Is it an age thing?

Subject: Is it an age thing?
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 05:10 PM

Here's something to ponder. When I first heard The Rolling Stones I was amazed how awful they were, and I kept waiting for the critics to crucify them - but they didn't! Now, all my friends who are a bit younger than me love the Stones. They would all have been in the 12 -15 years age group when the Stones emerged; however, all my friends who were 19+ when the Stones first appeared were never impressed. What does that tell us? Also, I feel the Stones - on sheer merit - are vastly overated. For example, if a comparison was done between The Stones and The Band using such criteria as 1. singing abiltity 2. musicianship 3. songwriting, I would contend that The Band would win hands down. So how come The Band are hardly known by the younger music fans while the Stones are referred to as the greatest rock band in the world.

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: Metchosin
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 06:48 PM

they hung around longer and the whole was greater than the sum of it's parts.

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 06:53 PM

71.427% of pop/rock music is hype, publicity and luck anyway...
but the REAL question is why this is relevant to a folk/blues forum?
(said the eternal curmudgeon? *grin*)

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: Max
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 06:59 PM

Led Zeppelin is the Greatest Rock Band Ever! The Stones are pop (crap).

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 07:18 PM

Perhaps if the Band had songs like I Can't Get no Satisfaction and Let's Spend the Night Together, people would remember their music.

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 08:52 PM

This may differ across the Atlantic. I'd say that back here the contemporaries of the Stones are still basically pretty Stones orientated, as they were then.

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 09:16 PM

Crap Music? Millions of fans think very highly of them. The Stones are millionaires, you are not. Nuff said!

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 10:07 PM

Here's what I said hours ago, making my computer and/or printer crash big time. I've been cogitating on just who objected to my views! The other side may be more involved than I know…

"Ah, you've picked up on the same phenomenon I've observed. For instance I have frequently noticed that most Beatles fans were around 14 years old when the Beatles burst upon the scene. I was in my mid20s and those first 5 or so songs of theirs lost me forever. I understand and accept that later songs of theirs were better- although the other night someone sang a snatch of a later one of theirs. I commented, That sounds like the Beatles- and sure enough it was.

As for the Stones, I don't know their sound but I am struck - nay, stricken - by their appearance these days. They look like they had been buried and somebody dug them back up."

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: katlaughing
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 10:15 PM

I was 13 when the Beatles hit the American scene and I detested their first few songs. Went on to become a complete and lasting fan. I even finally had fun listening to and singing those early ones. I even have the original 45 of I Wanna Hold Your Hand!

And, for the record, I love the Stones, too and am amazed at their continuing energy for performing. I didn't own any of their records, but I always sang along when they came on the radio.

kat

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: Alex.S
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 10:23 PM

Please: if you're going to write out "'nuff said," at least don't forget the apostrophe!

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 10:40 PM

Are you related to Andy Statman?

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: richlmo
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 10:52 PM

The Stones pretty much suck , except for "Sticky Fingers" and "Let It Bleed".

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: Mooh
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 11:44 PM

I like the Beatles but they wouldn't be in my top forty list of favourites. Led Zeppelin would top it and The Stones would be near the top, but so would The Kinks, Free, J.Geils Band, Atlantic Rhythm Section, Mountain, Mott The Hoople, Roy Buchanan, The Band, and Jeff Beck.

Is it an age thing you ask. Maybe. I'm 45 and most of my contemporaries have an enduring love for this music, though many of them have suffered somewhat mellowed tastes over the years. I admit to listening to much more folk music than I once did, but other than that I listen to the same wide variety of music of my youth.

Each band has its different appeal. The Stones were more raw and bluesy while the Beatles were more pop. I adore virtually everything Led Zeppelin did (well, Stairway gets old real fast, except that brilliant guitar solo) and sounds timeless to my ears. My moods always dictate what I listen to, so one day Stones, the next The Band. No problem.

Likely just the chance of fate and a truly weird music industry that some bands don't get their due while others get more than theirs.

Tough to beat Sympathy For The Devil, especially the solo, that tune does what a million rappers have failed to do.

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: Hamish
Date: 05 Nov 03 - 03:18 AM

"The Stones are millionaires, you are not. Nuff said!".

otoh, making money isn't perhaps the only guide to artistic merit.

Although making money enables and encourages longevity.

I have to confess to getting pretty annoyed at my missus at the weekend when I'd said that Sir Paul McCartney phrased Ebony and Ivory very badly and she came up with the "Well he's become very rich on his musical ability" line. As if that exempts anyone who's made a lot of money from all criticism. A dangerous line to take, particularly if extended into non-musical spheres.

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: Amergin
Date: 05 Nov 03 - 04:03 AM

i can't stand them myself...

on the A Mighty Wind soundtrack the Folksmen did a cover of one of their songs...showing how ridiculous the lyrics actually were...

does anyone else see something wrong with the line "You can make a dead man come"????

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 05 Nov 03 - 04:13 AM

I preferred the early Stones to the Beatles as they were bluesier but not enough to buy any records of either. (Herself, being MUCH younger- as she never fails to tell people, has both in her collection). However, they were responsible for bringing Mississippi Fred McDowell to Europe thus to the attention of a wider audience for which I shall be eternally grateful. (I still prefer Fred's version of "Baby Please Don't Go" to theirs).

RtS
(...but what do I know?)

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: mooman
Date: 05 Nov 03 - 04:26 AM

Well I was in the 12-15 age group when the Stones first appeared and saw them live several times very early in their career at The Crawdaddy and Eel Pie Island. They never were and are still not, some 40 years later, crap IMHO! Rather they were a brilliant live band with tremendous energy. As Metchosin said above, the whole is something more than the sum of its parts and I would say the same is true of all great bands.

In answer to Bill D, I'd say it was relevant to Mudcat as the Stones were influenced heavily by the likes of Muddy Waters and Leadbelly and largely got together, apart from Mick and Keith, at Alexis Korner's club. They brought this style of music and credit to its originators to a whole new audience of young people. I'm appalled to have to disagree with Max although I saw Led Zep a couple of times too and I agree they were a brilliant band.

I think I pretty much agree with Mooh. I was lucky enough to be growing up in London when the Stones, The Kinks, The Who (The High Numbers when I first saw them), Eric Clapton (learnt a lot of his blues listening to the greats on vinyl in Potter's Music Shop in Richmond) and The Yardbirds (amongst the greatest with Jeff Beck, Jimmy Page and Eric Clapton amongst their number, and very local to me) were all active and all have influenced me musically (together with my upbringing in an Irish musical household, which makes for an interesting mix these days!).

Maybe it's a age thing as well but I'd personally say the quality of the music and performance had a lot to do with it.

Peace,

moo

P.S. I think The Band, Buffalo Springfield, Frank Zappa and The Mothers of Invention, The Grateful Dead and others were great bands too...so its not a transatlantic thing...!) (;>)

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: mooman
Date: 05 Nov 03 - 04:28 AM

P.S.

"They look like they had been buried and somebody dug them back up."

I like that Ebbie and very true!

moo

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: Brian Hoskin
Date: 05 Nov 03 - 04:33 AM

The line about making "dead men come" doesn't start with the Stones, but goes deeper into the history of the blues. For instance, Lucille Bogan uses the epression in her infamous version of Shave 'Em Dry.

(This is not a defence of the line, just an observation :) )

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: Mooh
Date: 05 Nov 03 - 08:51 AM

Once in a while, seen through the fog of hyperbole, one hears of Mick and Keith's knowledge, appreciation, respect, and understanding of their roots in folk and blues. They supposedly know a zillion songs and like to play 'em when their not enjoying their money otherwise.

All music is derivative. Some honour their roots better than others.

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 05 Nov 03 - 08:54 PM

yeah being rich allowed Keith Richards a total body blood transfusion
when he wasnt allowed to travel to the states cuz hed fail the drug test. and some folks in switzerland donated blood thinking its for a good cause.

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 06 Nov 03 - 04:48 AM

Bill Wyman's taste in girls is definitely an "age thing". Over 17 is too old.

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Nov 03 - 06:47 AM

BILL D. SAID: "71.427% of pop/rock music is hype, publicity and luck anyway...
but the REAL question is why this is relevant to a folk/blues forum?
(said the eternal curmudgeon? *grin*)"

Considering that Mick is now 60 and that quite a few of their songs are still going strong 40 years later, I fear that soon there actually will be relevancy..............

Spaw

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: GUEST,Crosstownmove
Date: 06 Nov 03 - 01:04 PM

I'm amazed how little The Band has been mention in this thread. In my humble opinion, they were a class act. The Stones , however, were very clever - like Chuck Berry - and methodically pushed all the right buttons to gain wide appeal.

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: GUEST,Me
Date: 06 Nov 03 - 01:12 PM

I remember the 60s and the Band, but I don't think I could name a single thing they did.

The Stones on the other hand ....

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: GUEST,Tuesmith
Date: 06 Nov 03 - 03:54 PM

Ah, Guest,Me - your answer tells me a lot about you! I would contend a. Mick Jagger can't sing his way out of a paper bag. Certainly he is the worst singer in any major rock band b. the reason The Stones have so many classic " memorable" hits is that djs have played them constantly. If The Band had received the same amount of airplay, then you would be able to recall their stuff.Returning to my original thought: The Stones set out deliberately to captured a young audience; an audience that - didn't know any better - and who were easily won over by their weak version of US black music, and their "angst" filled original lyrics which were carefully calculated to appeal to teenagers

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: Metchosin
Date: 06 Nov 03 - 07:51 PM

The thing about The Band is that you can respect them as fabulous musicians, but that doesn't vault the material into an arena of being profoundly memorable for a lot of people.

I don't think they could deliberately set out to do anything. Keith Richards would have needed a map to find his way to a bathroom and I don't think Brian Jones floating face down was the sign of a mastermind either. And its also surprising that Bill Wyman could chew gum and play bass at the same time and Ron Woods just showed up with his lunch bucket, then went home. Which leaves Mick Jager (Mr.I couldn't keep it in my pants if my life depended on it) to be the guiding light....I don't think so. Roll me a zeplin baby, I want to smell colours....And none of this is intended as criticism....we liked these guys.

During that era, airtime for any band was often predicated upon some kid phoning in and saying "Hey, play that new song for me, the one by the........ DJs were way more responsive, unlike now, where Pop or Rock is usually exposed to the public through a computer generated playlist dictated by some corporate gumby in a concrete building somewhere near the meat packing industry in Los Angles.

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: Chris in Wheaton
Date: 07 Nov 03 - 01:00 PM

When the first Stones records of blues, recorded in Chicago, came out (63?), I was going to see Howling Wolf and other greats in Old Town. The Stones were very poor imitations, but compared to the Beatle rip-off's, they weren't bad, and you have to like the strutting, etc.
I thought the early Beatles was a poor imitation of Carl Perkins, etc., but they did get better - looking forward to the sort-of unplugged version of Let It Be.
Aren't we all tempted to try "When I'm 64?" and then realize how hard it is to do (or to think about!)?
Chris in Wheaton

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Nov 03 - 04:57 PM

Well said, Mets. This is one teen who didn't know beans about the Stones until in my 20's. While I really like their stuff, back then, it was Beatles, Bob Dylan, the Doors, Steppenwolf and a few others before the Stones. (On my list, I mean)

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: greg stephens
Date: 07 Nov 03 - 05:47 PM

The Beatles were clean, the Stones were dirty. It was a question of taste at the time (I preferred the Stones). As to why the Stones were bigger than the Band (I am a huge fan of both)...well, I dont think you need a PhD in Rock Studies to figure that out.

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: dagenham doc
Date: 07 Nov 03 - 06:12 PM

I remember as a teenager one Sunday afternoon with everyone falling asleep. I couldn't stand it.. Then I'd go over to the stereo and put on a Stones record. My mum would say … "you can turn that off we don't want listen to that Beatles rubbish". I could never understand how she could not tell the difference between the two. If the Beatles had knocked on the door they would have giggled a bit cos they'd had a joint down the road and then got all embarrassed, Paul would have blushed and then they would have had tea and pulled mothers leg a little, bit of a laugh and then thanks and ta ra and off the road together….. whereas the Stones would have been leaning against the wall, taking acid, they would have come running in, swallowed the gold fish, knocked a few of the flying ducks off the wall, pissed on the rose beds and fucked off….


Doc

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 07 Nov 03 - 06:32 PM

I was in high school -- a teenager -- when the Beatles and Stones became known in the US. My musical tastes were pretty much in the elite/collegiate folk-music category, changing from commerical harmony-group folk-pop through "serious" Seeger/Guthrie/Dylan to deep old-time Delta-type blues.

At the time, I was basically in denial about how much I had long really enjoyed a lot of rock & roll (Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, etc.)

I liked the Stones well enough, and knew I should have preferred them to the Beatles due to their greater bluesiness, etc. But even though I perceived Beatle fandom as a girl's thing, I couldn't help but like them pretty well -- especially to hear them cover stuff like "Twist & Shout," and even moreso, "Please Mr. Postman." I loved that girl-group stuff, and could listen and imaging singing it myself. If "Baby It's You" had been released back in the day, I would have been in heaven.

Also, an important factor in my interest in the Beatles would have to be the fact that my mother's maiden name is McCartney. Before the Beatles, people would think it was the more common McCarthy, and wuld have to be corrected. Nevermore!

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Nov 03 - 06:35 PM

Dagenham Doc, that says quite a bit about personality; it doesn't say much about their music.

I'm not badmouthing grown people's attachment to what they absorbed in their teens. We all need our nostalgic illusions.:)

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: dagenham doc
Date: 07 Nov 03 - 06:45 PM

I disagree Ebbie, and think their personalities reflected their music.

Doc

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: Steve-o
Date: 07 Nov 03 - 07:52 PM

".....this is not a defense of the line, just an observation", and ".....not criticizing, I just prefer the other group", etc. Man, what a bunch of weenies- you guys SHOULD be listening to that wimpy Stairway to Heaven! The Stones are the only ones that actually remembered what Rock 'n' Roll started out to be- dance music with sex references that made your parents mad!

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Nov 03 - 07:56 PM

With the Stones, the image came first - if people liked the image, they learned to like the music.

With the Beatles, the music came first.

In a hundred years time, people will play Stones music and videos to get an idea about what we were like back in the 20th century. They'll play the Beatles to see how their versions stand up in comparison with the news versions of the same songs still being produced.

Subject: RE: Is it an age thing?
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Nov 03 - 08:42 PM

I disagree Ebbie, and think their personalities reflected their music.

And I suppose their music reflected their personalities.

Incidentally, do any of you 'Catters know any of the Beatles or the Stones? I wonder what they are/were actually like. I've listened to Mick talk on 'Charlie Rose', for instance, and quite enjoyed him. I have no idea in truth as to whether I would like and/or respect any one of them in real life.