I have a friend. He is 26. He is pretty darn well read for a guy his age... even more so than many older folks. He is a music fan. He likes several genre's and he has read a bit on The Stones and knows their basic history. He "appreciates" their music and as for a few of their works he loves those, but he is no Stones "fan" per se. He won't say The Stones are the greatest band of all time but he doesn't think any band is, and he also feels The Stones certainly hold argument for that spot if in fact their is a "greatest band of all time".

He told me that the reason The Stones continue, and have for so darn long isn't about the money as  many have pointed out over the years (I personally feel that is only "some" of the reason...and not the primary reason) .. he says that is only the lesser half. I asked well what IS their reason? He says they are obsessed with their "legacy". He says he knows they love Rock and Roll and all and he realizes they have a passion for what they do but he says they are infatuated with their legacy... and their milestones... and that is a major key ingredient to why they have kept going from the late eighties that many people overlook.  

I never really thought of it that way. Did it take a person from a third perspective to open my eyes?

Does anyone here feel the same way in that this is the reason, moreover... that they have continued for the past twenty five years or more is because they want to have this major legacy of an old band that kept doing things and once in a while putting out music, with differing types of tours being an infatuation with the milestones rather than cash, or other superficial things?


Ian

Bitch wrote on Oct 16^th, 2011 at 1:28am:



________________________


Gee Miss "Bitch" .. you write well (btw I never told you that.. tis true..) and for the record ..I agree with your perspective. I'm diggin it -



Ian

I honestly think they don't give a toss about their musical legacy. Gazza I think the point you made indirectly goes back to money. All that highest gross etc just goes back to money. There is no way on earth the Stones would do any of it if it wasn't for the huge money. If that wasn't the case, they would get together for small gigs here and there and they would have the decency to show up for events like Ian Stewart's tribute. Why is it always someone else who celebrates people like Ian Stewart. Couldn't they do a gig remembering him and pull together their high powered friends for a huge gig to celebrate the life of the person who started this life of privilege for them. We might hate to admit it, but Mick and Keith largely don't give a toss about anything but money (when it comes to the Stones). If they cared about the fans or their legacy they wouldn't allow crap like that Justin Timberlake shit on stage with them singing any song, let alone an iconic one. For all Keith's ranting about the Stones and their musical legacy, he is no different to Mick. He just wants all the attention in a different way. He always goes public with everything just to make sure that he's never out of the headlines for too long. Gazza I think you made a good point about going past your sell by date but even though I'm not a Zeppelin fan, I think you should include them in the going on too long group. When they decided to get back together without even calling up John Paul Jones that first time and when they got together for their money spinning reunions, their legacy took a big hit. They just don't let things carry on for a sustained period, otherwise the next thing you would probably hear is a duet of Dyer Maker with Rhianna, Beyonce, and Robert Plant.

"I think people still love The Smiths because we never spoiled it by sticking around too long," says Johnny Marr, 47.

"We never messed it up and so, as time's gone on, people have appreciated that more than wondering why we stopped. We just seemed to strike the right note."

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/3858850/I-have-nothing-but-fondness...

Pdog wrote on Oct 16^th, 2011 at 9:17pm:



____________________________________

I agree with you. So does my fiend actually. He said he feels that they would continue working, playing, and recording ... if they were not seen in this legendary status ....just not on this level. Meaning....  recording an album, rehearsing a tour, going out on tour for long periods... a big marketed project ya-da ya-da ever three to five years. However, since they are The Rolling Stones... this group of older men go on these named major international tours with like 100 major shows in stadiums across the planet as if they have the want to continue their legacy. That is what he is saying.


However your right... like I told him...yes but truly they "love it". They love music/R&R and it is in their blood. It is their true passion. Sure they have other hobbies and interests but none more than writing, and playing music... so this is why they have continued more-over in my eyes as well. It is thier craft... and that craft is what they simply love in their hearts. As you said... like a painter or something. If a painter, who has done nothing eles his whole life but paint portraits and he/she made a living at it they loved it so much.... he would not stop if he was able to do it....even at 70 years old.

As for The Stones... though it is strenuous and taxing at times... what they are doing isn't really "work" to them... it is their passion. 


Agreed-


Ian


Ian

I have always considered the Stones to be a current band, and I feel they have a lot left in the tank.  When you put Keef and Mick in a room, magic will happen. Bigger Bang was brilliant. I'm looking forward to another album.

Ian Billen wrote on Oct 16^th, 2011 at 6:17pm:



They absolutely are in competition. Friendship is irrelevant. It's all about ego. And you wont get two egoes much bigger than those two. They were friends with The Beatles too. Are you seriously suggesting they didn't sense any degree of 'competition' ?

For the last 20 years, each has taken it in turn raising the bar for the biggest and most successful touring extravaganza. It's a battle that - aside from it being pointless - the Stones can't really win as youth isn't on their side and U2 have continued to maintain a younger fanbase and an image as a 'current' band (something that only a few Stones fans seem to be in denial of)


Ian Billen wrote on Oct 16^th, 2011 at 6:17pm:


It's been two generations since the Stones were widely seen as musically relevant. Whether we think that way is irrelevant - that ship has sailed. Generations since then tend to increasingly have the attention span of a gnat when it comes to culture. Once the generation that was to the fore in the 60's goes, that era will be a footnote unfortunately.  Culturally, filling stadiums means nothing. No one is going to give a damn about that in 10-20 years.

Well, if that's how you feel, that's how you feel.  I look foward to anything these guys do. In my mind they are On The Road.

The other musicians and bands I enjoy, such as Muddy Waters, John Lee Hooker, George Harrison, The Jimi Hendrix Experience and John Lennon are not....On The Road.

Maybe I can help gentleman.

I think what Steel Wheels means by "current" is "not retired ...not split up .... and still touring and recording things".

For example... The Beatles, REM (not that REM really compare to the acts mentioned), Van Halen (for now anyway hehe...), Fleetwood Mac, The Eagles, Black Sabbath ..they are all gone or non active... The Stones still get together, function as a band, and go on world tours. Everyone knows they still go at it... that's all. Their main gig is still The Rolling Stones.

I "think" this is what Steel Wheels means by "current". That's understandable. I still consider them a current act as well. How could one not? Gazz you probably consider them current in that sense as well, I'm sure. Being as  they are still planning on doing things and possibly recording and haven't hung it up just yet. The saga continues... That's all.


guys.


Ian

Gazza wrote on Oct 17^th, 2011 at 2:59pm:



_________________________________


Gazza lately your arguing (/debating) with "Steel Wheels" concerning the topic of whether The Rolling Stones could still be considered a "current" act or not ...

Look man, I know it is your message board and all but don't disrespect a guy. If your going to be having a type of debate concerning a topic such as this  ...shouldn't that debate be with Mr. Ian Billen?? ...

I have been a devoted member... I have spoke well about many people here (even the ones that disagree with me most of the time) .. I have weathered the storms and stuck it out, being devoted even in the face of extreme adversity .. .. .. ..


Now I get this?? .. .. This is utterly preposterous -                  



..............................................Ian

I would argue, original influences aside, Nirvana have more relevance and musical influence than the Stones. A dude in Melbourne's THE AGE wrote what i felt was a very telling (and also sad) article with him arguing that 1991 was the best year EVER for rock music. Now, i would kinda argue that 1971 was the best, but the thing is. This is the Nirvana, Stone Roses, rap/hip-hop/rnb era. These people are now smashing 40 or so. Its nostalgia to them. As i've seen with Abba, and different 80'ss styles, its amazing to think of these suited types getting teary eyed over  "Nevermind", or "Badmotorfinger" and what that whole SEATTLE thing unleashed. To me, i remember it. I can relate to it. As i can the 3 decades prior. But, they (Yes, they!) cant. Kim Thayal has said his influence was never the Stones. It was Sabbath! And yeah, around the same time, i vividly recall Kobain saying Nirvana takes nothing from The Who. Though in their early days, Nirvana smashed their instruments and more or less sounded like WHO outtakes.

Us saying "Oh, the Stones are so influential", really, is wrong. It's like us in 1969 listening to "Let it bleed" could dig an Al Jolson song from 1929 & think it's relevant.

Go into any guitar shop, and what do people play? Well, lol, we all know the old joke meant for people trying out guitars "NO STAIRWAY TO HEAVEN!". But i love the odds on how many kids would bash out and Ac/Dc song instead of a Stones song. And yeah, i know, the obvious reply would be that all guitars in shops would be tuned to concert tuning. Except, and THIS was a buzz. When i was in San Fran earlier this year, i bought a great multi FX pedal from some shop in San Fran that i cant remember. Anyway, behind glass, they had some ace vintage axes. $13,000 late 50's Strats etc. But they had a 1954 blonde Tele. And after i bought the pedal, and jokingly mentioned i might buy one of the "behind the glass" guitars, the bloke took me over. He pointed straight to the Tele. I said "Just like Keith", My wife pipes in "he loves the Stones" - dude puts his arm around me and said "It's tuned open G too!". Sho' 'nuf, it had the G string removed. As Keith would say "5 strings, 2 fingers, 1 asshole"

Great shop. But what i found odd was how Epiphone and Squire are so popular in the U.S. Maybe its the economy, but i hardly ever saw real strats, or sg's or les pauls.