Ok this is my first topic on the board other than my introductory thread (please be nice).

I study at the University of Western Ontario and right now I'm taking a music course - 2700a, post world war 2 popular music. To my disappointment the stones are practically ignored in this course with the exception of the song sympathy for the devil which we were not even tested on. Basically we listen to a lot of music, our quizzes involve identifying songs and stating interesting facts about them, and we write two album reviews (I did exile and beggars).

5% of our final mark involves posting opinions on a discussion board for participation marks, so I thought i'd use this opportunity to tie in some stones facts with course material and themes.

So, i thought I'd share 2 of my posts that have some embedded stones content.

The first topic I commented on was from the 'Feist' thread in which the originator of the thread provided an article that claimed that the singer/songwriter Feist will have difficulty ever making a comeback into the popular music scene, and may even go down as a one hit wonder with '1-2-3-4.' So i tried bullshitting my way into this topic with stones knowledge for some participation marks:

"I heard a great quote on the radio once. 'There used to be 100 bands that made a million great records, now there are a million bands that maybe come out with 100 great records.'

Look beyond the exaggeration of this quote and you may find some truth to the matter. There was a time when a band focused solely on the production of records. My favourite band, the Rolling Stones, released a record practically every year from 1964 to 1983. In their later years, they released an album in 1997, and then their next studio album didn't come until 2005.

I guarantee you this is not an age related thing as most people like to mock the Stones for. What changed between these two eras? Elaborate touring. The clear trend that can be looked at in the music industry is changing sources of revenue. Bands made most of their money back in the day from record sales. In fact, I've read some articles that talk about touring in the 60's and 70's as a financial loss incurred by the band. Touring was considered a viral form of advertising for a bands latest release. That’s why the Stones’ tours of ’69, ’70, ’72 and ’73 literally only featured brand new material that was expected to be released in the near future. Back then, the costs associated with touring (financial and economic) were born by the band only because of their positive marketing effects – the profit margins from ticket sales were not considered significant, based on ticket prices at the time.
Now we live in the era of the 500 dollar ticket. The real price of tickets (the inflation-adjusted price) has increased exponentially. Why? To make up for the loss in record sales. The market has completely switched from a profit maximizing perspective. As of 1989, the Stones have been going on massive worldwide tours that are on a far larger scale than their early days of touring. And you’ll notice, that these kinds of bands won’t play material solely from their newest release. On their latest A Bigger Bang Tour, the Stones eventually stopped playing songs from that record; they don’t need to anymore since they are now raking it in from touring.

So how does all this relate to the topic of this thread. The fact is, there are just so many more artists today competing for our disposable income, that the market is simply flooded. This is perhaps why artists like Feist may not be able to stick around for so long. We are past the age of profiting off records because of the internet, but new artists don’t have the kind of power to profit off touring either."

My latest post was a few hours ago in response to someones comment on a Lester Bangs article we had to read: "Of Pop and Pies and Fun." Someone posted:

"In the Brackett article where Lester Bangs states that everyone was trying to make rock more grown up, complex and artistic. But what about the teens who enjoyed the simple rock? He argued that the teens will always be around, not the same teens, but the teen culture will always be renewed by new people. So instead of just following one group of teens as they grow up, bands should just stick to basic rock 'n' roll like it was meant to be for teenagers.

My argument is: What about the loyal fans those bands had? They won't want to follow the band if the band just keeps making the same simple music it always does. These fans will expect more from their favourite bands. If these bands don't adapt to their fans more mature lifestyles and requirements from music, they will lose loyal fans. Also, if every other band if becoming more complex, these bands that are trying to stay simple must keep up with the competition. It is what will keep the artists interesting and make fans want to continue buying their albums and going to their shows.

For example: Britney Spears isn't the same artist she used to be when she first came out with the innocent school girl look. She matured with her fans, which makes her be able to enjoy such a large loyal fan base today, whether she is or isn't a great artist."

And my response:

"I think the loyal fans argument is very important and something extremely valid when considering a bands' evolution.

I consider myself a loyal fan to maybe half-a-dozen 60's bands that are still active (making records and touring). Now, although I obviously don't fall into the category of someone who grew up with these bands from their beginnings, I still have insight and opinions into the workings of these bands as a hardcore fan.

One of the continuing themes I noticed for worship of bands that are old enough to be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland, Ohio is nostalgia. Through message boards, fansites and personal interactions I've noticed that fans are extremely picky about the material their favourite band performs. Some of the most hardcore worshipers of bands like the Rolling Stones demand to hear material from their newly released album that they are touring to promote. In the good ol' days this was indefinitely the case. But 40 years later these same songs (the ‘oldies’ or ‘warhorses’ as I’ve heard used ever-so derogatorily)are being played as opposed to the new stuff. They aren’t keeping up with the times and decided to remain branded as a nostalgic act.

Why? In the previous post Caitlin makes a good argument that If bands follow the Lester Bangs formula, they ultimately lose their loyal fan base. Now that I’ve brought an example into play I definitely agree with Caitlin. It’s as if Lester is telling 66 year-old Keith (as of yesterday) to go on stage each night and hammer out the same basic chord progression to ‘Satsfaction.’

This is a direct example of what Lester is talking about in our assigned reading. He is quoted as praising the Stooges for the simple 2 chord progression in ‘1969.’ Which is all well and good, but how much farther should this praise go? Certainly not 45 years later when the Stones are literally playing ‘Satisfaction’ each and every night they perform.

So here’s the part that confuses me. When Lester wrote that article he clearly represented the anti-conformity view of rock music. But now, in the aged era of these bands, his formula is truly starting to take place.

Ultimately, I think the nostalgia formula is holding true. People recognize the Stones for their mega-hits. From a non-hardcore fans, perspective, you don’t want to see a world famous band avoid the songs by which you recognize them. In this sense, it appears that the target isn’t the hardcore fans, but the somewhat-knowledgeable masses."

So, what do people think. I know this is a lot of reading... suck it up, princess.