It seems that every time I ask a rock music lover that's 20-something or under whether they enjoy The Rolling Stones or not, they always give me the same answer: "They're alright."

And it's frustrating .. I know we all have different tastes and I should respect that, but, not to sound like a total snob, how can you call yourself a lover of rock 'n' roll and not jam even a little bit to some of the most famous and arguably greatest rock albums of all time, namely "Beggars Banquet", "Sticky Fingers", "Exile On Main St.", etc.? It's like these people I've questioned will dickride Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, heck, even the Beatles (whom a youth could also view as "that un-cool shit my mom and dad liked").. but show no love for the Stones.

So... what it is about Mick Jagger and the boys? Are they really that "old and washed-up"? Are they really that boring? Are they not pot-smokeable and head-bangable enough? Again, not everybody has the have the same tastes, but it baffles me to no end how this many people I know could show such indifference to one of the most famous bands in history.

You should be asking what your generation has against good music

Played out like old underwear.

Jesus, give them time... most people your age wouldn't discover great 70s music until later, squiddyren.

Personally, there is no real grand dissidence towards them.

Most folks in their 20's and younger aren't hip to a wider-array of music until they get a bit older. Unless you have music in your blood. Folx need time.

You have some kids who are advanced @ an early age, but that's not the norm. Hence, why so much crud is in Billboard's Albums & Singles charts.

squiddyren said:

That's weird....I do not get that same response. Even the "under 20's" that I know have a tremendous respect and appreciation for the Stones....maybe it is a regional thing(?) ...I don't know...

CinisterCee said:

This is true.

Plus, the Stones are the ones still performing out of all the artists that you listed. People get bored when a band goes on for too long, and then they wish they'd re-unite when they're not together anymore.

Age, age and age.

When I was in my early 20's, the Stones had been out for 30 years. Growing up, their music was still on the radio in heavy rotation (Emotional Rescue, Miss You, Start Me Up, Waiting On A Friend). So I liked them. And still do, on a casual fan level.

But by the time people who are NOW in their 20's got into the Stones, they were larger-than-life arena icons who had fanbase that was probably as old as their grandparents. Who wants to listen to their grandparents' music? CinCee is right . . . twentysomethings who are music lovers are just at that age where they're opening up more than before to great music.

It was in my early 20's that my love for jazz started to blossom. Before then, I recognized that Miles, 'Trane, Monk et al. were legends, but then when i actually started to listen, I discovered their genius.

Same will happen with the Stones and your generation. Nothing is wrong. Give'em time.

Play "Exile" or "Sticky Fingers" for someone without telling them what it is, and they will love it. Then tell them that it's the Stones and their opinion will change drastically.

I don't know what this generation has against the Stones, but they obviously don't know good rock & roll or bluesy music. Some people today think that if someone moves well and dresses in designer clothes, they have some sort of talent. Perhaps some people today think it's a young persons world, but I totally disagree.

I'm a big fan of the Stones and have been since I was about 13. They have numerous great songs and some were quite controversial for their time. They put on a great live show too, which most young artists today could never lay claim to (and some older artists too).

Yes, they have had their hey-day, but they are living musical legends and they deserve all the accolades they get!!

Thanks for the responses, guys. I'll try to take SleezyG's advice, in particular, and play a little Stones for one who's not hip to 'em.. and see if they change their mind.

Probably a case of them wanting their own musical icons (as non-iconic as they might be).

To paraphrase an old jingoistic political bumper sticker from the past, My Icon, Right or Wrong.


tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

I know where you're coming from. I'm 21 and there are precious few people my age, even among my good friends whose taste in music I unequivocally respect, as snobby as that may seem. Then again, my taste didn't really fully blossom until the last two years, I'm just a very curious and voracious learner and occasional exposure to various things (particularly hip-hop "cover" songs that ran rampant on the radio when I was a teenager) or reading various online reviewers' pages pushed me to digest all the classic rock, soul, jazz and blues that I could (among other types of music). What it comes down to is that until people get older (and sometimes even after they do) they experience things on a much more superficial level than a real music buff (this also pertains to movies and other forms of art and entertainment as well). A lot of people will just credulously accept whatever they're presented with because they aren't investigative enough to find the good old stuff that'll give them a standard of comparison and many of them aren't aware of the old stuff even if they were curious. It's the same situation in movies; I really wonder how many people of my generation realize how many movies of the last two years have been remakes or were based on 70s Tv shows.

Annnyway, about the Stones, so much of rock n roll owes them a great debt that you absolutely HAVE to listen to some of their music to consider yourself a true rock n roll fan. Whether or not they appeal to you, they're something you must investigate for yourself and to an extent you have to respect. I personally like them a lot, but even if I didn't I could acknowledge their importance to rock history. Cream is an example of a band that I "respect" a helluva lot more than I "like" and whose influence I think is more interesting than their actual music.

minneapolisgenius said:

so true. once they do re-unite, people start talking about the band needing money and how it will never be like it was.

cause they look like walking death?

jacktheimprovident said:

sosgemini said:

Amen to that, especially the one that looks like he came from Pirates of the Carribean...

squiddyren said:

people don't appreciate groove anymore... people don't want their rock with roll anymore... the black crowes were really the last band to both rock & roll, but they had the pot-smokin' hippie thing going for them... and even still their popularity was short-lived...

but that's the problem with kids today, and that's the problem with rock today...

Stax said:

ABeautifulOne said:

squiddyren said:

Uh,excuse me,I'm over 30,and the Stones do nothing for me.

ABeautifulOne said:

Keef Rocks...



...


Especially now since he's finally gotten his head examined.


tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

theAudience said:

Not even...

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that during the last 20 years, the Stones haven't done anything truly great, i.e., classic. If I were in my early teens and heard "Mixed Emotions" or "Anybody Seen My Baby?", I might think, what's so great about this band?
I suggest this, because I experienced similar "miseducation" on many great artists growing up. When I was coming of age, I mean when I started listening to the radio and paying attention to the artists and buying records in earnest, artists like Chicago, Elton John, Eric Clapton, even Stevie Wonder were putting out less than great music. It took me years to figure out that Stevie produced absolute genius records long before "That Girl" or that Chicago did some really cool things before "Hard to Say I'm Sorry." Maybe the twenty-somethings have yet to discover the greatness that others - myself included - see in the Stones because they haven't yet experienced it. Perhaps they should dig in a little deeper.