When will The Rolling Stones end?

[Jockice]

Could you not say this about any tribute band? I was being facetious about them not playing (as they clearly still were), but it's not unusual for bands of that stature to utilise backstage technicians, particularly to recreate more complex studio work.

I once had a side-on view of a Ramones concert and realised they had another guitarist playing out of sight of the stage. This wasn't late on either, it was in the 80s. Obviously to recreate their more complex studio work.

New page Rolling Mones.

[Brundle-Fly]

It must be quite galling for The Stones to have received all this flack for still performing live over the last twenty-five years or so. All the blues/ RnB/ rock & rollers, jazzers even, that inspired and influenced them can carry on as elderly people playing into their graves, and nobody bats an eyelid.

I wonder if they had just gone beardy and grey or stopped dating women their grand daughters' ages or binned the fright wig hair, leather keks and yellow oven gloves or if Mick reined in his prancing about on stage they would be taken more seriously? Not as much fun though.

[Elderly Sumo Prophecy]

When Keith stops being a boring blues obsessed cunt, ie when he carks it.

I watched the documentary on Richards that popped up on Netflix a couple of years ago, but I had to turn it off when Tom Waits turned up and they both started wailing over an acoustic guitar. No lyrics, just wailing. I think they thought they were being profound.

[Phoenix Lazarus]

if Mick reined in his prancing about on stage they would be taken more seriously?

Nail on head. 

[gilbertharding]

I suppose it's too late for the obligatory Rick Rubin produced renaissance (immediately after which they all die), isn't it? I mean - is he even still doing that?

[Nice Relaxing Poo]

I watched the documentary on Richards that popped up on Netflix a couple of years ago, but I had to turn it off when Tom Waits turned up and they both started wailing over an acoustic guitar. No lyrics, just wailing. I think they thought they were being profound.

I've read a few interviews with Keith and have always been struck with how single minded he is about music. I find anyone like that tedious but he also sometimes comes across just a bitter prick about non blues musicians.

[Ant Farm Keyboard]

I once had a side-on view of a Ramones concert and realised they had another guitarist playing out of sight of the stage. This wasn't late on either, it was in the 80s. Obviously to recreate their more complex studio work.

Johnny Ramone was strictly a rhythm guitarist. He wouldn't play a solo. He was full of such principles. If you've seen the End of the Century documentary, there's a moment where Richie Ramone started to bring songs to the rest of the band, and Johnny objected, because there was a chord that hadn't been played until then on a Ramones record. Richie told him that, after something like eight or ten years, they could afford adding a fifth chord to their repertory.
On record, on the early albums, all lead guitar parts were actually played by Tommy or by Ed Stasium. And the live recordings from the 70s were also strictly rhythm. The band may have eventually accepted with time to fill up the sound with some roadie.

There was an incident during the Bridges to Babylon tour (if I remember correctly). It was around the time that Ronnie Wood went to rehab, before Keith had his injury. Ronnie was supposed to play a solo, but the stage displays framed for a few seconds Blondie Chaplin backstage and playing some guitar part. It isn't clear if Chaplin was actually subbing for Wood or if he was just checking if the guitar was properly tuned.

[Elderly Sumo Prophecy]

Was the guitarist wearing the Ramones "uniform"?

[thecuriousorange]

I bet they regret singing "I hope I die before I get old" now.

[kalowski]

Imagine Mick Jagger's boot stamping on your face—for ever.

[Butchers Blind]

Imagine Mick Jagger's boot stamping on your face—for ever.

Just checked, his oldest child is 50, his youngest is 4.

[idunnosomename]

a 50-year-old child! imagine that.

[Jockice]

Was the guitarist wearing the Ramones "uniform"?

I don't think he had the leather jacket but he was all in black. Made him harder to see I suppose.

[Pauline Walnuts]

a 50-year-old child! imagine that.

Do they do 18 year old children?

[gilbertharding]

There was an incident during the Bridges to Babylon tour (if I remember correctly). It was around the time that Ronnie Wood went to rehab, before Keith had his injury. Ronnie was supposed to play a solo, but the stage displays framed for a few seconds Blondie Chaplin backstage and playing some guitar part. It isn't clear if Chaplin was actually subbing for Wood or if he was just checking if the guitar was properly tuned.

I just remembered - I had tickets for Wembley during the Steel Wheels tour (and it's amazing to think that is now nearer the beginning of their career than the end) but it was cancelled due to Keith cutting his finger (the joke at the time was 'Well, is it the one you use to play guitar, Keith?). I didn't go to the rearranged date, because it clashed with Reading and there was no way I was going to miss seeing the Inspiral Carpets or *checks notes* An Emotional Fish...

[SteveDave]

It must be quite galling for The Stones to have received all this flack for still performing live over the last twenty-five years or so. All the blues/ RnB/ rock & rollers, jazzers even, that inspired and influenced them can carry on as elderly people playing into their graves, and nobody bats an eyelid.

Those old blues fellows probably had to keep playing because they were on the bones of their arse.

[greenman]

Really though widespread criticism of the Stones carrying on pretty much died out by the 2000's didnt it? I remember hearing it a lot more in the 80's and 90's.

[gilbertharding]

I definitely remember reading a big feature in my parents' Observer colour supplement Sunday Express magazine* on the occasion of Mick Jagger's 40th birthday which certainly had a tone of barely concealed mirth at the mere fact of him being so decrepit (although I suppose it would have been tempered with glee that the boomers - like the hacks who commissioned and wrote the piece - were still on the path of owning everything for the forseeable future).

The thing I remember most about it was an illustration from about 15 years previously predicting what Jagger might look like at 40. I've tried to find it since - to no avail. I have found equivalent pictures of the Beatles though:



(this is from about 1969, and is supposed to be what they'd look like at 64 - in about 2010)


*forgot - they used to get a couple of Sunday papers

[Pauline Walnuts]

27 year old Peter Hammill on the challenges of the modern rock star approaching 30.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQwkCpLLWyc

[Butchers Blind]

(this is from about 1969, and is supposed to be what they'd look like at 64 - in about 2010)

They got Lennon totally wrong.

[Jockice]

I just remembered - I had tickets for Wembley during the Steel Wheels tour (and it's amazing to think that is now nearer the beginning of their career than the end) but it was cancelled due to Keith cutting his finger (the joke at the time was 'Well, is it the one you use to play guitar, Keith?). I didn't go to the rearranged date, because it clashed with Reading and there was no way I was going to miss seeing the Inspiral Carpets or *checks notes* An Emotional Fish...

Inspiral Carpets were absolutely fantastic at Reading that year though. It may be because I was both drunk and stoned (on cannabis, nowt else) but that goes down as one of the greatest - and most surprising - concert experiences I've ever had. I mean, the Carpets were okay, but certainly nothing special. Apart from that one night.

I didn't see An Emotional Fish because the bastards at work wouldn't give me the Friday off work, even though I had a ticket for the whole thing. It was one of three times I intended seeing The Cramps but ended up unable to. And now it's too late.

[the science eel]

Really though widespread criticism of the Stones carrying on pretty much died out by the 2000's didnt it? I remember hearing it a lot more in the 80's and 90's.

Yes, me too.

It's interesting - you get a lot of pushback on social media if you criticise them these days ('why SHOULDN'T they?' or 'welll what ELSE are they going to do?'). Whereas 30 or 40 years ago it was kind of standard to just say they should give it up because they were embarrassing.

[gilbertharding]

Remember their standard answer when asked if they'd still be going in their 40s - something along the lines of 'no-one's bothered about artists from other genres continuing into old age... what's different about rock musicians?'

I think they kind of answered their own question now they no longer (I think) sing the songs about chasing obviously young women about. It's not like the Carole King (and who else?) trick of singing the same song years apart, and it having a different but equally applicable and sympathetic meaning when you're so blatantly predatory.

[Keebleman]

I just remembered - I had tickets for Wembley during the Steel Wheels tour (and it's amazing to think that is now nearer the beginning of their career than the end) but it was cancelled due to Keith cutting his finger (the joke at the time was 'Well, is it the one you use to play guitar, Keith?).

Their Cardiff gig had to be rescheduled too for that reason.  There were T-shirts available with a drawing of a bandaged finger and the slogan 'I didn't get no satisfaction'. 

Saw them in Cardiff a couple of years ago (I was stewarding).  Jagger came bouncing out and I, 49 years old and already starting to become aware of the way one's legs get less springy as time rolls by, thought, "Well, he's used up his quota of that particular move already."  I was wrong.  He kept on leaping and spinning and dancing for the entire set.

The Rolling Stones began first attained star status in 1964.  That's 57 years ago.  57 years before 1964 was 1907.  Was there any entertainer in any field anywhere who had been famous in 1907 and was still doing their thing to large audiences in 1964?  I mean it was 20 years before the bloody Jazz Singer!  Three years before Charlie Chaplin first went to America!  The only possible candidate that I can think of is PG Wodehouse.

[Elderly Sumo Prophecy]

PG Wodehouse couldn't dance for shit.

[greenman]

Yes, me too.

It's interesting - you get a lot of pushback on social media if you criticise them these days ('why SHOULDN'T they?' or 'welll what ELSE are they going to do?'). Whereas 30 or 40 years ago it was kind of standard to just say they should give it up because they were embarrassing.

The difference I spose is that in that era the Stones were not that far removed from being artistically relevant counter culture icons so putting out bad albums and having an inflatable Budweiser can on stage was easier to look down on, especially with terrible attempts at following 80's style. By the 00's though they were very much in the elder statesmen roles and returning more to their original image.

It is interesting how much opinion varies by location though. I remember being in Buenos Aires when they were playing there in 2016 ago and it was the #1 story on most of the news media, then again taste in western music generally seems like it cuts off there sometime around the late 80's, pretty much wall to wall, Stones, Police, Queen, Floyd etc in taxis.

[Nice Relaxing Poo]

I once slammed and cut the forefinger of my fretting hand in my car door in the afternoon before a gig and still soldiered on through it playing more than down tuned bar chords. Keith Richards is a fanny.

[imitationleather]

Keith Richards is of an age where tripping over could kill him, though.

[idunnosomename]

The thing I remember most about it was an illustration from about 15 years previously predicting what Jagger might look like at 40. I've tried to find it since - to no avail. I have found equivalent pictures of the Beatles though:

bit bold to predict Paul would turn into Harold Wilson

[thecuriousorange]

Harold Bishop, more like.