Buftex Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 I feel old. I remember seeing the Stones live, for the first time in 1978... Jagger was 35 at the time... every report on the Stones, at that time, was some form of "are they too old to rock'n roll"... I know the snobs here will answer, the Stones have been too old to rock for some time...but I still love those Rolling Stones, even if they now more resemble the Strolling Bones... Happy birthday Mick.. the governor of Minnesota pays tribute: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 I feel old. I remember seeing the Stones live, for the first time in 1978... Jagger was 35 at the time... every report on the Stones, at that time, was some form of "are they too old to rock'n roll"... I know the snobs here will answer, the Stones have been too old to rock for some time...but I still love those Rolling Stones, even if they now more resemble the Strolling Bones... Happy birthday Mick.. the governor of Minnesota pays tribute: Saw em for the first time at Rich in 1974-Jagger was bouncing around the stage like a Russian gymnast. The consensus among me and my fifteen year old friends was that any body that age who could preform like that must stay away from drugs,and they are living a healthy life style Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 This 'MJ' never worried about ugly rumors, drug busts or sullied escapades. Rather, he seemed to flaunt them. The ultimate reason our parents hated that 'damn British invasion'. The anti-Beatle, Jagger's career long dance with the Devil for Satisfaction has produced everything from ballads to disco, but never strayed far from his R&B roots. Happy Birthday, Mick! I still can't make out some of his lyrics.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdelma Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 Saw em for the first time at Rich in 1974-Jagger was bouncing around the stage like a Russian gymnast. The consensus among me and my fifteen year old friends was that any body that age who could preform like that must stay away from drugs,and they are living a healthy life style That would have been the 75 Tour. They toured in 75. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdelma Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 If you Can't rock me nobody will! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 That would have been the 75 Tour. They toured in 75. Yeah you are right-74 was the first concert year at Rich[for anybody] so thats what I was thinking of. I think I saw them 3x at Rich in the 70s[little hazy on that decade] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 That would have been the 75 Tour. They toured in 75. saw them that yr in cleve and buff.....i think they have been wasting everyones time since about then. They were very good.They are awful(but only for the past 32 yrs). I'd rather listen to a Keith richards solo album. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 27, 2009 Author Share Posted July 27, 2009 saw them that yr in cleve and buff.....i think they have been wasting everyones time since about then. They were very good.They are awful(but only for the past 32 yrs).I'd rather listen to a Keith richards solo album. I would only partly agree. They put on a much better live performance now, than they did from 75-81, but their records are pretty bad, since "Some Girls"...it wasn't until the 1989 tour that they started playing the "album tracks" and deep catalog stuff that real fans love...before that, it was the tired war horses ("Brown Sugar", "Satisfaction", "Jumping Jack Flash" etc) slapped together with some so-so stuff from their most current album. They always sounded kind of sloppy (and not always in a good way sloppy) like they weren't too concerned. Now, their shows are far more spectacular (not necessarily a good thing either) but they seem more concerned about giving the people what they want, than they are getting in and out, and giving the people only what they feel like giving.... KR's solo albums are decent, but nothing earth shattering...I have heard bootlegged stuff of his that is far more interesting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyemike Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 That would have been the 75 Tour. They toured in 75. At the rate the Stones are going, they will be touring when they are 75...and that's only about 10 years away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts