Has ther ever been a band that was better or more creative from 1968-72? Look at it they come back from pschedelia with Jumping Jack Flash, put out Beggar's Banquet, fire a founding member then deal with his death, replace him with a new hotshot guitarist who debuts to over 300,000 people at Hyde Park, release another great single in Honky Tonk Woman. Then they embark on the great Satanic Tour, release Let It Bleed during the tour. Then they play Altamont which turns into a debacle. In 1970 they release one of the greatest live albums ever and the Maysles put out Gimme Shelter which is possibly the best rock movie. They recover from Altamont with a near perfect album in Sticky Fingers coupled with the Brown Sugar and the launch of their own label, flee England for tax purposes for a life of debauchery in France and record perhaps their best album with Exile and then tour the U.S. again to record numbers of people and ABCKO puts out two fantastic greatest hits packages.


I find this stunning and pretty much not equaled by anyone other than possibly the Beatles.

I think a lot out here agree with you mayge you should add 1973 too

__________________________




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-01-03 03:47 by NICOS.

...not to mention the beginning of Rolling Stones Records and Mick's marriage to Bianca...

I think the biggest failure though is that they don't control the songs on Sticky Fingers and the 4 or whatever many on Exile. They may have started their own record label but they didn't own their songs. And that's a shame.

I guess the last Jimmy Miller album misses the mark again eh? I think Goats Head Soup is just as vital as Exile and Fingers and Bleed.

Quote
slew
Has ther ever been a band that was better or more creative from 1968-72? Look at it they come back from pschedelia with Jumping Jack Flash, put out Beggar's Banquet, fire a founding member then deal with his death, replace him with a new hotshot guitarist who debuts to over 300,000 people at Hyde Park, release another great single in Honky Tonk Woman.

And the 1963-1967 version of the Stones were chopped liver? I don't get this fascinaton with 1968-1972.

Quote
neptune

Quote
slew
Has ther ever been a band that was better or more creative from 1968-72? Look at it they come back from pschedelia with Jumping Jack Flash, put out Beggar's Banquet, fire a founding member then deal with his death, replace him with a new hotshot guitarist who debuts to over 300,000 people at Hyde Park, release another great single in Honky Tonk Woman.

And the 1963-1967 version of the Stones were chopped liver? I don't get this fascinaton with 1968-1972.

In 1963-67 they transformed themselves from a funky cover rhythm'n'blues band into world second hottest pop group. In 1968-72 they transformed themselves from a fallen pop group into world's greatest rock and roll band. Both great eras for the band, and unique in their terms, I think the first era was their most important in their impactwise, the second era in musicwise. But the first era is always a bit shadowed by its reactionary role, being 'anti-Beatles', The second era is the band more on their own, remaking themselves and taking the faith to their own hands and finding a tone of their own without the impact of The Beatles. Or one could say during that era the Stones took the lead and direction The Beatles never could never have taken.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2009-01-02 11:12 by Doxa.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-01-02 11:10 by Doxa.

Golden period. I'd extend it to 1973.

Quote
Bimmelzerbott
Golden period. I'd extend it to 1973.

As a concert act, surely. But even though GOAT'S HEAD SOAP is a wonderful album I would not set it in a par with its four forerunners - but of course, the standard is goddamn high here! GOATS HEAD SOAP is obviously something different compared to EXILE, and proves that the band is still trying to remake themselves, but I think the problem with the album is that the band doesn't QUITE reach what they are aiming there. Something is missing there. I can easily imagine how the album might have been better, but that is not the case with BEGGARS, LET IT BLEED, STICKY FINGERS and EXILE - albums that are obvious masterpieces as they are.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-01-02 12:09 by Doxa.

...and it was the time The Who and Led Zeppelin did their best so there
was beside their own creative peak some kind of challenge,forced to put and
go out as good as they could.

They did.

But I don´t think GHS is as vital as Exile,SF or LIB.
It´s got some great tunes ,all in all a bit tired,some weak moments...
but still a joy to listen to.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Bimmelzerbott
Golden period. I'd extend it to 1973.

As a concert act, surely. But even though GOAT'S HEAD SOAP is a wonderful album I would not set it in a par with its four forerunners - but of course, the standard is goddamn high here! GOATS HEAD SOAP is obviously something different compared to EXILE, and proves that the band is still trying to remake themselves, but I think the problem with the album is that the band doesn't QUITE reach what they are aiming there. Something is missing there. I can easily imagine how the album might have been better, but that is not the case with BEGGARS, LET IT BLEED, STICKY FINGERS and EXILE - albums that are obvious masterpieces as they are.

- Doxa

I hear you. But for me GHS is an EXCELLENT album. There's nothing I do miss on it. In fact, I like it better than Beggars Banquet which I always found a bit over-rated (dont kill me), as much as GHS is under-rated. Anyways, from the late 60s until the early 70's the Stones were the best damn thing in Rock & Roll.

Quote
Doxa


In 1963-67 they transformed themselves from a funky cover rhythm'n'blues band into world second hottest pop group. In 1968-72 they transformed themselves from a fallen pop group into world's greatest rock and roll band. Both great eras for the band, and unique in their terms, I think the first era was their most important in their impactwise, the second era in musicwise. But the first era is always a bit shadowed by its reactionary role, being 'anti-Beatles', The second era is the band more on their own, remaking themselves and taking the faith to their own hands and finding a tone of their own without the impact of The Beatles. Or one could say during that era the Stones took the lead and direction The Beatles never could never have taken.

- Doxa

Basically, I think it's more because the over all product is more satisfying to the general listener.

Imo, 1969 - 1972 is the realization of Mick and Keith's vision of what The Rolling Stones sound should be with Sticky Fingers being the first true representation of that sound.

I personally prefer the sound of them searching for their own voice which is what I hear during the 1963 - early 1969 period.

As much as I love Goat's Head Soup the reason I wouldn't include it in the 68-72 golden period is that GHS marked the start of the self-parody era with more lightweight/comedy lyrics such as @#$%&. There are no songs on the darker Beggars to Exile run of albums with lightweight lyrics. This self-parody went right thrpough from It's Only Rock'n'Roll to Respectable, She's So Cold, She Was Hot, Start Me Up right through to Rough Justice.

I'm not discounting 63-67 at all there is a lot of great music and the band coming into it's own and a lot of experimentation along the way. Not to mention that they put out one of the most important singles ever in Satisfaction. 68-72 they realized their full potential as a rock band is all I'm saying. You could argue that it went on through 1981 as well. GHS, IORR, B&B, SG. ER and TY are all fine pieces of work as well.

Quote
Silver Dagger
There are no songs on the darker Beggars to Exile run of albums with lightweight lyrics

What about the likes of "Dear Doctor", "Country Hawnk", "Bitch" or "Rip This Joint", then? Witty lyrics don't necessarily imply self parody!

I agree Fingers is a monumental collection of songs and a fantastic album. I still think Let It Bleed is their best album ever though. It's sort of a Let It Bleed 100, Sticky Fingers 99.98 kind of thing.

I dunno. Sometimes I think it's the other way around but mostly LIB is what I figure to be their best.

GHS - ehhh, yeah, I see how it doesn't fit into this era that is being talked about.

Quote
slew
Has ther ever been a band that was better or more creative from 1968-72? Look at it they come back from pschedelia with Jumping Jack Flash, put out Beggar's Banquet, fire a founding member then deal with his death, replace him with a new hotshot guitarist who debuts to over 300,000 people at Hyde Park, release another great single in Honky Tonk Woman. Then they embark on the great Satanic Tour, release Let It Bleed during the tour. Then they play Altamont which turns into a debacle. In 1970 they release one of the greatest live albums ever and the Maysles put out Gimme Shelter which is possibly the best rock movie. They recover from Altamont with a near perfect album in Sticky Fingers coupled with the Brown Sugar and the launch of their own label, flee England for tax purposes for a life of debauchery in France and record perhaps their best album with Exile and then tour the U.S. again to record numbers of people and ABCKO puts out two fantastic greatest hits packages.


I find this stunning and pretty much not equaled by anyone other than possibly the Beatles.

I think your post says it all. I also agree that the 68-72 period was quite a period of accomplishment for the Stones that I don't think has been duplicated by many other artists (excluding the Beatles of course). I am also of the opinion that 1973's Goats Head Soup was vastly under-rated. Aside from the overplayed Angie, it has quite a few other tunes to recommend it- Winter, 100 Years Ago, Coming Down Again, and one of my fav rockers-Silver Train! Maybe had Goats Head Soup not been released after Exile, it's reputation might have been better.

Quote
slew
Has ther ever been a band that was better or more creative from 1968-72? Look at it they come back from pschedelia with Jumping Jack Flash, put out Beggar's Banquet, fire a founding member then deal with his death, replace him with a new hotshot guitarist who debuts to over 300,000 people at Hyde Park, release another great single in Honky Tonk Woman. Then they embark on the great Satanic Tour, release Let It Bleed during the tour. Then they play Altamont which turns into a debacle. In 1970 they release one of the greatest live albums ever and the Maysles put out Gimme Shelter which is possibly the best rock movie. They recover from Altamont with a near perfect album in Sticky Fingers coupled with the Brown Sugar and the launch of their own label, flee England for tax purposes for a life of debauchery in France and record perhaps their best album with Exile and then tour the U.S. again to record numbers of people and ABCKO puts out two fantastic greatest hits packages.


I find this stunning and pretty much not equaled by anyone other than possibly the Beatles.

And somehow Jagger found the time to act in two movies as well.

PS: Sticky Fingers is PERFECT!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-01-02 19:45 by Bimmelzerbott.

they found themselves at the time they found J Miller - His arc with the band pretty much coincides with their peak artistic output (if you agree with the original post - which I mostly do) - and his demise during GHS signaled the end of that arc.

My reading is that GHS marks the first time over that stretch where they had to sit down and write a new batch of songs, and do to numerous factors, that was the start of M&K going their separate ways as writers. Much of the history of 68-72 is an unbroken stretch of organic writing where they all hung together and the songs came when they did, rather than being developed in specific 'album batches', which is how things would more often work going forward. GHS does have interesting stuff, but is the least 'live' feeling, compared to the others.

I forgot to mention Jimmy Miller in the original post he obviously helped them a lot.

Interestingly, they viewed Child of the Moon as their most original song circa the release of JJF/COTM single.

I still hear elements of psychedelia on Beggars Banquet, especially when you hear how Street Fighting Man sounded before the street fighting lyrics were added. The slide and mellotron playing on Jigsaw Puzzle is anything but normal. Same goes for the wonky lead on Parachute Woman. There's sgt pepper inspired lead playing on Sympathy and Stray Cat Blues.

For all of it's supposed get back to your roots attitude, it's actually rather experimental.

Quote
Doxa
In 1963-67 they transformed themselves from a funky cover rhythm'n'blues band into world second hottest pop group. In 1968-72 they transformed themselves from a fallen pop group into world's greatest rock and roll band. Both great eras for the band, and unique in their terms, I think the first era was their most important in their impactwise, the second era in musicwise. But the first era is always a bit shadowed by its reactionary role, being 'anti-Beatles'.

Doxa, I think that assessment is a bit too simplistic. The 1st era Stones were not a mere reactionary outfit to the Beatles. From 1963 to 1967, the Stones REDEFINED rock n' roll and became the blueprint for so many rock bands that followed. During that time, the Stones successfully adapted major blue elements into rock, creating a new musical sound and vision altogether. The Stones led this movement, with the Animals, Yardbirds, the Who and, yes, even the Beatles at times following! More than any band in the early 60's, the Stones invented new ways of using the guitar as a lead instrument in the rock genre, either thru slide leads, riffing, guitar weaving, etc. True, the Beatles were mainly responsible for popularizing the use of electric guitar around the world especially via George's Rics, but the Stones pushed the envelope with how the elecrtic guitar can be used as a lead and rhythm instrument, dabbling with different sounds and textures. So, I think the Stones were a revolutionary musical force in their own right during the early to mid 1960's and should be celebrated as such. 1963-1967 was such a magical period for the band and I'm just so sick and tired of hearing about 1968-1972. It's as if the Stones didn't exist before 1968!

If you are looking for my favorite 4 years in a row i would say 1968-1972.
If you say 5 years then i'd add 1973.

I think GHS is underrated too, but don't forget that the Stones toured in '73 and continued to crank out some of their best live stuff ever in Australia and Europe that year.
1973 was a very good Stones year.

Quote
His Majesty
Interestingly, they viewed Child of the Moon as their most original song circa the release of JJF/COTM single.

I still hear elements of psychedelia on Beggars Banquet, especially when you hear how Street Fighting Man sounded before the street fighting lyrics were added. The slide and mellotron playing on Jigsaw Puzzle is anything but normal. Same goes for the wonky lead on Parachute Woman. There's sgt pepper inspired lead playing on Sympathy and Stray Cat Blues.

For all of it's supposed get back to your roots attitude, it's actually rather experimental.

Totally agree - there are certain threads that link 67-68 songs with Child of the Moon being a song that could have been on either album - it is considered part of the back to the roots resurgence, but might have been more at home on TSMR. Although accoustic guitars ruled most of BB, what goes on in the background is absolutely exotic.

My reading: with Satanic, they attempted to create an exotic, otherworldly sonic landscape - with Beggars, they succeeded!

that time period in rock seemed to bring out the best in alot of performers in rock music not just the stones

Quote
ghostryder13
that time period in rock seemed to bring out the best in alot of performers in rock music not just the stones

Yes, that is very true... the whole music generation of the 60's had grown up, rock had shaped itself into more 'serious' status, several forms of rock were developed or were in the middle of creation but everything was still fresh and new and possible (but the most naive forms of hippie idealism were already gone..). In a way The Stones reflected the nature of the rock business over-all. And the drugs were not yet asking the price back... I guess rock has never been so serious business and yet so main stream (in terms of having almost the whole younger generation behind it) but flirting with counter culture and revolutionary themes as it did in those years... It interesting to read rock magazines and stuff like that from those years. They had a ball going on.

And The Stones, they were the biggest rock stars of the whole goddamn business. I guess they have never been bigger than they were in those very years in terms of impact, popularity, relevance and musical quality. I think in that Greenfield's (?) STP book of 1972 American Tour gives a good presentation of the status the Stones had in 1972. They could have sold much more records and tickets in the following years and tours, but they never would be so 'hot' again.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-01-03 20:46 by Doxa.

Quote
neptune

Quote
Doxa
In 1963-67 they transformed themselves from a funky cover rhythm'n'blues band into world second hottest pop group. In 1968-72 they transformed themselves from a fallen pop group into world's greatest rock and roll band. Both great eras for the band, and unique in their terms, I think the first era was their most important in their impactwise, the second era in musicwise. But the first era is always a bit shadowed by its reactionary role, being 'anti-Beatles'.

Doxa, I think that assessment is a bit too simplistic. The 1st era Stones were not a mere reactionary outfit to the Beatles. From 1963 to 1967, the Stones REDEFINED rock n' roll and became the blueprint for so many rock bands that followed. During that time, the Stones successfully adapted major blue elements into rock, creating a new musical sound and vision altogether. The Stones led this movement, with the Animals, Yardbirds, the Who and, yes, even the Beatles at times following! More than any band in the early 60's, the Stones invented new ways of using the guitar as a lead instrument in the rock genre, either thru slide leads, riffing, guitar weaving, etc. True, the Beatles were mainly responsible for popularizing the use of electric guitar around the world especially via George's Rics, but the Stones pushed the envelope with how the elecrtic guitar can be used as a lead and rhythm instrument, dabbling with different sounds and textures. So, I think the Stones were a revolutionary musical force in their own right during the early to mid 1960's and should be celebrated as such. 1963-1967 was such a magical period for the band and I'm just so sick and tired of hearing about 1968-1972. It's as if the Stones didn't exist before 1968!

Yes, I was over-simplicist (is that a word??) to stress my point, and I wholeheartly share your sentiments of the importance and originality of The Stones in that era. That's why I said earlier that their biggest "impact" was during that early era. I think it is a shame that The Beatles - despite being the first and original and truely awesome - seems to gather nowadays all the merits from the Sixties (prior, say, 1968). The Stones were a very original kind of band compared to The Beatles - and they - more than no one else - were the ones bringing the actual, guitar driven blues element into white rock and roll. Co-incidantly their darker kind of music suited very well to their PR strategy to come the 'anti-Beatles', which had an impact of their 'bad boy image' of which they - and rock bands over all - are still very well known (well, they did behave according to the image, too...). Of course, The Beatles affected to The Stones: mostly, by showing the example of original song-writing, and later, say, The Stones trying - with no such a big artist success - to follow certain trends lead more or less by The Beatles (but I agree that this is usually over-estimated, thanks, for example, John Lennon's bitter words in his infamous Rolling Stone 1970 Interview).

And we have to remember that it was the bands like The Stones and The Animals that were the ones to inspire somone called Dylan to go electric in other side of the Atlantic... among this rhythmn'n'blues movement The Stones were the leaders - sometimes only by few months, one top ten hit, one ballroom tour, or one television show ahead of the rest, but first in line in any case. Ask people like Clapton or Pete Townshead and they will confirm it, and explain what that meant those days! (And personally, I think the Stones were 'the greatest rock and roll band in the world' already in Richmond Station Hotel...)

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-01-03 21:17 by Doxa.

Quote
ghostryder13
that time period in rock seemed to bring out the best in a lot of performers in rock music not just the stones

I think Rock, as an art form, peaked in 1971, and was pretty much over by 1979. The last 30 years have been spent just blowing on the embers, really.

Dancing with mr. D could easily have been on any of the previous "great 4". as it is a dark, heavy blues rocker. Some of the other tracks on GHS as well. The albums' biggest drag is the poor production. Jimmy Miller was clearly "out of his head" at the time and couldn't get the best out of the guys, and especially, Charlies' drums that aren't recorded and mixed well.

[www.reverbnation.com]

That was the Golden Era!
But what about the 2001-2007 period.
First we got Mick's Goddess and 'Being Mick' in 2001, along with a surprise performance of Mick & Keith in NYC, playing 'Miss You' and 'Salt Of The Earth'. A unique compilation with 4 new tracks comes out in 2002, a new tour kicks off in the North-America in September, with a concept of mixing stadium-arena-theater type venues. In 2003 tour goes on all around the world, their first ever visit to India, SARS Toronto, an extended tour which ends up in October,2003. Four Flicks' DVD set and Live Licks Double album, with a lot of rarities, first ever released songs.
In 2004 Charlie recovers from his throat cancer. In May 2005 the Stones hold a press conference concerning the release of new album and tour 'A Bigger Bang', playing three songs, including new one 'ONNYA', only Mick, Keith, Charlie, Ronnie and Daryl. ABB tour kicks off in August, 2005 in Boston,new places like China, Serbia, Romania etc. In 2006, they record and produce a movie, called Shine A Light' with legendary director Martin Scorsese. In 2007 they first appearance on a festival in 30 years (IOW). ABB tour ends in London, August, 2007. Biggest Bang DVD set.
There was that serious palm three accident with Keith in April, 2006, Superbowl performance in Feb, 2006. I am not sure, Mick became SIR in when?
So there were two major tours, cca. 300 shows, 5 years, out of this 7 years period, when the Stones could be seen onstage, there were records and DVD's, cancer, accident, movie everything.