4 ms·

Plausibly, sure. Almost any decision is given people sometimes make terrible commercial decisions. We should acknowledge that the Windows 95 international satur

by harry8 2y ago

Plausibly, sure. Almost any decision is given people sometimes make terrible commercial decisions. We should acknowledge that the Windows 95 international saturation marketing blitz to the sound of "Start Me Up" failed to end the Stones. Sometime after that they did a concert film directed by Martin Scorsese, a movie featuring hanging out with Bill & Hillary Clinton and they also still seem to sell out 80,000 seat arenas playing their octogenarian loud blues. It seems slightly more plausible to me that the Stones made a commercial decision but again, maybe it was purely artistic or ethical because people also sometimes make terrible decisions on the basis of those motivations. In the end we can't prove we exist and we deal in probabilities given evidence.

tptacek 2y ago
The Stones are also cultural giants in a way REM isn't and never will be.
- harry8 2y ago
  And REM seem to have been determined not to be. Commercial decisions not to play stadiums and not stoke exaggerated tales of excess that would make Hunter Thompson blush? It's kind of cool how longevity has worked for the Stones while they've been so consistently second rate. Starting not remotely in the same class as the Beatles but rebels. But by 1970 they weren't in the Beatles class of rebelliousness either. Songwriting improved but it needed to and not to Lennon-McCartney levels. Does anyone much rate them above Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry, Howlin Wolf, Hendrix or even Bert Jansch? Still they persisted. Their solo projects consistently sucked no matter what talent they brought in so the Stones continued and their cultural relevance grew. Somehow I doubt anyone will care any more about Stones songs than Jagger or Richards solo songs 50 years hence. REM may fare no better. Could be wrong, only time will tell. Jagger's lips and tongue logo was another seemingly purely commercial decision that has greatly boosted their cultural relevance. In 1995 they were deemed by Microsoft to be second choice to REM on what we might assume to be a cultural basis.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    REM played stadiums. I saw REM at a huge stadium. I am chuckling a bit at trying to weigh the Rolling Stones against Bert Jansch. There's not enough Pentangle in modern pop culture.
    - harry8 2y ago
      Really? Shows how far I am out of it. That must have been Ghastly. Back in '95 or so they seemed to play smaller capacity venues than sports stadiums (mostly with roofs?) The talk was that this was deliberate. I found it believable. "Angie" seems more folk influenced than blues, for mine. Compare it to whatever you think is a good example of its genre and I'm sure you get the point. It's fine. Is it great? Anyway The Stones remain an inspiring example to us all of sticking at it.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        1995. World Music Center (capacity: 28,000), Radiohead opening, Patti Smith guest appearance. :) https://archive.org/details/REM_1995-09-24 https://archive.org/details/REM_1995-09-24
- jhbadger 2y ago
  The Stones were giants to the Boomers, sure, but I'm pretty old Gen-Xer myself at 54 and I hardly know them -- I mostly know them because of stories of Mick Jagger being a jerk. And I suspect younger people like Millennials and Zoomers care even less about them. To my generation REM and U2 were the big bands (and I'm sure younger people probably care as little about those bands as I do the Stones).
  - tptacek 2y ago
    If REM and U2 are your big bands, we're in the same generation, and my high school classmates today are sending pictures from Rolling Stones concerts they're going to on Insta. I'm not saying I like the Rolling Stones more (though: I probably like them more than U2). I listen to Murmur like every other week. I listen to a Rolling Stones album every other decade. I listen to The Stone Roses more than the Stones. I'm not advocating for Mick Jagger, I'm just saying, he's more relevant to the culture than Michael Stipe.
- lookalike74 2y ago
  Other than comparing the sales records of two bands, concert attendance, or other numerical measures, it's hard to imagine your comment makes any sense. The Stones and REM weren't contemporaries.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    This to me is like saying "other than comparing all the available evidence about a rock music act, it's hard to imagine your comment makes any sense".

by harry8 2y ago

tptacek 2y ago

The Stones are also cultural giants in a way REM isn't and never will be.

harry8 2y ago
And REM seem to have been determined not to be. Commercial decisions not to play stadiums and not stoke exaggerated tales of excess that would make Hunter Thompson blush? It's kind of cool how longevity has worked for the Stones while they've been so consistently second rate. Starting not remotely in the same class as the Beatles but rebels. But by 1970 they weren't in the Beatles class of rebelliousness either. Songwriting improved but it needed to and not to Lennon-McCartney levels. Does anyone much rate them above Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry, Howlin Wolf, Hendrix or even Bert Jansch? Still they persisted. Their solo projects consistently sucked no matter what talent they brought in so the Stones continued and their cultural relevance grew. Somehow I doubt anyone will care any more about Stones songs than Jagger or Richards solo songs 50 years hence. REM may fare no better. Could be wrong, only time will tell. Jagger's lips and tongue logo was another seemingly purely commercial decision that has greatly boosted their cultural relevance. In 1995 they were deemed by Microsoft to be second choice to REM on what we might assume to be a cultural basis.
- tptacek 2y ago
  REM played stadiums. I saw REM at a huge stadium. I am chuckling a bit at trying to weigh the Rolling Stones against Bert Jansch. There's not enough Pentangle in modern pop culture.
  - harry8 2y ago
    Really? Shows how far I am out of it. That must have been Ghastly. Back in '95 or so they seemed to play smaller capacity venues than sports stadiums (mostly with roofs?) The talk was that this was deliberate. I found it believable. "Angie" seems more folk influenced than blues, for mine. Compare it to whatever you think is a good example of its genre and I'm sure you get the point. It's fine. Is it great? Anyway The Stones remain an inspiring example to us all of sticking at it.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      1995. World Music Center (capacity: 28,000), Radiohead opening, Patti Smith guest appearance. :) https://archive.org/details/REM_1995-09-24 https://archive.org/details/REM_1995-09-24
jhbadger 2y ago
The Stones were giants to the Boomers, sure, but I'm pretty old Gen-Xer myself at 54 and I hardly know them -- I mostly know them because of stories of Mick Jagger being a jerk. And I suspect younger people like Millennials and Zoomers care even less about them. To my generation REM and U2 were the big bands (and I'm sure younger people probably care as little about those bands as I do the Stones).
- tptacek 2y ago
  If REM and U2 are your big bands, we're in the same generation, and my high school classmates today are sending pictures from Rolling Stones concerts they're going to on Insta. I'm not saying I like the Rolling Stones more (though: I probably like them more than U2). I listen to Murmur like every other week. I listen to a Rolling Stones album every other decade. I listen to The Stone Roses more than the Stones. I'm not advocating for Mick Jagger, I'm just saying, he's more relevant to the culture than Michael Stipe.
lookalike74 2y ago
Other than comparing the sales records of two bands, concert attendance, or other numerical measures, it's hard to imagine your comment makes any sense. The Stones and REM weren't contemporaries.
- tptacek 2y ago
  This to me is like saying "other than comparing all the available evidence about a rock music act, it's hard to imagine your comment makes any sense".