On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:39:46 -0700 skip Heller wrote:
SY are going to have an interesting time of getting older, moreso than most bands. On the other hand, has anyone in history in any medium ever aged LESS gracefully than the Rolling Stones while still getting respect?
I don't understand the rock/image biz.
I think that the reason is quite simple: They have given us so much that we can allow them to get older and irrelevant (creatively speaking) and still respect them (without expecting any breakthrough with each record). In short, we like them despite themselves :-). The problem that you are raising would make sense if they had not done anything. I don't care what the Stones have been doing in the past 20 years, but for what they did in the '60s and '70s, they deserve all my respect (which I am sure they can live without :-). I still listen to them (old stuff) and often hum one of their songs. In short, that are still actual... with their old stuff. Since you are talking about the Stones, don't you feel that the improv scene is also similar (in its uncritical attitude toward the icons): we keep on raving about people who produced their breakthrough 30-40 years ago (Taylor, Brotzmann, Bailey, Parker, Coleman, etc). Yes, we don't throw our underwears at them, but is the infatuation so different? And even when we are not talking about these gods, it looks like we are looking for them behind almost 90% of the actual improv production. Patrice.