66.65.40.90
In Reply to: RE: I agree completely. posted by halfnote on April 10, 2008 at 20:54:16
I don't care what they do on stage, and I have no problem with nostalgia, whether it's the Stones or other dinosaurs, packaged AOR tours with bands I hate like Journey, Styx, REO Speedwagon, whatever, or re-formed Sex Pistols, Pogues, or even N.W.A. junkets, for that matter. The issue I find more relevant is that the Stones continue to function as a creative entity by putting out albums of new material every few years.
The records are what should indicate the maturity, I believe, not the stage show necessarily. I've said for a long, long time that it would be refreshing if the Stones did a blues album, a reggae album, a covers album, anything except a new Rolling Stones ROCK record that has them trying to produce a wax platter more worthy than anything since, oh, Some Girls or thereabouts.
Since they already did come out, 'perhaps unplugged,' and just played, nearly two decades ago now ("Stripped"), I'm starting to get the idea that you have an axe to grind. I don't let the relative mediocrity of the Stones recs (and other examples of rockers not aging gracefully, with the notable exceptions of Dylan, Young, Waits, et al) bother me THAT much. I remember, prior to Rod Stewart releasing the Songbook rec, thinking that was a way better move than making just another record of ROCK material & pretending to be 20 when he's pushing 60. I think I said as much on this board, too. Obviously I was proved wrong based on the results (though I have read that it was supposed to be just one rec, and he was kinda pushed into a series after its success, to our detriment), but I still like the idea that he was willing to try something like that, even if Bryan Ferry had made a superior standards rec just a couple of years prior.
If people are willing to pay to see the Stones jump & pose to the same songs everyone's heard 50 million times...what do you care?
Follow Ups: