Max, if I may, I think it goes like this: to put it lightly there is a bit of hypocrisy involved in building a reputation on an anti-establishment stance and then becoming an indisputable part of that establishment, conveniently symbolized this particular time by playing that Banker's Banquet.
And, to my friend Sir Stonesalot I offer the following caveat:
Be careful.
Not wanting to be a constant bitch was one of the principal reasons I stayed away from the boards for the entirety of the American and the first leg of the European Bigger Bang tours. I'd lost the ability to be anything but didactic about my distaste for the current state of the band. The fact that I'm back after a six month self-imposed exile has nothing to do with the contemporary Rolling Stones. The post-Wyman version has been carefully moved to the guilty pleasure center of my brain for a decade now.
But the Rolling Stones as a thing are way more than their last 18 or so years of existence and you know it. When I come here I come to celebrate (and laugh at) 1962-1985 and to get what I can out of (and laugh at) the rest.
You can still be a fan of Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley, James Brown, whoever, despite the fact that they did some pretty stupid, tasteless, bitchful and even evil shit - because what you're a fan of is the art and its creation. The best of an artist's output is what's important, not the worst. And we all know that the Stones at their best are the apotheosis of everything.
But there is something more important than that going on here.
RO is like a giant support group where we deal with the fact that we are addicted to the Rolling Stones. Since I found the board I have successfully removed my Stones obsession from the rest of my life, and it generally bothers no one in my day-to-day conversation, the music that I sell or play on the radio, or my other writing. When my Stonesian addiction gets too much for me I come over here to RO and say "Hey my name is Nasty Habits and I am a Stonesaholic."
And some of you say, "Hey Nasty! Me too!"
And I feel better.
You may be frustrated and disgusted now, but whatcha gonna do in six months when you feel the need to banter around with some very old friends about some trivial Rolling Stones factoid you've just uncovered, or when you get so frustrated with some godawful thing they did and you need to mock it pub-lick-ly. I mean, nobody out there in the real world cares. In the real world, nothing is more boring than some old guy bitching about the Rolling Stones. Have you read that John Strausbaugh book? Blech.
You think you can turn your back on them.
But. It. Comes. Back.
And you're gonna need someplace to get it out of you. Remember these lines from their last "great" song: "Oh your love is just sweet addiction/I can't clean you out of my veins. It's a lifelong affliction/that has damaged my brain."
This is why I've never announced retirement.
Which brings us to the most important part.
I think you know and agree that officially retiring from a rock and roll anything and then returning is among the most disgraceful moves anyone with integrity can make. Coming back after acrimonious drug addled breakups - OK, maybe. But after officially announced retirement? Ew.
So if you're really leaving, leave. Don't pull a Who. Don't be a Bowie. That would be gross. Last Post = Last Waltz. No comebacks. Might as well hang yourself if you do.
I'd say you have until this thread hits the archives to pull your "it was a joke!" bit.
If I don't see you here by then, I'll see you on myspace. Check in on the Replacement Party setlist from time to time and give it a download. Bet I play the Stones.
14th July 2007 11:07 AM
Gazza
quote:Maxlugar wrote:
I don't think it's up to us to decided whether they need the money or not. How do we know they aren't quietly donating it? Or how do we know they aren't losing huge amounts of money on bad investments or land deals? We don't. Rumor has it Ronnie is pretty bad off, for instance.
And regarding the fanbase, well apparently it has expanded to rich bankers and global banking institutions who are willing to pay millions for them. So what?
The "Ronnie being broke" story was from years ago, Maxy.
The fanbase is and should always be 'expanded' for everyone. It also shouldnt be exclusive. It is, however, veering unstoppably in that direction IMHO.
Read again, I dont have an issue with them playing a private show. I'd feel a bit better if small shows werent EXCLUSIVELY done in that manner, though.
[Edited by Gazza]
14th July 2007 11:18 AM
F505
"If The Stones don't want to fit in that idea anymore, then I can live without them. But I can't live without my Rock n Roll.:
Very well spoken. As a matter of fact I said the Stones farewell last summer when they fucked up the European Tour.
The Stones anno 2007 have nothing to do with rock 'n roll and are only in for the money. Nothing wrong with that but I suppose this attracts a different kind of Las Vegas fans.
And there are plenty of them still around even on this board.
14th July 2007 11:27 AM
Mr Jurkka
Good Bye SS
14th July 2007 12:22 PM
_Boomy_
Gypsy...!
14th July 2007 01:18 PM
Lil Brian
quote:F505 wrote:
I said the Stones farewell last summer when they fucked up the European Tour.
I haven't heard much of newest tour yet but the real worry has to be if Richards can't go, they might be done (like it or not).
14th July 2007 01:56 PM
Martha
Fuck that, Stonesy you ain't leavin'!
No way....ya hear?!
xxoo,
Martha
14th July 2007 02:04 PM
GotToRollMe
Oh fer fuckssake.
14th July 2007 02:11 PM
MrPleasant
Bye, SS!
14th July 2007 02:30 PM
mrhipfl
quote:Nasty Habits wrote:
Max, if I may, I think it goes like this: to put it lightly there is a bit of hypocrisy involved in building a reputation on an anti-establishment stance and then becoming an indisputable part of that establishment, conveniently symbolized this particular time by playing that Banker's Banquet.
So many people think Rock n' Roll represents rebellion. The only thing Rock n Roll really stands for is a good fuckin' time. The Stones, The Clash, TuPac, ABBA...it's all the same when it comes right down to it.
14th July 2007 02:36 PM
Egbert
quote:Fiji Joe wrote:
You alright man?...you need a drink?...Cause I'll buy... I generally do
Tele's thirsty
14th July 2007 02:37 PM
Taptrick
Some just go and some tell you they are going....
Life just goes on and on getting harder and harder...
And in honor of SS - they won't have ole Sir Stonesalot to kick around anymore...
14th July 2007 02:49 PM
Egbert
quote:Nasty Habits wrote:
Have you read that John Strausbaugh book? Blech.
That is an awful book. And I liked most of Strausbaugh's stuff when he wrote for NYP. Couldn't give it away last stoop sale we had - even the Puerto Rican lady next door who always swoops in at the end of the day to claim all unsold junk left it behind.
Great post, Nasty
14th July 2007 02:56 PM
GotToRollMe
quote:Nasty Habits wrote:
Max, if I may, I think it goes like this: to put it lightly there is a bit of hypocrisy involved in building a reputation on an anti-establishment stance and then becoming an indisputable part of that establishment, conveniently symbolized this particular time by playing that Banker's Banquet.
And, to my friend Sir Stonesalot I offer the following caveat:
Be careful.
Not wanting to be a constant bitch was one of the principal reasons I stayed away from the boards for the entirety of the American and the first leg of the European Bigger Bang tours. I'd lost the ability to be anything but didactic about my distaste for the current state of the band. The fact that I'm back after a six month self-imposed exile has nothing to do with the contemporary Rolling Stones. The post-Wyman version has been carefully moved to the guilty pleasure center of my brain for a decade now.
But the Rolling Stones as a thing are way more than their last 18 or so years of existence and you know it. When I come here I come to celebrate (and laugh at) 1962-1985 and to get what I can out of (and laugh at) the rest.
You can still be a fan of Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley, James Brown, whoever, despite the fact that they did some pretty stupid, tasteless, bitchful and even evil shit - because what you're a fan of is the art and its creation. The best of an artist's output is what's important, not the worst. And we all know that the Stones at their best are the apotheosis of everything.
But there is something more important than that going on here.
RO is like a giant support group where we deal with the fact that we are addicted to the Rolling Stones. Since I found the board I have successfully removed my Stones obsession from the rest of my life, and it generally bothers no one in my day-to-day conversation, the music that I sell or play on the radio, or my other writing. When my Stonesian addiction gets too much for me I come over here to RO and say "Hey my name is Nasty Habits and I am a Stonesaholic."
And some of you say, "Hey Nasty! Me too!"
And I feel better.
You may be frustrated and disgusted now, but whatcha gonna do in six months when you feel the need to banter around with some very old friends about some trivial Rolling Stones factoid you've just uncovered, or when you get so frustrated with some godawful thing they did and you need to mock it pub-lick-ly. I mean, nobody out there in the real world cares. In the real world, nothing is more boring than some old guy bitching about the Rolling Stones. Have you read that John Strausbaugh book? Blech.
You think you can turn your back on them.
But. It. Comes. Back.
And you're gonna need someplace to get it out of you. Remember these lines from their last "great" song: "Oh your love is just sweet addiction/I can't clean you out of my veins. It's a lifelong affliction/that has damaged my brain."
This is why I've never announced retirement.
Which brings us to the most important part.
I think you know and agree that officially retiring from a rock and roll anything and then returning is among the most disgraceful moves anyone with integrity can make. Coming back after acrimonious drug addled breakups - OK, maybe. But after officially announced retirement? Ew.
So if you're really leaving, leave. Don't pull a Who. Don't be a Bowie. That would be gross. Last Post = Last Waltz. No comebacks. Might as well hang yourself if you do.
I'd say you have until this thread hits the archives to pull your "it was a joke!" bit.
If I don't see you here by then, I'll see you on myspace. Check in on the Replacement Party setlist from time to time and give it a download. Bet I play the Stones.
Hey Nasty! Me too!
14th July 2007 02:59 PM
The jinn, my friend.
It is admirable you have chosen to stand by your personal ethical standards.
Remapping personal markers is not an easy, especially ones that you believed to be true for so very long.
Like fine surgeons that retire from the trenches for some peace, returning to their craft out of demand and need of their honed skills, many solid bands and people have returned to make Rock and Roll a personal experience again. Furthermore, many new bands/people deserve admiration, too.
Even great leaders lose their way taking with them multitudes of people. Sometimes great leaders are nothing more than a “wizard of oz experience”, taking years before the people begin to point to the man behind the curtain. Often times, people just get in a situation and work the best they can in a particular environment vowing to change the environment once in position, but actually become the environment they desired to change. Whatever the reason, people deserve a viable standard to their own personal ethics.
It is dirty business to exposing and gutting hogzilla, so many have been feeding faithfully. However, after it is said and done there are many good parts available. I am too young to understand the subtle messages being delivered in 1967. I am not sure where it went wrong neither. Nevertheless, somehow I imagine it was speaking out against consumption, false fronts, and exclusion. If that was the movement, where is the channel marker now?
What will happen to all the damsels in distress without their very own knight in shiny armour???
And who will post pictures of themselves in really cool cars????
(by the way: I've eaten three brownies and IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!)
Come on! I'd much rather some other poster left.
Honestly!
No...I'm not mentioning any names, but I can think of at least three that if you deducted ten points from their IQ, you'd have to water them twice weekly....
I suppose a man has to do what a man has to do......
[very long sigh...........]
PS: How much is a golden circle seat to your farewell concert???
PPS: NASTY HABITS: your IQ's fine, good post...
14th July 2007 03:48 PM
Nasty Habits
quote:mrhipfl wrote:
So many people think Rock n' Roll represents rebellion. The only thing Rock n Roll really stands for is a good fuckin' time. The Stones, The Clash, TuPac, ABBA...it's all the same when it comes right down to it.
Well, that's as rock 'n' roll nazi as someone telling Fiji he can't be a Stones fan because he's a Republican. Not to mention ridiculously reductive. "The Only Thing"? What a limited medium! And how counter to my own experience. Music, being one of the purest arts, can CERTAINLY achieve more than just a good fuckin' time. Rock and Roll has inspired a lot more than dancin' around. Not that I'm not all for dancin' around.
Don't forget - it's also about stickin' it to the man!
And as far as what I was saying to Max, who, and if I misquote here Max I apologize, but I think he says he genuinely does not see where some are coming from in terms of feeling like there are ethical issues involved here, let me clarify:
If you've built the reputation you've been cashing in on the last fill in the blank years (anything from 18 to 35, I'd say is valid) in part on music and in part on saying critical things about the establishment, lip servicing alternative political, sexual, at times financial and legalistic values, all the while actively encouraging an image as bad boy outlaws standing outside the system, up to the point of getting publicity for your new album by making a big deal out of a song dissing the Sweet NeoCons, then then how in the hell are some of your enthusiastic supporters not at some point along the way stand up and cry hypocrisy when performance quality slips, when quality control becomes lax, and when it becomes obvious that the band stands not for music or mayhem, but money?
Who knows, maybe taking the bank for a pile of dough and laughing all the way to the bank over it was stickin' it to the man in the Stones' own way. But, somehow, it does not seem that way.
Do I think that Sir Stonesalot's leaving is overly dramatic? Well, Yeah. He should have seen this writing on the wall a LOOOOOOONG time ago.
But I see where he is coming from.
14th July 2007 03:53 PM
Gazza
quote:mrhipfl wrote:
So many people think Rock n' Roll represents rebellion. The only thing Rock n Roll really stands for is a good fuckin' time. The Stones, The Clash, TuPac, ABBA...it's all the same when it comes right down to it.
If you think The Clash were only about having a "good fuckin' time", you must be confusing them with a different band or else can't have listened to them or read anything about them.
Oh, and great post(s), Nasty.
[Edited by Gazza]
14th July 2007 03:57 PM
mrhipfl
quote:Gazza wrote:
If you think The Clash were only about having a "good fuckin' time", you must be confusing them with a different band or else can't have listened to them or read anything about them.
Oh, and great post(s), Nasty.
Alright, so maybe it's not "only" about having a good time, but I do think it's the most important thing about rock music. If The Clash weren't fun, would you still listen to them?
I just don't see how people can take it all so seriously. maybe I will someday...
And I agree, good posts, Nasty.
[Edited by mrhipfl]
14th July 2007 04:08 PM
Nasty Habits
Thanks guys! Some support groups advocate 12 steps, but since this is a Stones board I advocate the 13 Question Method, by Chuck Berry . . .
"Now, the thirteen question method is the one to use
Listen to me!
Thirteen question method is the one to use
I’m saying that the thirteen question method is the one you gotta use
If you wanna have some fun
’cause the thirteen question method is the one to use
Uhn!
Question number one: you wanna have fun, uh hun
Question number two: what to do ?
Let’s see!
Question number three: wanna go out and eat burger with me ?
God almighty!
For the thirteen question method is the one to use
Now the question number five: don’t give me no jive this morning
Question number six: don’t try no tricks, this evening
Question number seven: I’ll pick you up at a quarter to eleven, baby
And question number eight: it’s a date
That’s question number nine: where to dine, this evening ?
Question number ten: ah, can we get in ?
Question number eleven: gonna be just like heaven ?
God almighty!
Question number twelve: we get by ourselves ?
’cause the thirteen question method is the one to use
The thirteen question method is the one to use
Now the thirteen question method is the one gotta use if you wanna...
The thirteen question method is the one to use
And she says ah..."
14th July 2007 04:10 PM
pdog
Live every day, like it s your last post.
14th July 2007 04:15 PM
Gazza
quote:mrhipfl wrote:
Alright, so maybe it's not "only" about having a good time, but I do think it's the most important thing about rock music. If The Clash weren't fun, would you still listen to them?
I just don't see how people can take it all so seriously. maybe I will someday...
And I agree, good posts, Nasty.
I can appreciate what you're getting at, but The Clash, a band driven by idealism more than pretty much any other in rock 'n' roll history, maybe wasnt a good example to use.
Yeah, I would listen to them. I was actually never much of a punk/new wave fan, actually. The Clash were more than a band though, so the whole "just in it for the fun" didnt apply for me as far as they were concerned.
There's some music you just listen to it for the "fun" and I guess there's some you take a bit more seriously.
[Edited by Gazza]
14th July 2007 04:30 PM
TomL
They will come back to you SS. I can identify though. I did too many shows last time and got tired of hearing the same old shit. But to me it is not just about the Band here, it's about the friends I have made. Friends I believe for life, both here and on other boards. Like now I am going to a cook out at a few Shidobbees place. Let them take you but not your friends. Peace out brother, hope to see you soon.
14th July 2007 04:34 PM
Nellcote
Tom L has nailed the matter, for it's the relationships that count. Good post. We need to talk 'que sometime Tom..
14th July 2007 04:48 PM
Joey
" I love what The Rolling Stones once were. I hate what they have become. "
< ---- My Sweet Bippy !!!!! BEST STONES YET !!!!!!
Man , you said it Lil' Fella ( Lil' Fiji )
These cats are on FIRE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
UNFRIGGINBELIEVABLE STONES
Personally , I hope the band does a little ' Mini " MINI " Tour of the states next year [ about ten arena gigs including NY , CHICAGO , LA , and select MidWestern dates where the economy is booming : Kansas City ( New Arena -- Sprint Center ) , Omaha , Dallas , Minneapolis , Des Moines ( New Arena ) , Denver , etc ........... ]
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJACKY !
14th July 2007 06:45 PM
GotToRollMe
quote:sirmoonie wrote:
Reconsider, C10 niggie. Please note Ian Billen's latest post. Howe you going to leave that alone? Howe in the name of Jesus Fucking Falwell Christ are you going to leave that alone?
No shit, SS. How can you resist that little piece of artistry? Besides, ya know yer music...that goes a looong way...can't say that about everybody. C'maaannn....
14th July 2007 08:26 PM
Fiji Joe
Does all this mean that Sir Stoneslot must change his name?...I mean by his own admission he does not Stonealot any more...he Stonesalittle...he Stonesnowandthen...but he does not Stonesalot
He is my pal..and he got me started on Stones boots...so I will lead the charge to find him a new name
A few suggestions:
Sir Supernova
Sir Supersucker
Sir Saves-many-people-who-would-otherwise-die-without-his-help
Any further suggestions?
14th July 2007 08:38 PM
Nasty Habits
quote:Fiji Joe wrote:
Does all this mean that Sir Stoneslot must change his name?...I mean by his own admission he does not Stonealot any more...he Stonesalittle...he Stonesnowandthen...but he does not Stonesalot
He is my pal..and he got me started on Stones boots...so I will lead the charge to find him a new name
A few suggestions:
Sir Supernova
Sir Supersucker
Sir Saves-many-people-who-would-otherwise-die-without-his-help
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:
The Rolling Stones World Tour 2005 Rolling Stones Bigger Bang Tour 2005 2006 Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour - Farewell Tour - Rolling Stones: Onstage World Tour A Bigger Bang US Tour
NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
