New Rolling Stones art exhibition is an "exile on lame street"

DerekJohnson

chicagoreader.com/chicago/rolling-stones-exhibitionism-navy-pier-mick-jagger/Content?oid=26383634

tenndawg

At their best, the Stones sucked in a cool way, and they weren't the "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" Beatles with matching suits and haircuts

In retrospect, they were marketed brilliantly

In interviews with Keith Richards I couldn't help but notice he was surprisingly insightful and intelligent, and I've long suspected his legendary drug use was a marketing ploy for attention

For many years now "Keef" has looked like a wrinkled heavy smoker whose smoking aged him dramatically

Their attempts at reggae are pathetically laughable, and they ruinned a couple Peter Tosh songs by financing him and putting themselves on the album

The $32 admission fee is consistent with the cash grab that's been going on for nearly half a century

In an interesting side note, John Coltrane has a church in San Francisco that espouses he was a holy prophet - whatever they are on, some days I want some...

YellowSnow

The Stones have always been and always will be my favorite rock and roll band. But I wouldn't pay a Red (shout out to Swaye) Cent to see that exhibit.

I will fight to the death in defending the Stones greatness of the period lasting from 1964- 72 and 1978- 81. They weren't as virtuoso as some artists of the era, but Mick and Keith were terrific songwriters in their prime, and pushed the boundaries of their craft, unlike a lot of bands that never brought anything new or different to rock. And on a quick aside - being a virtuoso and/or amazingly talented isn't a prerequisite for creating music that is great and pushed boundaries- e.g., Ramones, Stooges, AC DC, etc; sometimes you just have to be in the right place at the right time with the right idea.

The "cash grab" with the Stones for me starts post 1981, which is the point after which they stopped being artistically relevant. No offense intended towards Stalin's professed fondness towards Steel Wheels but I never listen to any Stones records with regularity past Tattoo You, excepting Undercover on occasion.

All these old washed up rock and roll geezers needed to die before they got old.

DerekJohnson

YellowSnow said:

The Stones have always been and always will be my favorite rock and roll band. But I wouldn't pay a Red (shout out to Swaye) Cent to see that exhibit.

I will fight to the death in defending the Stones greatness of the period lasting from 1964- 72 and 1978- 81. They weren't as virtuoso as some artists of the era, but Mick and Keith were terrific songwriters in their prime, and pushed the boundaries of their craft, unlike a lot of bands that never brought anything new or different to rock. And on a quick aside - being a virtuoso and/or amazingly talented isn't a prerequisite for creating music that is great and pushed boundaries- e.g., Ramones, Stooges, AC DC, etc; sometimes you just have to be in the right place at the right time with the right idea.

The "cash grab" with the Stones for me starts post 1981, which is the point after which they stopped being artistically relevant. No offense intended towards Stalin's professed fondness towards Steel Wheels but I never listen to any Stones records with regularity past Tattoo You, excepting Undercover on occasion.

All these old washed up rock and roll geezers needed to die before they got old.

Tattoo You was a very important album of my early youth.

89ute

YellowSnow said:

The Stones have always been and always will be my favorite rock and roll band. But I wouldn't pay a Red (shout out to Swaye) Cent to see that exhibit.

I will fight to the death in defending the Stones greatness of the period lasting from 1964- 72 and 1978- 81. They weren't as virtuoso as some artists of the era, but Mick and Keith were terrific songwriters in their prime, and pushed the boundaries of their craft, unlike a lot of bands that never brought anything new or different to rock. And on a quick aside - being a virtuoso and/or amazingly talented isn't a prerequisite for creating music that is great and pushed boundaries- e.g., Ramones, Stooges, AC DC, etc; sometimes you just have to be in the right place at the right time with the right idea.

The "cash grab" with the Stones for me starts post 1981, which is the point after which they stopped being artistically relevant. No offense intended towards Stalin's professed fondness towards Steel Wheels but I never listen to any Stones records with regularity past Tattoo You, excepting Undercover on occasion.

All these old washed up rock and roll geezers needed to die before they got old.

Steel Wheels, Voodoo Lounge and Bridges to Babylon (to me) are outstanding. The Keith songs along on these albums are worth enshrinement. I find A Bigger Bang pretty darn good too. It's been a while since I've listened to A Bigger Bang, I'm going to dust it off and get with it.

I haven't listened to Blue and Lonesome yet.

Also, if you haven't listened to any of Keith's solo stuff, it's a must have with the exception of his last release.

YellowSnow

89ute said:

YellowSnow said:

The Stones have always been and always will be my favorite rock and roll band. But I wouldn't pay a Red (shout out to Swaye) Cent to see that exhibit.

I will fight to the death in defending the Stones greatness of the period lasting from 1964- 72 and 1978- 81. They weren't as virtuoso as some artists of the era, but Mick and Keith were terrific songwriters in their prime, and pushed the boundaries of their craft, unlike a lot of bands that never brought anything new or different to rock. And on a quick aside - being a virtuoso and/or amazingly talented isn't a prerequisite for creating music that is great and pushed boundaries- e.g., Ramones, Stooges, AC DC, etc; sometimes you just have to be in the right place at the right time with the right idea.

The "cash grab" with the Stones for me starts post 1981, which is the point after which they stopped being artistically relevant. No offense intended towards Stalin's professed fondness towards Steel Wheels but I never listen to any Stones records with regularity past Tattoo You, excepting Undercover on occasion.

All these old washed up rock and roll geezers needed to die before they got old.

Steel Wheels, Voodoo Lounge and Bridges to Babylon (to me) are outstanding. The Keith songs along on these albums are worth enshrinement. I find A Bigger Bang pretty darn good too. It's been a while since I've listened to A Bigger Bang, I'm going to dust it off and get with it.

I haven't listened to Blue and Lonesome yet.

Also, if you haven't listened to any of Keith's solo stuff, it's a must have with the exception of his last release.

I'll bet you paid $40 for a Voodoo Lounge t-shirt at Rice Stadium in '94. Last time the Stones were "relevant" when they came through Utah was 1966 at Lagoon.

Aftermath >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Voodoo Lounge

PurpleJ

Overrated band IMO. Who, Zeppelin, Cream, Sabbath, ACDC, etc. all shit on them.

tenndawg

Of course The Divinyls "I Touch Myself" is for some reason better than any Stones video...

and maybe the Shania Twain leopard skin outfit is worth $32 to smell if it hasn't been washed

RaceBannon

My sister bought into the Beatles hard after Ed Sullivan and we had Meet the Beatles and the second album and played them to death. I was 7 or 8.

Then I heard early Stones and wondered why the Beatles were so popular since they sucked in comparison.

Fun fact - I played the keyboards in a garage band in the early 80's and no one wanted to sing Start Me Up and I was just drunk enough to do it even though I only new the opening line and making a dead man cum.

I got laid. The keyboards were a horrible life choice as a child but the folks insisted on piano lessons. Lead singer and guitar player in my next life

YellowSnow

I too used to play in a shitty garage band and would tune my shitty mexi tele (Puppy would not approve) to Open G and play Start Me Up before an audience. I did not get laid that night unfortunately. I know every story here is supposed to result in getting laid but sometimes it doesn't work out that way.

dflea

RaceBannon said:

My sister bought into the Beatles hard after Ed Sullivan and we had Meet the Beatles and the second album and played them to death. I was 700 or 800.

Then I heard early Stones and wondered why the Beatles were so popular since they sucked in comparison.

Fun fact - I played the keyboards in a garage band in the early 80's and no one wanted to sing Start Me Up and I was just drunk enough to do it even though I only new the opening line and making a dead man cum.

I got laid. The keyboards were a horrible life choice as a child but the folks insisted on piano lessons. Lead singer and guitar player in my next life

Took care of the typo.

89ute

YellowSnow said:

89ute said:

YellowSnow said:

The Stones have always been and always will be my favorite rock and roll band. But I wouldn't pay a Red (shout out to Swaye) Cent to see that exhibit.

I will fight to the death in defending the Stones greatness of the period lasting from 1964- 72 and 1978- 81. They weren't as virtuoso as some artists of the era, but Mick and Keith were terrific songwriters in their prime, and pushed the boundaries of their craft, unlike a lot of bands that never brought anything new or different to rock. And on a quick aside - being a virtuoso and/or amazingly talented isn't a prerequisite for creating music that is great and pushed boundaries- e.g., Ramones, Stooges, AC DC, etc; sometimes you just have to be in the right place at the right time with the right idea.

The "cash grab" with the Stones for me starts post 1981, which is the point after which they stopped being artistically relevant. No offense intended towards Stalin's professed fondness towards Steel Wheels but I never listen to any Stones records with regularity past Tattoo You, excepting Undercover on occasion.

All these old washed up rock and roll geezers needed to die before they got old.

Steel Wheels, Voodoo Lounge and Bridges to Babylon (to me) are outstanding. The Keith songs along on these albums are worth enshrinement. I find A Bigger Bang pretty darn good too. It's been a while since I've listened to A Bigger Bang, I'm going to dust it off and get with it.

I haven't listened to Blue and Lonesome yet.

Also, if you haven't listened to any of Keith's solo stuff, it's a must have with the exception of his last release.

I'll bet you paid $40 for a Voodoo Lounge t-shirt at Rice Stadium in '94. Last time the Stones were "relevant" when they came through Utah was 1966 at Lagoon.

Aftermath >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Voodoo Lounge

One of the best Stones concerts I attended. (Rice Stadium) 13th row, center ... paid about 450 per ticket, took my best wife. I spent a hell of a lot of money on that tour. I have more Voodoo Lounge shirts and gear than any other.

Aftermath is incredible, Stupid Girl is high on my list, but then again, practically all Stones songs are for me.

I was too little to catch the Lagoon show, tiny in fact.

PurpleThrobber

YellowSnow said:

The Stones have always been and always will be my favorite rock and roll band. But I wouldn't pay a Red (shout out to Swaye) Cent to see that exhibit.

I will fight to the death in defending the Stones greatness of the period lasting from 1964- 72 and 1978- 81. They weren't as virtuoso as some artists of the era, but Mick and Keith were terrific songwriters in their prime, and pushed the boundaries of their craft, unlike a lot of bands that never brought anything new or different to rock. And on a quick aside - being a virtuoso and/or amazingly talented isn't a prerequisite for creating music that is great and pushed boundaries- e.g., Ramones, Stooges, AC DC, etc; sometimes you just have to be in the right place at the right time with the right idea.

The "cash grab" with the Stones for me starts post 1981, which is the point after which they stopped being artistically relevant. No offense intended towards Stalin's professed fondness towards Steel Wheels but I never listen to any Stones records with regularity past Tattoo You, excepting Undercover on occasion.

All these old washed up rock and roll geezers needed to die before they got old.

That's really naive.

Keith Richards is never going to die.