ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board

Shooting "I Go Wild" in Mexico City, 1995 by Fernando Aceves
WEBRADIO CHANNELS:
[Ch1: Sike-ay-delic 60's] [Ch2: Random Sike-ay-delia] [Ch3: British Invasion]

[THE WET PAGE] [IORR NEWS] [SETLISTS 62-99] [THE A/V ROOM] [THE ART GALLERY] [MICK JAGGER] [KEITHFUCIUS] [CHARLIE WATTS ] [RON WOOD] [BRIAN JONES] [MICK TAYLOR] [BILL WYMAN] [IAN STEWART ] [NICKY HOPKINS] [MERRY CLAYTON] [LISA FISCHER] [DARRYL JONES] [BOBBY KEYS] [JAMES PHELGE] [LINKS] [PHOTOS] [MAGAZINE COVERS] [MUSIC COVERS ] [JIMI HENDRIX] [BOOTLEGS] [TEMPLE] [GUESTBOOK] [ADMIN]

[CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [RESTROOMS]

NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED) inside.
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:

PicoSearch

ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: Mild Horses--Should the Stones and other Classics Retire? Return to archive
03-12-02 04:25 PM
Jaxx LOLROTF. i saw this in Entertainment Weekly. to participate in this poll, click and go:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/commentary/0,6115,214038~4~0~shouldstonesandother,00.html

Mild Horses


Should the Stones and other classic rockers quit? Tom Sinclair advises the Who, Dylan, the Allman Brothers, and other oldies bands whether to hang in there or hang it up


SIXTY IS NIFTY Jagger will probably continue to rock as long as the money and the fans keep rollin' in


Perusing the Sunday papers the other day, I chanced to see a full-page ad for the Who's upcoming summer tour. I couldn't help rolling my eyes and emitting a snort of disgust. For some reason, it always riles me up when I see this bunch reassembling. Understand, I've got nothing against the Who; they were an undeniably great band who certainly belong on anyone's Top Ten list of Classic Rock acts. But I've always kind of felt they should have broken up after Keith Moon's death back in '78. That may be a minority opinion, but Moon's drumming and persona were so integral to the group that it just never seemed the same after he was gone. It's also always bugged me that after Pete Townshend announced the band was breaking up in the '80s, he then proceeded to have the group reunite every few years, tinnitus be damned. Jeez, Pete, can'tcha stick to your guns?

Of course, the Who aren't the only classic rock act that soldiers on... and on... and on. Following is a brief, opinionated look at a few other long-in-the-tooth acts.

THE ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND Sure, the Allmans survived the early deaths of founding members Duane Allman and Berry Oakley. But can they survive the departure of long-time guitar god Dickey Betts? Apparently, they're going to try. But to me, the Allmans without Dickey sort of feels like the Stones without Keith Richards, no matter what guitar ace they get to fill his slot. Fellas, it's time to HANG IT UP.

THE ROLLING STONES To paraphrase the title of a new Stones bio, these boys are old gods almost dead. It's downright unseemly that the putative World's Greatest Rock & Roll Band rolls on, diminishing it's legacy with each new album and tour. Jagger once remarked that he couldn't see himself rocking and rolling around stages in his forties. Now, ol' Rubber Lips is almost 60. Guys, just HANG IT UP.

BOB DYLAN Defying all conventional wisdom and logic, the Big D is doing some of his most vital work as he edges toward senior citizenship. Five years ago, I would have argued that he'd never again hit the peaks he did with ''Highway 61 Revisited'' and ''Blonde on Blonde.'' But along came ''Time Out of Mind'' and ''Love and Theft,'' proving me wrong. Bobbo, HANG IN THERE, babe.

BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN & THE E STREET BAND On a good night, this unit is so tight and so right that there's no reason not to think they can't go on for another decade. The indefatigable Boss and his cohorts are a killer combo still capable of making rock seem like a vital life force. HANG IN THERE, Bruce.

SANTANA He proved that there's life after irrelevance. The guitar guru's '98 comeback was so unexpected that you couldn't help rooting for him. The nice thing is, he's managed to sidestep being a nostalgia act -- his new audience could care less about ''Evil Ways''; they want to hear ''Smooth.'' It's hard not to wonder what he'll do next. HANG IN THERE, Devadip.

LYNYRD SKYNYRD They should consider changing their name to SKYNYRD, INC. It's kind of odd how these good ol' boys are still around, seeing that half the original band was killed in a plane crash more than two decades ago. But the latter-day unit is purportedly a big moneymaker. Refried ''Freebird,'' anyone? Yuchh. HANG IT UP, dudes.

MOTORHEAD Ugly old dudes playing savage speed-metal punk -- what could be worse? A lot of things, actually. Sue me, but Lemmy and company are one anachronistic archetype I'd hate to see call it quits. HANG IN THERE, blokes.



03-12-02 05:32 PM
sandrew How's that for unsolicited advice? I mean, what is the rationale for thinking the Stones should "hang it up"? They still put out decent material, and they put on a live show that can't be rivaled. The writer says Springsteen should keep at it, but - much as I love Bruce - he hasn't released a decent studio album in almost 20 years!

As for concerns about the Stones' legacy, what would these hacks think if, say, "Dirty Work" was their last album? I'd say it's beyond dispute that the last 10-odd years have shorn up their legacy...
03-12-02 06:09 PM
TT I LOVE to ignore these kind of bullshit polls. I bet the guy who wrote the article canīt name one Stones album.
03-12-02 06:36 PM
robbluedog Oh no....not THIS sort of bullshit again. I couldn't even bother to read past the bit about The Who.....

What do these arseholes want and expect? A world full of Britney Spears? All these Tom Sinclairs.....who the fuck ARE they???

I think it's best to just totally ignore this sort of crap.
03-12-02 07:07 PM
Gazza Pity there isnt the same calls for retirement for lazy hacks such as this who clearly have nothing better to write than this tired regurgitated old crap...

Every few years the Stones record or tour and wankers like this urge them to retire (as if its a matter for public concern and national importance) simply because theyve been doing what they do for so long - yet the same journalists cant see the irony in that THEY are simply rehashing the same unimaginative stuff every few years too - ie "hey the Stones are back and guess what,they look old".

Why cant we have a retirement age for journalists - say,17 for example....
03-12-02 08:24 PM
sly I can never understand why people always have to bring age up as a factor. Who cares how old the stones or the who are. As long as they can still perform on stage and put on a good show is what counts. By the way the B2B album by the "old men" is a lot better than most crap being released today
03-13-02 03:48 AM
Im_Shattered FUCK THEM!!
03-13-02 05:18 AM
Jumacfly oh yeah fuck the STAR FUCKERS!!!!


On June 16, 2001 the hit counter of the WET page was inserted here, it had 174,489 hits. Now the hit counter is for both the page and the board. The hit counter of the ITW board had 1,127,645 hits when it was closed and the Coolboard didn't have hit counter but was on line only two months and a half.