|
|
| CS |
This "nice" article by a South African newspaper  he must be angry because there won't be stop down there.
We need some wild horses to drag them away
May 11 2002 at 07:03PM
By Brian Cooper
This week saw four haggard old men announce their intention to subject a good portion of the world to a prolonged bout of what they once were the kings of: rock'n roll.
Yes, the Rolling Stones (now at a collective age of 235), no doubt feeling the need to pump up the retirement fund, have announced their first world tour since the Bridges to Babylon one in 1999. Kicking off (if that's not too energetic a phrase for the crumbling codgers) in September, the series of concerts will offer ticket prices varying from R15 000 to R525.
At those prices you have to ask - who will be going to see them? Even if there were any younger fans who, through some perverse gerontophiliac urge, felt they needed a sort of Madame Tussaud's rock experience, they would be hard pressed to afford it. Which leaves us with the sad sods, close to the Stones's age with at least one Porsche in the garage, who want to buy back some semblance of their wilder youth.
Why all this tight-lipped vitriol, you ask. What have Mick, Keef and the gang ever done to warrant such disparagement?
Well, I'll tell you what they did. They released the last good album they ever made 30 years ago, that's what. Exile on Main Street (yeah, yeah, I know some of you with long memories will argue for the previous year's Sticky Fingers) marked the end of a golden era for a group that once defined all that was intelligent, insistent and defiant (don't forget decadent) about youth culture in the 60s - the decade that was so good, it refused to go away until well into the 70s.
But folks, that was 30 years ago. Read my lips - 30 YEARS. Since then the band has done nothing to add to the collective rebel yell that is rock culture. And why? Because of the nature of the beast. Rock music is youth music - it's a loud, aggressive, cocky, swaggering finger in the face of Dad, insurance companies, comfy shoes and anything else that symbolises acquiesence to the concerns of a sensible world.
Clearly then, decrepit, withered, doddering (do you think Keith has had special extra-light guitars made for the tour?) multi-millionaires cannot make rock music.
Bassist Bill Wyman at least had the good sense and taste to leave the band and start playing a more mature blend of blues and jazz.
C'mon Mick, Keef, Charlie, Ron - it's time to grow up.
|
|
|
| Open G |
The only thing old and tired here is Journalist like this guy jumping on the "they're too old to rock and roll" bandwagon and Jay Lenos lame Stones jokes. The whole premise that Rock and Roll is only for teenagers is just ignorant.Rock n Roll was born from the blues and the only way to get a bluesman to put down his guitar is to pry it out of his cold dead hands at his funeral. |
|
|
| jb |
I hope this prick is beaten to death by an angry mob in shanty town. |
|
|
| AlexanderHic |
Some things to openly laugh at:
a) The RS released their last good album in 1972, with Exile, closing the golden era of rock? For me, Exile is a gigantic middle finger to those who still doubted about the group's capacity for being called the greatest rock band in the world... from then on. The sixties had died violently, with just about every kind of one mind track utopies; the Beatles had released the ultra lame "Let it be" and Dylan was doing country. In comparison, Exile rules yes -it could have been released nowadays and it still would provoke instant cult recognition, but it did not involve a conscious effort from the band as to close a so called golden era of rock as the author commented (that label should be applied to "Let it bleed" and the "Gimme Shelter" movie), but to get away even further, in the canons of the band, from every preconceived notion about rock as a stepping stone for social pretentions. Pleeeease, rock is about discipline and talent (if there's a good heart in between... the better), not about being part of some decade that reveled in decadence and defiance whilst teaching us how to live -that is merely additional to the music. Clapton plays his guitar and whatever emotional factor he's still able to imbue in his performance, it's still all about the music... but back to the sixties... Dylan knew this at the end -or shall we say: he took a firm stand in his beliefs even if they didn't involve anything in particular; the Kinks knew this all the time, so did Frank Zappa, and who can't forgive John Lennon for some of the incredible shit he naively intercalated in his solo stuff?, but the Stones wanted to take their stand with a total blast. They recorded that album while they were the greatest rock band in the world, celebrating themselves, not the sixties.
b) It is not their last good album. How many young popular bands today would kill to have penned "Voodoo lounge" in their prime? One?... two?... How about "Some girls"?
c) Bill Wyman's generic records are fun (especially the ones made while he was still a rolling stone), but hardly any better to the overall solo careers from the rest of the group.
d) "Gerontophiliac urge"? Forget that the writer has a gigantic bias against the band and/or exquisite taste, this statement is plain idiotic as it assumes that only young people are able to both create and enjoy rock music. Rock, blues, country whatever. I've known younger people (and I'm still in my twenties) who couldn't care shit for rock -less for its "golden period". The author's probably one of those prince-of-the punks assholes who continue to celebrate the deaths of Hendrix and co.
Where's the other people? Why don't they have anything else to add to this forum?... What if some truth lies in the bottom of that maligned article, and it's still all about money and the stones have become even a pale shadow from their former old fart image???... For the benefit of Brian Cooper, one thing: Yes, the rolling stones are old and rich, but their fans are probably too busy buying tickets instead of reading what little his mind had to offer. |
|
|
| Jigsaw Puzzle |
This article by Brian Cooper is a joke. Haggard old men? The Stones actually looked quite healthy and in great shape at their press conference. I'd love to see Brian keep up with Jagger for two hours every night for a year of touring. One night and Cooper would be down and out. Why do people often allude to the fact that the Stones are "in it for the money" McCartney is supposedly a billionaire and he's touring, yet no one mentions that of him. Since when is there an age limit on rock and roll anyway? Sure, money comes into play when a band tours, whether its the Stones or anyone else. I've yet to meet a person who doesn't get paid for their profession. Does Brian Cooper write for free or does he get his paycheck like everyone else? The Stones are a rock band and bands' tour and put out new music...it is what they do. It is what makes a band, a band. "Rock music is youth music - it's a loud, aggressive, cocky, swaggering finger in the face of Dad, insurance companies, comfy shoes and anything else that symbolises acquiesence to the concerns of a sensible world." Hmmm. If rock is youth music I guess any member of any band over 18 must quit since such a person is no longer considered a youth. If Cooper wants recent loud and aggressive Stones-listen to 'Gunface', 'Flip The Switch', 'You Got Me Rocking', etc. I wonder if Brian Cooper even knows what CD these songs come from. C'mon Coopper; the 'stick it to the establishment generation went out with the 1960's', it was tried again with punk in the 1970's as well as grunge in the early 1990's. It's been done already by such bands as the Stones and others. |
|
CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]