[
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]
66.65.40.90
In Reply to: RE: They are a "creative entity" alright ... posted by halfnote on April 11, 2008 at 20:14:11
I guess you didn't grasp the context, but then you're the one who's apparenly not a fan of Exile On Main St., so whatever. My intent was to be unflattering. They are, as a 'creative entity,' limited and boring since they have been trying to remain a "rock" act, and a relevant one, for 25-30 years past the point where many would consider their creative period to be, if not over, certainly headed towards a steep decline. You would say nearly 40 years. Fine.
It's worth mentioning that the steepness of the decline is only because of how good they were prior to then, which is why we may be slightly unfair in our biases. For instance, a record like, say, 'Steel Wheels' might be a highlight of a lesser artist's career. That the Rolling Stones have been measured against their first 15 years for the past 30 perhaps reflects more harshly than if they were a band with a much lower pedigree.
Nonetheless, I still disagree. The bad-boy stuff is still what people want to see, or else they wouldn't pay the money. Bowie is an artist who has done many different types of things in the past 35 years, and doesn't necessarily tailor his artistic pursuits towards any perceived bottom line (which may have something to do with his alleged cheapness). Which is not to make him out to be Mr. Credibility by comparison, only to say that, by contrast, the Stones follow a model that more closely resembles 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'
For producing records as a creative entity, that hasn't worked for them, in my view, for many years. Onstage is a different story, and I see this as more of a free market issue. That you are as critical of them as you seem to be indicates that you do not approve of an artist providing a product that their customer is willing to pay for, which I find puzzling. I think the nostalgia business ia a good one, in fact, much better than the 'creative rock band' business, at least at this point in time. If you disagree, fine. But if their customer base, or fans if you must have it that way, are willing to pay, I don't see the issue here. Unless someone's forcing you to go, that is. Given Jagger's educational background, something tells me that if they took yr advice onstage, they would not be the draw they still are, even if their appeal becomes increasingly inexplicable. At this point, by pretending to be 25 forever, they may well fill stadiums as long as they want to and/or physically can. If they change it up at this point, they will no longer be "The Rolling Stones" to the only people that matter anymore: their ticket-buying audience.
Maybe you can say you would've changed yr style & the audience be damned, but so long as they're giving people what they want and making money doing it, no matter how ridiculous it seems on the surface, there's only so much quarrel I can muster for it.
Follow Ups:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]