe to any particular philosophy... [or] ...particular genre of music." Instead, she argues that they are "soldiers of fortune of style" who take up whatever is popular and in style, "appropriat[ing] the style[s]" of past countercultural movements such as punk, while "discard[ing] everything that the style stood for."[16]

hope that helps, and expalins why i hate hipster douchebags and white belts, big sunglasses and i'm cool as fuck going to act like an ass attitude for no reason...

viva punk rock n roll and all that lives in the heart of true rock rebels... screw the posers and scensters... i beleive Nanky's basement is a fallout shelter from this kind of explosion of lameness.

Honky Tonk Man wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 6:17am:

It’s all quite simple: the Stones allowed themselves to slip into mediocrity. If they’d called it quits after Exile on Main Street, they’d be up there with the Reeds and Morrison’s of the rock and roll world.

I should have added: in terms of 'hippness' amoungst those who are bothered by such things. It doesn't matter to us, of course.  ;)

The Stones are about as hip as they come.

I thank my lucky stars that I've been fortunate enough to live in a time when the Stones hit when I was 7, Hendrix and some of the best rock'n'roll you'll ever hear hit when I was 11, and punk hit when I was 19.

It was all good and it was all hip.

These clueless, talentless and tasteless poseurs wouldn't know a "hipster" if one walked up to them and bit 'em on the ass. Neal Cassady is spinnin' in his grave.

look at this fucking hipster
http://www.latfh.com/

Pdog wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2010 at 3:28pm:

fuck hipster status... http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l83/pdogsf/n1095776546_30065412_6146.jpg

Outstanding. Hipsters are a fucking plague of mediocrity. For those who don't know, "hipsters' are people that would wear a tongue logo t-shirt, and when you see it and say "Hey nice, the Rolling Stones', they look back at you all bored and reply "I don't know what that is". Then you punch them in their ironic beard and make them cry.

Frankly, I don't know what a hipster is, but I guess I'm referring to the people who like what they percieve as not mainstream....
and that can be anybody really.....including rock, punk fans.
For instance, artists like Tom Waits, Patti Smith, Lou Reed and the latest Rufus Wainwright......they tend to attract that sort of "hipster", poseur music afficionados.
I respect these artists too, but I also grew up listening to ABBA.....I like popular music. Hipsters disdain it and the Stones are popular.

from wiki

Hip is a slang term meaning fashionably current and in the know. Hip is the opposite of square or prude.

Hip, like cool, does not refer to one specific quality. What is considered hip is continuously changing. The term hip is said to have originated in African American Vernacular English (AAVE) in the early 1900s, derived from the earlier form hep. Despite research and speculation by both amateur and professional etymologists, the origins of the term hip and hep are disputed. Many etymologists believe that the terms hip, hep and hepcat (e.g., jazz musicians' now cliched "hip cat") derive from the west African Wolof language word hepicat, which means "one who has his eyes open".[1] Some etymologists reject this, however, and have even adopted the denigration "to cry Wolof" as a general dismissal or belittlement of etymologies they believe to be based on "superficial similarities" rather than documented attribution.[2]

An alternative theory traces the word's origins to those who used opium recreationally in the 19th century. Opium smokers commonly consumed the drug lying on their sides (i.e. their hips). Because opium smoking was a practice of socially-influential trend-setting individuals, the cachet it enjoyed led to the circulation of the term hip by way of a kind of synecdoche.

Another explanation was that users would develop a sore on their hips from lying motionless on it. Thus to "have the hip" was to be an initiate.

Early currency of the term (as the past participle hipped, meaning informed), is documented in the 1914 novel The Auction Block by Rex Beach:

"His collection of Napoleana is the finest in this country; he is an authority on French history of that period - in fact, he's as nearly hipped on the subject as a man of his powers can be considered hipped on anything

stonedinaustralia wrote on Apr 26^th, 2010 at 6:54pm:

from wiki Hip is a slang term meaning fashionably current and in the know. Hip is the opposite of square or prude. Hip, like cool, does not refer to one specific quality. What is considered hip is continuously changing. The term hip is said to have originated in African American Vernacular English (AAVE) in the early 1900s, derived from the earlier form hep. Despite research and speculation by both amateur and professional etymologists, the origins of the term hip and hep are disputed. Many etymologists believe that the terms hip, hep and hepcat (e.g., jazz musicians' now cliched "hip cat") derive from the west African Wolof language word hepicat, which means "one who has his eyes open".[1] Some etymologists reject this, however, and have even adopted the denigration "to cry Wolof" as a general dismissal or belittlement of etymologies they believe to be based on "superficial similarities" rather than documented attribution.[2] An alternative theory traces the word's origins to those who used opium recreationally in the 19th century. Opium smokers commonly consumed the drug lying on their sides (i.e. their hips). Because opium smoking was a practice of socially-influential trend-setting individuals, the cachet it enjoyed led to the circulation of the term hip by way of a kind of synecdoche. Another explanation was that users would develop a sore on their hips from lying motionless on it. Thus to "have the hip" was to be an initiate. Early currency of the term (as the past participle hipped, meaning informed), is documented in the 1914 novel The Auction Block by Rex Beach: "His collection of Napoleana is the finest in this country; he is an authority on French history of that period - in fact, he's as nearly hipped on the subject as a man of his powers can be considered hipped on anything

"funk used to be a bad word. . . ."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwzhK4pvM5w

godfather . . ha! . . godmother!

texile wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2010 at 8:33pm:

[quote author=SoulPlunderer link=1271967208/0#9 date=1271974310]I would consider myself as a young Stones fan ( i'm 16) and whenever people of my age see that I'm a fan they think it's a bit weird cause they see the stones as old and washed up or aimed at old people. I think that the band should really try to place emphasis on their early seventies image and push this Exile re-issue. Hopefully if they get the media into the same sort of overdrive as the Beatles remasters did, people will see them at their peak of being the coolest rock n roll band of all time!

First post.

I'm 24 have been listening to the Stones since I can remember. I really started being influenced by there music around the age of 14 or 15 when my friends parents would let us smoke pot in there house. Her parents were huge STONES fans and I attribute them to training my ears to classify music as The Rolling Stones and then there is music. I have watched about every DVD from cocksucker blues to Shine a Light. I have read several books on them my favorite being "According to The Rolling Stones". I have only seen them once in Atlanta in 05 and feel blessed to be able to say that.

As far as hipster status I am a big fan of Widespread Panic and they I guess have the "hipster status". I have seen them right around 100 times and they always put on a good show IMO. To me there is no music that comes even close the stones. I get more chills at home listening to the unrealeased "Whores, Cocaine, and a bottle of Jack" for example, than when I am at a WSP show. There is just nothing that comes close to the musical feelings and journey that there music can take me on and I have only seen them once and that was in 05.


Some of you older folks may find this interesting because this thread is about hipsters/hippies. Well last weekend when I saw WSP in Raleigh, NC we got a sheet of paper. The print on it was the stones tongue. 1 hit put me into full melt and it was definitely family L because of how clean it was. So that may be a very slight indication that there music is still in the hipster seen if "the family" is printing that on sheets.

polytoxic wrote on Apr 26^th, 2010 at 4:42pm:

Pdog wrote on Apr 23rd, 2010 at 3:28pm: fuck hipster status... http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l83/pdogsf/n1095776546_30065412_6146.jpg Outstanding. Hipsters are a fucking plague of mediocrity. For those who don't know, "hipsters' are people that would wear a tongue logo t-shirt, and when you see it and say "Hey nice, the Rolling Stones', they look back at you all bored and reply "I don't know what that is". Then you punch them in their ironic beard and make them cry.

Oh Yeah! I know what ya mean now! I hate those fuckers! Kill 'em all!  >:(

http://www.youtube.com/user/GotToRollMe#p/a/u/0/vFHRdi5fQ5A