Enough Already

The Energizer Bunny has nothing on The Rolling Stones. For more than forty years, the original bad boys of rock have wowed audiences and music lovers around the globe. The band has survived death and personnel changes, not to mention the flavor of the month music industry, to continually dominate the headlines when they go on the road and release new material. The core; Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, and stoic drummer Charlie Watts have engineered the group continually on a bluesy course with occasional detours into reggae, country, and even funk. While the pace of new releases has slowed in recent years, the band remains a huge drawing card when they come to your town. With a catalog of almost 400 songs, it is inevitable they would slow the pace of recording after four decades.

However, it does get tiring to hear the ‘wrinkly rockers’ headlines and copy. So…

Enough with the ‘They’re getting old’ comment…it is getting…well, old. Each new sojourn across the map brings out the usual criticism about their age, yet it is foolish and recycled commentary. Back in 1978, the Rolling Stones embarked on an American tour with the press hounding them about hitting their mid-thirties. "Jagger is nearly 35, isn’t he getting old for this?" "Keith looks like death warmed over," came the rhetoric. The same happened it 1981, 1989, 1994, 1997, 1999, and this past year. The age jokes and the recycled dinosaur rock comments are material for the late-night talk show hosts. Enough already. The jokes are rehashed and attacking their age comments is older than the band. Get some new material Leno and Letterman. The Stones were considered old at 35, 40, and 45. Now, name any band with staying power whose members are under 40…no, not a two-album wonder; a band that has shown consistency over eight or nine original albums and draws large crowds every tour…didn’t think so. The trailblazers always get the most opposition…after a few years the followers are accepted. U2’s Paul Hewson is now 43 years old, Tom Petty is over 50, and members of the Red Hot Chili Peppers are well into their 40’s. Strange how it was okay for them to still be rocking at 40, but not the Stones. Are the Stones getting old and gathering wrinkles? Yes. Just like everyone else that hits age 60. It is called being alive---when you stop getting old, it means you are dead. Are they too old to play their kind of music? No. Their mentors include John Lee Hooker, Howlin’ Wolf, Robert Johnson, Chuck Berry, et al. These original bluesmen and rockers played until they dropped. The Stones will probably do the same. Watch 60 year old Jagger move around the stage for two hours and ask yourself how many other senior citizens could keep up with him thrice weekly for a year long tour. The man is obviously in terrific shape while many of the journalists that cover the tour are overweight and probably jealous of his fitness.

Enough with the ‘Don’t they have enough money’ comments…it is getting old. The band hits the road regularly because that is what a rock and roll group does; it plays live. Playing live makes a band a band. Granted, the Stones have always charged premium prices, yet, the audience knows it will get great value, and it is more an event than just a concert. In addition, watch the band when attending; they are enjoying themselves on stage and have a reciprocal arrangement with their audience. Besides, folks cough up big money for a hockey ticket, play, or cultural event, why not a rock concert? For lack of a better term, playing music is the group’s job and they should expect to be paid for working. Everyone who works for a living expects to be paid top dollar. How many would tell their employer: "No thanks, I don’t want to make $100,000, I prefer $45,000 for doing the same work. Does not America promote free enterprise and ‘all the market will bear’ philosophy? The spin-off economic effects are felt for a large show with hotels and restaurants experiencing increased revenues. Criticized in some quarters for their incredible wealth, the band finds itself in a difficult situation. If they had blown it all and were teetering on bankruptcy, they would be torn to shreds by the media for wasting it but their vast wealth brings them scorn.

Enough with the ‘They’re not the rebels they used to be’ comments…it is getting old. These men are now part of the 60 and over crowd. They would look foolish if they continued to urinate on walls, punch photographers, and be arrested in drug raids. "Grow up!" would come the chatter from media and public. Now successful and mature businessmen and family men (with remnants of rebellion still in them), they are harangued for selling out to the corporations and becoming domesticated. What the band is doing is called growing old gracefully…they have need for family and stability like everyone else. And while Mick’s 60-year-old wandering eye continues to be a bit embarrassing at times, even selfish; he obviously prefers the single, unattached life. The younger bands of today merely repeat what the Stones have already done. Controversy raged in 1987 when the Beastie Boys had a large inflatable phallus emerge on stage…a repeat of the Stones 1975 Tour of the Americas prop.

Enough with the ‘They play the same old songs each tour’ comments…it is getting old. It is also wrong. While certain standards are played at nearly every show, how would the average fan react to a set list full of album cuts such as ‘Jigsaw Puzzle’, ‘Flight 505’, ‘Torn and Frayed’, ‘Coming Down Again’, ‘Mean Disposition, ‘Let it Loose’, ‘Soul Survivor’, ‘Parachute Woman’, and ‘Citadel’? The die-hards would love it yet the general audience would be bored and request the singles. "Come on, let the good times roll," screamed the fan at their El Mocambo show after they had played a number of old blues songs. "Beautiful…beautiful," yelled the knowledgeable fan before that. The general audience at a Stones show expects certain tracks to be performed and would be disappointed if they didn’t. When the Stones toured North American arenas in 1999, one young Toronto columnist noted: "Here come the Stones again, playing the same old #*@%." The set list on that tour had a plethora of lesser-known songs. The columnist’s reaction? "They didn’t play enough hits…" Make up your mind, young man.

Enough with the ‘They’re not as good as they used to be…their last decent album was in 1978 (or 1972).’ depending on the critic. One wonders if folks that say this have listened much to their other stuff with an open mind. The reviews of 1972’s ‘Exile On Main Street’ were terrible. The two-disc set was considered sloppy, messy, and horribly uneven. Nowadays, it is considered by many to be their finest moment. Even today, many have trouble stomaching the album on first listen, but then it grows on them. The critics upon its 1976 release savaged ‘Black and Blue’. The reggae/funk feel of the disc was deemed the death of the band. Today? Many of those same critics hail it as laying the groundwork for the reggae movement of later years. Furthermore, consider the time of their supposedly best releases. 1968-1972 was one of the most turbulent periods of the 20th century. A very unpopular war in Vietnam was raging, riots were in the streets of America, and rock & roll was still considered rebellious and part of the fringe element. Today, rock & roll is 50 years old and is part of the mainstream despite efforts by a few to bring it back outside.

Give the Rolling Stones a break. They are damn good at what they do. They are a joy to watch live and bring in new fans with each tour. They can still cut it in the studio. They do what they are supposed to do; entertain folks with some of the best music ever done.