matonanjin Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 You guys believe anything on the web? For one, it's the Stones, man. You should already suspect BS because the stones don't quit, ever. Just the way it is. Go see them and find out why they DON'T have to retire. So they'll just fade away!? Sorry. I'll take a fork to the eye before paying to see 60 year olds play rock What an idiotic comment. So there is an age limit on playing rock? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 I am a huge Stones fan, from way back. My Parents were huge fans. My mother attended the first concert they did in the L.A. area before they were "big". Perhaps I am biased, I am about them in ways for sure. But I am BAFFLED by some of the comments! I don't grasp how a fan of rock music could not find anything great in their later stuff, even if you don't like the whole record(s). Even in some of their worst shows, they still put more energy into it than most bands do and have done through the years. How can anyone NOT know this? I have NEVER talked to anyone or read of a person going to a Stones concert and regretting it. And the awe of what they do live is often spoken of, and usually the first thing you hear when someone talks of the experience. Even as jokes are made when they show their age, what is most talked about is how such old guys are able to put it out and rock as much as they do. I thought it was common knowledge? Of corse, the strangest to me is that even though in the very same link here that says they are "retiring", the info that it is a haox is right there. Seriously, IF you haven't seen them live and you get a chance, you will not regret it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVOL! Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 I'll take a fork to the eye before paying to see 60 year olds play rock Or pay $120+ per ticket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zigzag Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 I saw them about 10 years ago. It is not hard to get caught up in the awesomeness of the event, and they WERE great. BUT, their sound in their live concerts is notoriously bad. You'd think that as long as they've been doing it, they could sound better live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badbluesplayer Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 One of the articles cited said they were going to stop playing live, not retire. The other article said it wasn't true. So don't start hammering them yet, you'll have plenty of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marvar Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 I'll take a fork to the eye before paying to see 60 year olds play rock That's a pretty broad statement- IMO the 60 year olds are the only ones still playing rock and roll! You would rather take a fork in the eye than to see Page? Blackmore? McCartney? Petty? Ozzy? Black Sabbath? AC/DC? Neil Young? Eric Clapton? BB King? Skynyrd? Hell, even EVH is approaching 60- to each his own- you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but, if it weren't for these guys, we'd all still be listening to do-wop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sinner 13 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 You guys believe anything on the web? For one, it's the Stones, man. You should already suspect BS because the stones don't quit, ever. Just the way it is. Go see them and find out why they DON'T have to retire. YOU ARE CORRECT SIR!!! Plans for the 50th Anniversary tour are being worked out now this was dated yesterday.... Follow the linky... http://www.inquisitr.com/257744/rolling-stones-to-retire-band-denies-rumors-readies-for-50th-anniversary/ I knew there was I reason I generally don't read post from certain members.... Cause they're usually 100% USDA grade A BullShite... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TarHeelKid Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Our Beatles are way better than your precious Rolling Stones! -Homer Simpson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T Bone Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Wow, all this 'Stone's Bashing" really amazes me! Guys, they are one of, if not the greatest Rock & Roll band of all time. Tributes? Hell no. They have dozens of classic hits, true dat. And they play many of them at their shows (because the bazillions of fans who do pay the big bucks and fill the large venues they sell out want to hear them!). But they also often put new twists to the old classics. Some done WAY differently. Generally put on a very good show (it IS show business after all), and the fans are generally very "satisfied" (sorry ;-)). They've done some really solid newer stuff too. Stale? Not to me. I've liked a lot of their itterations over the years, and don't think they're out of it yet (past their prime? SURE they are! How could you be in your 60s or 70s and NOT be past your prime?). Really, I shouldn't have been surprised at all the haters. It's a thing that's surrounded them for nearly their entire careers. Oh well, don't listen to them if you don't want. For me, I will always be a fan, up until and even after they end (retire, die, fade away, roll on down the highway, or whatever). You're never too old to rock! The Stones, KISS, and others just ruin it for others because they're stale and tributes of their former selves. The problem is that they don't move forward and it's overkill. I don't have a problem with those guys continuing to play on, but I have a problem with THE way they have been rolling (no pun intended!) in the last 30 years. It's not genuine. Now, look at Rush. Those guys are pushing 60 and they are still genuine and as fresh as they were back in the day. They're in drive. Forward. And The Stones have been in neutral since the Regan Administration. I disagree wholeheartedly, I think it's as genuine as it gets. For then to put on airs and try to be "modern"/pop, etc. "Fresh" as you'd call it, THAT would not be genuine. They're a Rock & Roll icon that began 50 years ago. For them NOT to appear somewhat "dated" and aged, THAT would simply be phony. I have the tattoo you album on record, 45 rpm baby!!! Albums (LPs) were always done on 33 1/3 RPM. SINGLES were 45 RPM. Large hole, small record. One song on each side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sinner 13 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Wow, all this 'Stone's Bashing" really amazes me! Guys, they are one of, if not the greatest Rock & Roll band of all time. Tributes? Hell no. They have dozens of classic hits, true dat. And they play many of them at their shows (because the bazillions of fans who do pay the big bucks and fill the large venues they sell out want to hear them!). But they also often put new twists to the old classics. Some done WAY differently. Generally put on a very good show (it IS show business after all), and the fans are generally very "satisfied" (sorry ;-)). They've done some really solid newer stuff too. Stale? Not to me. I've liked a lot of their itterations over the years, and don't think they're out of it yet (past their prime? SURE they are! How could you be in your 60s or 70s and NOT be past your prime?). Really, I shouldn't have been surprised at all the haters. It's a thing that's surrounded them for nearly their entire careers. Oh well, don't listen to them if you don't want. For me, I will always be a fan, up until and even after they end (retire, die, fade away, roll on down the highway, or whatever). I disagree wholeheartedly, I think it's as genuine as it gets. For then to put on airs and try to be "modern"/pop, etc. "Fresh" as you'd call it, THAT would not be genuine. They're a Rock & Roll icon that began 50 years ago. For them NOT to appear somewhat "dated" and aged, THAT would simply be phony. Albums (LPs) were always done on 33 1/3 RPM. SINGLES were 45 RPM. Large hole, small record. One song on each side. Goats Head Soup is probably the most underrated album, with the exception for the single release of Angie., and The Doo Doo Doo song(AKA heartbreaker.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clayville Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Sheesh. Haters gotta hate. It may be a greatest hits show, but it's one helluva show. And what hits! Get Yer Ya Yas Out is the whole reason I've been playing guitar for 40 years. In the endless Beatles vs. Stones debates of my youth I was always firmly and forever on the Stones side of the aisle for the dark baddass swagger, the genius riffs song after song, the bluesy core, the most tasteful and steady drumming on the planet and even their peacock of a frontman. THAT is a rock & roll group. I always admired the Beatles pop craft, but... they wanna hold your hand, if you see what I'm saying. Keef should be dead by rights. And as the years dribbled away Jagger crawled farther and farther up his own arsehole. He never could stand to be anything but the center of attention, even during someone else's solo, and he seemed sillier and sillier writing tough-guy songs about cars as a 60 year old multi-multi-millionaire. But he was still one of the best showmen in Rock, ever, running ten miles around a giant stage night after night and selling it to the folks in the back rows. Of course Keef was not always "properly medicated" or a flawless technician. Neither were half the band on some nights. But I'd rather have him than, say, The Edge (who I love too) replicating the studio versions night after night. The two times I saw the Stones - Ronnie's first tour and then the second show of the Bigger Bang tour at Fenway Park (two years before the dreadful Shine a Light film) - were two of the most magical nights of my life. By 2005, Keef had boiled down his classic Open G riffs to their barest essence, a sort of stacatto zen punchiness - all holes, elbows, kicks - that upped the ante all around, and showed you just how primal and rhythmic the best of those riffs were. And he could still rip into something as simple as Satisfaction with joy, as if he'd just discovered it that morning. All the best songs on the last five albums are "his", imho. They've been defying gravity and the odds for decades with very little incentive to risk their legacy on such a grand scale. But even I would have to pin the last great plateau back around Some Girls. Lots of folks at the time thought the Stones had gone all disco just because Jagger had, but that album sure wears well and a phase shifter never sounded better. Still, I guess I'm with the majority of guitarhounds (especially Gibson guys) who put the peak during the Mick Taylor years. It may well be "time" but in my view anyone who thinks "its ABOUT time" never liked them in the first place, hasn't seen the thousands of spectators and the band itself having a joyful blast night after night. I firmly believe that they've only recently gotten to the point where they can't quite do it anymore - and Keef falling out of a coconut tree had a lot to do with them reaching that point, I reckon. And like I said: I'll be forever grateful for what they've given me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marvar Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Along with Jimi Hendrix, half of the Beatles and dozens more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirstMeasure Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 If I still got a gig at 70 you know I'll still rock it. I won't care how many humans on Earth are younger than me nor how many have departed in my time. In fact that's all the more reason to Rock at 70! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaleb Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 If I still got a gig at 70 you know I'll still rock it. I won't care how many humans on Earth are younger than me nor how many have departed in my time. In fact that's all the more reason to Rock at 70! Well look how long Les Paul kept up. He wasn't really "rocking", but he did what he did his whole life! He was still seeing a paycheck for playing his weekly gigs in his 90s for crying out loud! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky4 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 That's a pretty broad statement- IMO the 60 year olds are the only ones still playing rock and roll! You would rather take a fork in the eye than to see Page? Blackmore? McCartney? Petty? Ozzy? Black Sabbath? AC/DC? Neil Young? Eric Clapton? BB King? Skynyrd? Hell, even EVH is approaching 60- to each his own- you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but, if it weren't for these guys, we'd all still be listening to do-wop. Outside of BB King.....yes. They're all way past their prime. When I saw the Stones, I had a friend ask if it was good because it was good, or was it good because it was the Stones? After thinking a while, I realized it was good because it was the Stones. In sports when you can't perform, you're done. In music, you schlepp along for years. People go to see these bands just to be able to say they saw them. I spent $75 bucks to go to Summer Camp last month and wouldn't trade that experience to see any of the old farts you listed for the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirstMeasure Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Well look how long Les Paul kept up. He wasn't really "rocking", but he did what he did his whole life! He was still seeing a paycheck for playing his weekly gigs in his 90s for crying out loud! He was rockin' in his way, uncompromising to the end. It's funny, I'm sure the Stones heard that they couldn't keep playing Rock and Roll forever countless times. I wonder what Les Paul told he should be playing when he grew up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaleb Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 He was rockin' in his way, uncompromising to the end. It's funny, I'm sure the Stones heard that they couldn't keep playing Rock and Roll forever countless times. I wonder what Les Paul told he should be playing when he grew up? Les Paul was an innovater.....so of course he got crap! They all got crap....Les, Leo, Lloyd, Jimi, Eddie, etc. But I don't think he ever got crap about playing out at his age cause' he wasn't really doing it on a large scale. He had his place in that club in NYC that he played every week. And he was probably the only one at his age that used effects...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canon_mutant Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 I never did get The Stones and they just aren't my thing but hey they fill stadiums and have been for decades. Hard to argue with success whether you're personally into it or not . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky4 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 What an idiotic comment. So there is an age limit on playing rock? No, you can do whatever you want for as long you want. .....understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heymisterk Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 No, you can do whatever you want for as long you want. .....understand? Hey, if she can still wield a Tele like Keith, or move like Jagger, then God bless her... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitehall Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Ther is a an article on planet rock that says they are not calling it quits. Jagger is too smart to quit without a farewell tour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirstMeasure Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Did someone just equate playing Rock and Roll to wearing a bikini. I guess playing guitar is just a fashion statement for some people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaleb Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Did someone just equate playing Rock and Roll to wearing a bikini. I guess playing guitar is just a fashion statement for some people. Speaking of that, it drives me nuts that some guys play music (rock music) just to get girls. That's not what I am about. I play for the love of music. Groupies and stuff are nice (who doesn't like a little fun once in a blue moon?), but it boggles me that rock n' roll goes hand in hand with sex and drugs. You don't see the guys in Rush backstage doing a line of blow or taking tons of strange women back to their hotel rooms. So I guess they're not rock n' roll? There's only two things you have to be/have to be "rock n' roll": You have to be genuine and you have to have attitude. The disposable hair bands of the 80s (Poison, Bon Jovi, Motley Crue, etc. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT RATT OR DOKKEN! THAT'S GOOD HAIR METAL IMHO!) may have had some attitude, but it was all fake. Nothing was genuine. Judging by these guidelines, Alex Lifeson is the most "rock n' roll" guitar player there is.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky4 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Did someone just equate playing Rock and Roll to wearing a bikini. I guess playing guitar is just a fashion statement for some people. No, it's about doing what you want for as long as you want. Nice try on the spin though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versatile Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 IMO there is a whiff of shock-publicity going on here... The Stones have always been good at teasing...often to cover up for mediocre albums etc OTOH the Stones are an international treasure/institution And have finely honed the art of performance With cool characters...blokey knock-about humour Outrageous moves and poses Some half decent music... May the Stones live for ever... V Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.