Page 1 of 2
#1
Gilmour recently urged the Stones to quit in this statement:
Pink Floyd star Dave Gilmour has told The Rolling Stones to quit touring and "get a life".

Gilmour, 60, insists the veteran stadium rockers aren't interested in music, they are simply obsessed with the adulation they receive from fans.

He says, "I think it's ridiculous, actually. Mick (Jagger) and Keith (Richards) should get a life. It's like a strange, sexual compulsion.

"How much do they need? I think a lot of it is the applause. It's a powerful drug. 50,000 people appearing to adore you.

"I'm a big Stones fan but they haven't done anything that matches their earlier stuff in years."


Paul Simon later agreed with this statement:

Paul Simon has urged The Rolling Stones to retire because they have become a parody of their former selves.

The Sound Of Silence singer still finds the Brown Sugar hitmakers hugely entertaining, but they are doing little to safeguard their legacy.

He says, "They are incredibly entertaining but they're not acting their age. They're parodying what they were."


Who agrees that the Stones should quit?

I for one believe they should, I think they aren't as good anymore and by playing more they are further desecrating their past greatness.
"There is no dark side in the moon, Matter of fact, its all dark"

Are there any queers in the theatre tonight?

*Official Deadhead*
#3
I never really listened to The Stones that much at all, but I DO find their newer songs quite boring
Strange beautiful grass of green,
With your majestic silver seas
Your mysterious mountains I wish to see closer
May I land my kinky machine
#5
I thought they're latest album was actually pretty awesome.
Keep the change, pimps don't jangle
#7
Let em do whatever the hell they want; they're legends. As long as people keep coming to see them, what's the problem? I know people have built up in their minds this idea of rock and roll and the Rolling Stones, and a lot of it has to do with youth. But that is the people's problem, not the Stones. And I can't see how you would think that they are "parodies" of their former selves; is it just because they're old now? By the way, Gilmour is one to talk....he's touring too. He's still playing his old 'Floyd songs. So, in conclusion, let the Stones be the Stones.
#8
they're the same age as paul mccartney, ringo starr, clapton, and sure as hell a lot yougner than bb king. let them do their own thing. they released a decent album, and they enjoy what they're doing. if you don't like it, you don't have to watch it.
Quote by JimmyPageSlash
nice i like how rocker clothes are cheap. im gonna be dressing completely rocker soon


TOOL ALERT
#9
I would love to see them keep touring but actually play the songs everyone loves from way back when. I think I speak for everyone when I say, "we're ****ing tired of Start Me Up, Satisfaction, Rough Justice and other boring hits songs. They were good when the came out but now they are so damn played out."
#10
Never thought they were much good to begin with, good song writers, but don't make much of the band.
Quote by shark38j
You need a Flux Capacitor ........ Oh, wait, that's for time travel.

Quote by GiantRaven
Watch this one lads, I think he has intelligence!


Quote by unplugtheradio
or maybe he has an opinion *GASP*
#11
As much as I love the Stones, and would hate to never have the chance of seeing them live, I'd prefer them to quit because a lot of people that go to see them just go to say they saw them.

It's become a gimmick.
#12
I do agree with him a bit, but IMO Dave Gilmour isn't as smart as he thinks he is. If he means their new stuff is different, he's just a closed-minded tosser. Their new album was alright but On an Island wasn't anything spectacular. I do understand what he's saying. He's just a bit hypocritical.
#14
Quote by distilledspirit
I would love to see them keep touring but actually play the songs everyone loves from way back when. I think I speak for everyone when I say, "we're ****ing tired of Start Me Up, Satisfaction, Rough Justice and other boring hits songs. They were good when the came out but now they are so damn played out."


Well they do have a new album you know. And you don't really speak for everyone, because the general concert goer is going to these concerts FOR their hits, not for their new stuff.
#15
Quote by xX*Zeppelin*Xx
I do agree with him a bit, but IMO Dave Gilmour isn't as smart as he thinks he is. If he means their new stuff is different, he's just a closed-minded tosser. Their new album was alright but On an Island wasn't anything spectacular. I do understand what he's saying. He's just a bit hypocritical.


I think David meant they should quit touring - that's what he probably meant by them needing to "act their age".

I mean, they're running around stage, partying after concerts, on the road constantly - it's really not healthy for someone their age.

Setting out albums if different, because the Stones are still serious about their music. They're continuing to create great stuff, and not trying to blend in with what's popular, contrary to what Carlos Santana has been doing as of late.
#16
whats the new song of theirs where he keeps on saying the word "awful"?
Strange beautiful grass of green,
With your majestic silver seas
Your mysterious mountains I wish to see closer
May I land my kinky machine
#17
I agree with most of the people on here that yes, they should probably call it quits.. and actually probably should have a while ago.. Don't get me wrong I love the Stones... but their just too old, and Mick's voice isn't what it used to be, Keef has to practically have a stand behind him propping him up... But its crazy what these guys are still doing into their 60's, what with Keef falling out of a palm tree..
Trey is a Jedi.

Co-Founder of the Ten Years After Fan Club. PM me or TheHeartbreaker to join.

Member of the Grateful Dead Fan Club. PM deadhead313313 to join.

Member of the Frank Zappa Fan Club. PM deadhead313313 to join.
#18
I saw the stones in October, and I really enjoyed it. Mick Jagger is probably the best frontman in Rock that's alive and active right now. He lost some of his voice, but you guys should see the way he jumps around on stage for two hours. It's incredible. Keef is not in a bad shape either. He's extremely flexible and still does his kicks and everything. They sound good too, and much of the show is really spontaneous. They definitly should hang around longer. I do think, though, that they should play theatres instead of arenas and stadiums. And, I think they should do blues shows instead of rock songs. The blues has always been what the stones are best at.

EDIT:I think people just want the stones to quit because they just can't get over the fact that 60 year old rock stars can sell out arenas and be so successful. They think it's impossible, and don't even give them a fair chance.
Last edited by master at Jun 9, 2006,
#19
^^No, most of us think that the Stones should quit because in truth their music has, for the most part, become a joke, a gimmick; a parody of the what the band used to be.

It's impossible to deny that they still have talent, but as I stated earlier, a lot of people go to see the Stones to do... well, just that - "go to see the Stones". A lot of the people who go to see just want to say they've seen them because they're a huge band.

I'm not saying Stones fans are nonexistant - look around, there's plenty.

To help prove my point...

Take a look at The Allman Brothers Band. Gregg Allman, Butch Trucks, and Jai Johanny Jaimoe Johanson are the only original members remaining in the band, and are roughly the same age of the guys from the Stones. The reason you don't see people telling them these (these three in particular) to quit is because The Allman Brothers Band reflects what it always has - people that go to their concerts go to see them because they enjoy their music.

If you don't know already, know that what The Allman Brothesr play at their concerts isn't limited by any factors - you might hear Whipping Post or you might hear The Night They Drove Ole Dixie Down - anything is possible. The people who go to these concerts are just expecting to hear good music, most likely nothing in particular. This is especially due to the fact that the band never had many high-charting singles, as opposed to The Rolling Stones who were frequently on the charts.

So, now knowing that The Stones had many hit singles, we can assume a lot of people have heard these songs (and most likely enjoyed them). Imagine that these hit singles are all some of these people have heard, so if they want to go see The Stones in concert, what else would they expect to hear except these hit singles?

This is especially seen in the younger generations, who, for some reason or other, tend to listen to only the stuff they hear on the radio.

I'm not sure if you see where I'm getting, because I realize I'm just rambling on, but hopefully you're understanding where I'm getting at.
#20
David is insulting the Stones because they aren't doing it for the music anymore, they are doing it for the sex,drugs, and applause. That's why he think their stuff is too dull because they aren't playing their "own" music anymore, they are playing music based on what the crowd wants to hear. The new crowd is also made up of a bunch of kids who just want to go get drunk and say they partied at a Stones concert. Therefore the Stones music and enviornment has becoem increasingly made up of tools and drunks rather than true fans Sure David is still playing, but the point is he's playing what he wants to play, not what others want and he's also playing when/where he wants thats what makes him un-hypocritcal
"There is no dark side in the moon, Matter of fact, its all dark"

Are there any queers in the theatre tonight?

*Official Deadhead*
#21
^^That's what I was trying to say, but I believe I failed miserably.

You know what, this sounds a lot like what happened to The Grateful Dead in the 90s.

Anyone care to agree with me?
#22
Quote by TheHeartbreaker
^^No, most of us think that the Stones should quit because in truth their music has, for the most part, become a joke, a gimmick; a parody of the what the band used to be.

It's impossible to deny that they still have talent, but as I stated earlier, a lot of people go to see the Stones to do... well, just that - "go to see the Stones". A lot of the people who go to see just want to say they've seen them because they're a huge band.

I'm not saying Stones fans are nonexistant - look around, there's plenty.

To help prove my point...

Take a look at The Allman Brothers Band. Gregg Allman, Butch Trucks, and Jai Johanny Jaimoe Johanson are the only original members remaining in the band, and are roughly the same age of the guys from the Stones. The reason you don't see people telling them these (these three in particular) to quit is because The Allman Brothers Band reflects what it always has - people that go to their concerts go to see them because they enjoy their music.

If you don't know already, know that what The Allman Brothesr play at their concerts isn't limited by any factors - you might hear Whipping Post or you might hear The Night They Drove Ole Dixie Down - anything is possible. The people who go to these concerts are just expecting to hear good music, most likely nothing in particular. This is especially due to the fact that the band never had many high-charting singles, as opposed to The Rolling Stones who were frequently on the charts.

So, now knowing that The Stones had many hit singles, we can assume a lot of people have heard these songs (and most likely enjoyed them). Imagine that these hit singles are all some of these people have heard, so if they want to go see The Stones in concert, what else would they expect to hear except these hit singles?

This is especially seen in the younger generations, who, for some reason or other, tend to listen to only the stuff they hear on the radio.

I'm not sure if you see where I'm getting, because I realize I'm just rambling on, but hopefully you're understanding where I'm getting at.



Yes, I see what you're saying and I agree completely. That's why I think they should do theatre shows and go back to the blues. If they would just write their music and do theatre shows, the only people who would bother with them would be the real fans. But I always hear people saying they're too old to play music, but age doesn't have a damn thing to do with it. They're for the most part as good as they have always been on stage. Now I'm starting to ramble on, but hopefully you're also understanding where I'm getting at.
#25
Well, I've been noticing more and more lately that they've been a little sub-par live. But their studio recording is still good. I'm enjoying the new album. But I think their touring should take a back seat, they should focus on recording more... I know there are many more classics in their heads somewhere.
#26
Quote by GivePeasAChance
Jesus, let them do what they want...why is that hard to understand?


Well of course they can do what they want, but we think that if they want to continue touring it should be trully for music, not just for the babes and money, which is what it appears has been the case.

We're not saying they have to listen to us, but by doing stuff just for the fame rather than the music, well... it's almost as bad as those people on MTV.
#27
^ Well then again, they are only human. If I had an opurtunity to make millions of dollars each year by just playing music every seccond night, I probably would. But of course thats not really what music is about. But think about it, they are established as a premier rock act, garunteed to draw 50 000 people per show. That's a pretty hard thing to leave behind.
#28
Quote by TheHeartbreaker
Well of course they can do what they want, but we think that if they want to continue touring it should be trully for music, not just for the babes and money, which is what it appears has been the case.


That's the reason they were doing it in the first place; Babes and Money. At least they're not dishonest about it. You're an awful liar to say that you only want to make music for music's sake. If that were the case, no one would ever do rock music.
#29
^^I would.

I've found that money is trully a powerful thing. It can change people. It makes or breaks you.

The only reason I would accept money for playing music would be so that I could live a comfortable life if I had no other job or means of making money. I wouldn't want millions of dollars, but rather enough to get by and have some additional cash to occasionally buy something nice or go out to eat.
#30
Quote by TheHeartbreaker
^^I would.

I've found that money is trully a powerful thing. It can change people. It makes or breaks you.

The only reason I would accept money for playing music would be so that I could live a comfortable life if I had no other job or means of making money. I wouldn't want millions of dollars, but rather enough to get by and have some additional cash to occasionally buy something nice or go out to eat.


That's my view on rock n' roll. Keep it cheap, fun, and spontaneous. Did you know that rolling stones tickets cost $7.50 during the seventies?
#31
You can try and be as moral and optimistic about rock music being all pure and good, but the fact of the matter is that it is very much a business. You start off with dirt, and over the course of a few years, through hard work, you get promoted. Same basic principle really. The only thing that really sets it apart is that it's a fairly enjoyable, high paying job.

But that's just me.

Quote by master
That's my view on rock n' roll. Keep it cheap, fun, and spontaneous. Did you know that rolling stones tickets cost $7.50 during the seventies?


With or without inflation?
#33
Quote by Maet
You can try and be as moral and optimistic about rock music being all pure and good, but the fact of the matter is that it is very much a business. You start off with dirt, and over the course of a few years, through hard work, you get promoted. Same basic principle really. The only thing that really sets it apart is that it's a fairly enjoyable, high paying job.

But that's just me.


I completely understand what you mean - people want what is best for themselves. I mean, almost anyone would take a million dollars to do pretty much anything because they realize that a million dollars is a lot of money.

I, personally, don't need that much money. The only things I need money for are food, shelter, clothing, guitar, CDs, and prostitutes.

The truth is, I don't even need money for guitar and CDs - those are just luxuries.
#34
Quote by TheHeartbreaker
I, personally, don't need that much money. The only things I need money for are food, shelter, clothing, guitar, CDs, and prostitutes.


Gets a little lonely spending so much time making money, doesn't it?

I'm not saying that everyone is striving to make as much money as possible just for the hell of it. To be modest with finances is a strong virtue and admirable trait. I'm just trying to get people to realize that you look out for #1 ahead of everybody else. To say that you wouldn't sacrifice your personal musical ethics or whatever you'd call them to get paid millions as a bassist in a successful emo band is a damn lie.

Hell,my friends and I want to make emo, new punk, screamo type music just because we know that's where the money is.
#35
That seems like a rather blunt way to put it, but I guess I agree with him to an extent. It's almost hard watching them perform lately because having to listen to the same old songs and them force out their old ways isn't new anymore. Almost time to pack it in, maybe a grand finale tour with some new songs but nothing more.
#36
all i know is that their superbowl show sucked. i don't know if it was them or the songs, but it was a bore. but hey if they want to tour, it's their lives. i certainly wouldnt give up doing something i love just because people say i'm too old (don't have to worry about that for a while, i'm 19 )
#37
They aint doin it for the money, they were set up for life buy the 70's...... think about it, if you were them what would you do? retire, go home and get old? or hit the road n share something truley special with alot of ppl who probably werent even alive when sticky fingers came out.... think about it
Quote by That_Pink_Queen
Groll you're a bloody genius

Quote by a6l6e6x1
wow
im "talking" to the future greatest director in the world
PRIVELAGED


member #9 of "The Beatles really are the greatest

Metal Face productions! watch our movies!
http://www.metalface.tk/
#38
i think they should lose the 30 18-wheelers of stage theatrics, and just play normal sized, normal ticket priced, normal gigs like everyone else
i wanna hear their music not see a 100ft inflatable devils head
if they do that, they can go on and play with dignity til their 100 years old
Quote by MountainJam
How do i contract brain damage?
#39
c'mon people, are you mic jaggar???

people have no people trying to urge the stones to retire, if they still love what there doing, dont try and stop them, it makes them happy, so why get them to quit, do you think if they wernet enjoying it, they wouldnt still be touring...
#40
Their newer music isn't that grand (except for a few) but if they went out and did and Exile on Main Street tour or something i think that would be awesome!
Page 1 of 2