Rolling Stones 50th Anniversary(!)

by **maccastheman** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:32 pm

Hard to believe it's coming up. It will be interesting to see how it is celebrated/marketed. The bonus discs on the recent deluxe editions of Exile and Some Girls contained some great material - particularly Some Girls. I was amazed to find out they held so much back from the Some Girls sessions - especially since a lot of the extra material for Some Girls was supposedly recycled for Emotional Rescue and Tattoo You. I've heard a lot of people complain that instead of putting the unreleased material out on "bonus discs" they should have just released a Beatles Anthology-styled packaged of rarities. (I kind of agree - they are making people pay for stuff they already have) Something like Bruce Springsteen's 4-CD Tracks box set could probably have worked.

Don Was said he would like to put out unreleased material from Beggar's Banquet, Let It Bleed, and Sticky Fingers. Don't know if that will tie-in with the 50th Anniversary or not.

What will be even more interesting is what kind of live shows they will perform. There's been talk of Mick Taylor and Bill Wyman re-joining the group. (With Keith Richards even floating the idea) And instead of touring all over like they did for A Bigger Bang, some have suggested they will do "residencies" in cities like London, New York, Chicago, LA, etc.

As for new material, who knows what will happen. Mick says he's been writing for the Stones a lot and Keith Richards has been working on new material as well. Time will tell...

by **Girl4Beats** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:11 pm

Dandelion and Wild Horses are the ONLY Stones songs I really like. I like the album Sticky Fingers because of the zipper on the cover. HAHAHA!!

by **chris** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:10 pm

a couple of points...one...i've been in hundreds of conversations/debates as to who, exactly, is the greatest band/artist in rock music. obviously i am going to side with the beatles. i am all about free speech, and i support one's right to pick whomever they want...but to me...the only real other option for number one would be the stones. i will not hold it against them that the last piece of great music they released was some girls from 1978.

point #2...maccastheman, i see you have been busy here posting of late. by the look of the amount of posts you have, i can tell you are not a noobie. but since our paths have not crossed before now, good to see you and glad to see you posting. cheers

by **efghijiloveyou** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:02 pm

The Stones bore me to tears. Everything they did in the sixties was in flat-footed response to what the Beatles were doing; they knew who the leaders were and it wasn't them. I don't hate the Stones, mind you. I just don't think they're all that good. I've never felt compelled to buy anything from their catalog, and I'm a music lover. However, I do think Keith Richards makes a great pirate!

by **maccastheman** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:19 am

What bores me to tears are all of the Beatles/Rolling Stones comparisons regarding which one is "better." Completely different bands. The Rolling Stones - especially the post-Brian Jones line-up - are essentially a blues-based rock and roll band. The Beatles are a pop/rock band. Whether you like one or the other is a matter of personal taste. It's not a competition.

I agree the Beatles were far more innovative and they happen to be my favorite band. And we could all go on and on about how Paul doesn't get the credit he deserves for pushing the boundaries in the band. Unfortunately most of the credit for that seems to go John's way. But the Rolling Stones offer something that does appeal to me as a fan of American roots music. Covering Robert Johnson and paying tribute to artists like Otis Redding, Solomon Burke, and Irma Thomas exposed a lot of people to some amazing music they may not have heard of otherwise. I also appreciate the association Keith Richards had with Gram Parsons. There is a great cover of the Hank Williams standard "You Win Again" on the Some Girls deluxe reissue. I'm certain that was a result of the band's association with Parsons. And Keith writes some amazing riffs - whether it's "Satisfaction," "Jumpin Jack Flash," or "Start Me Up."

I just believe there's room for all sorts of music out there. American R&B music got a big boost from bands like the Rolling Stones. Keith Richards once said their main goal as a band was to turn people onto the blues. I think they succeeded in a lot of cases.

by **EddieV** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 8:51 am

Rolling Stones are a f...... great band. Rock and roll music at its best!!

Will they tour for the 50th anniversary?? Has it been decided??

Beatles were a better band for me, but Stones rocks!!

by **james1985** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:11 pm

The Stones are the dog's and Some Girls might just be my favourite album. Hope they tour next year 'cos I ain't seen them yet.

And if you've not bought Keef's book – what are you waiting for?

by **mr h atom** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:34 am

maccastheman...of your post "what bored me to tears..."

...i totally agree and i can only say one thing...

^:)^

i remember your posts from before, was glad to see your moniker again...(heck i was even glad to see PW's, even though he flamed me...i still feel all sort of hurt, too)....either way, glad your back...obviously our banter hasn't driven you away forever

welcome back !

by **Girl4Beats** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:27 pm

Yes the Stones started out as a blues-based group but I don't feel they are that anymore. Yes the Stones have had some good songs out there but I am purist at heart and The Beatles WILL ALWAYS be the Best Band in the world for me. But as I have said many times since joining, this is a free country, so far, and you have a right to your opinion, no matter what it is.

So those of you would like the Stones, congrats. Those of us who like the Beatles better, You Go Guys!!

Just my humble opinion.

And I won't practice any Native American Torture Techniques on anyone even though they like the Stones better.

by **chris** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 6:27 pm

maccastheman wrote:What bores me to tears are all of the Beatles/Rolling Stones comparisons regarding which one is "better." Completely different bands. The Rolling Stones - especially the post-Brian Jones line-up - are essentially a blues-based rock and roll band. The Beatles are a pop/rock band. Whether you like one or the other is a matter of personal taste. It's not a competition.

been thinking about this. comparisons can bore you. but that may never stop them from happening. it's human nature. we use comparisons (or best of lists) to justify our own opinions (which is silly, really...as we all have to be our own critics. therefore, we all have our own personal best of lists). but we can point to a list that says the beatles are best...and say...see, i think the beatles are best, and this list proves it. just as we all seem to ignore lists that disagree with what we think. maybe it is human nature to want to try and justify our own opinions. petty? probably. but normal? yep-in-deedy.

and i happen to be one who thinks both the beatles and the stones are awesome.

having said that...i know a mowhawk wearing, tomahawk throwing momma that'll scalp anyone who begs to differ.

Rolling Stones 50th Anniversary(!)

Rolling Stones 50th Anniversary(!)

Re: Rolling Stones 50th Anniversary(!)

Re: Rolling Stones 50th Anniversary(!)

Re: Rolling Stones 50th Anniversary(!)

Re: Rolling Stones 50th Anniversary(!)

Re: Rolling Stones 50th Anniversary(!)

Re: Rolling Stones 50th Anniversary(!)

Re: Rolling Stones 50th Anniversary(!)

Re: Rolling Stones 50th Anniversary(!)

Re: Rolling Stones 50th Anniversary(!)

Who is online