The Rolling Stones Still Going After 50 Years
 

While there are proclaimed, by self or by industry, King and Queens of Rock-n-Roll music, this group is the Master of them all. Still as energetic, entertaining and exciting now as they were in the early 1960s, The Rolling Stones have a sound that is uniquely all them that no other group has come close to matching. [self-promotion removed]

If you think watching a bunch of geriatrics that are more than eligible to be collecting their old-age pensions, to be as exciting and energetic as they were back in the 1960s, then more fool you.

Well thats one opinion...


RS's problem is that its still operating like it was 50 years ago. A lot of magazines do this but Rolling Stone still attempts to operate as if they're the cutting edge of rock journalism when really the internet has legitimized DIY projects and allowed them to mass market everything.

Not sure if serious...?

We're talking about the band here.

Why do you have to blow up my spot man? Couldn't just let that ride?

Anyway, The Stones don't get enough credit for still giving a damn, and probably too much credit for "still going" but I don't mind them.

Also, we have a really extensive RS discussion in another forum.

http://www.musicbanter.com/rock-n-ro...ng-stones.html

So are we talking Rolling Stones or Rolling Stone here?

If we're being honest, we're not talking about **** because he was here flaunting his website.

I dunno why people still take this magazine seriously. It's sort of hard to rebuild credibility after you put Limp Bisquick on the cover and take him srsly. Really, it seems like their ratings and reviews have less to do with personal opinions than the opinions they expect the masses to have.

I don't think the magazine is entirely dead or worthless as a format, but this particular one has certainly jumped the shark.

I think the critics like to blow one another over how well they reviewed the latest Neil Young, Live at the Whatever that's just been rereleased on CD. Thats the only light I see them in these days. Blowing bands from the 60's and trying to appear edgy with new bands reviews while giving them covers and full-page stories.

The only part about them worth a damn is the political coverage if you're into balls-to-the-wall partisanship.

And yet this thread was not originally about the magazine, it's about the band.