Are you saying the solo was hot or it was terrible?

Have to say: The last Springsteen record may be critically aclaimed, but it really didn't do it for me. "Magic" was ok, but I didn't get the feeling I did listening to ABB for the first time. Every Stones album have something special that makes me want to hear them again. (I guess that makes me a fan?) And that's a feeling I get from very few other bands. And as mentioned here, ABB didn't do too bad amongst the critics.

[www.reverbnation.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-04 10:26 by audun-eg.

Quote
Gazza
Hard to believe that in the entire second half of their career (23 years), the Stones have released just four studio albums with no sign of a fifth in the immediate future. The fact that theyve put out five LIVE albums in that time plus several compilations speaks volumes however.

Well, Chuck Berry might be seen as a role model here, too. He quit recording new albums circa 1979 and is still touring and having compilations put out of his earlier material.

It's a widespread trend these days that bigger bands go on hiatus after two years of touring the world in support (or vice versa) of a single disc studio album, and only get back together again after at least a one year break to record the next album. That's too bad, because that way, they don't enter the studio when they come "hot" off their previous tour, but rather when they are "cold". I guess it shows in the studio albums.

In retrospect, it's strange that the time between B2B (1997) and their next package containing new songs, 40 Licks (2002) is longer than their actual 3 year hiatus in the 80s.

Had they put out a new album in around 2000, all this talk of them being in their "latter stage of their career" wouldn't exist.

"atter day releases are forced; trying to come on to this "young hip" market that Jagger for some reason sees as his measuring tool. It is crazy."

True : the Stones sell out stadiums while Dylan plays in theaters. BUT a substantial amount of people who buy Stones tickets are teenagers who weren't even born when the Stones put out their last great disc ("Tattoo You").
What they know of the band is the tongue and the 5 songs they hear on the radio on a regular basis.
Sure it boosts Jagger's ego but it's hardly the kind of audience that can get "Time Out Of Mind", Dylan's return-to-form album. Hence the light/mediocre albums we've been getting for years from the Stones (minus the Keith songs who doesn't try to fool anyone he's 22 & can naturally relate to 13-16 y.o. people)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-01-31 01:10 by dcba.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Are you saying the solo was hot or it was terrible?

NO.. it was horrendous...

Thnx loudei, because that is what I thought too. I did not want to say it, if you had made a point to come out and love it tho, haha..

The flame is still there, unfortunately it's similar to a match flame. It only last momentarily before it goes out.

XX



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-01-31 05:40 by Palace Revolution 2000.

of course the flame has gone out, they havent had a hit single in 28 YEARS what the hell do ya think? its not that complicated

wrong about the hit single time frame...

Mixed emotions 89' was top 5 hit single.

thats only 20 years...

Quote
melillo
of course the flame has gone out, they havent had a hit single in 28 YEARS what the hell do ya think? its not that complicated

I was talking about start me up not the MINOR hit mixed emotions which makes it 28 years do the math, and you say ONLY 20 years, that is also a long time the last time i checked

Quote
Loudei
wrong about the hit single time frame...

Mixed emotions 89' was top 5 hit single.

thats only 20 years...

Quote
melillo
of course the flame has gone out, they havent had a hit single in 28 YEARS what the hell do ya think? its not that complicated

if you are comparing mixed emotions to start me up there are plenty of clinics around the nation to get help

Hey come down buddy...just trying to HELP you get the facts right.

Mixed emotions top 5 hit just like Start me up... yeah 20 years is a long time and 8 years too, regardless wheter you think one single is better than the other, and a top 5 single is not a minor single... point is a don't give a rats ass anymore. I downloaded Paste Magazine's top 50 albums of 2008. It's time to look for great songs somewhere else, enough of this nostalgic drug we are all in. Mick Taylor left the band long ago, so did Bill... its over, gone bye bye...have you seen Keith's fingers? There is only one guy that is happy with all this shit, and that is Michael P Jagger and his ever ending cash machine scheme.

Quote
melillo

Quote
Loudei
wrong about the hit single time frame...

Mixed emotions 89' was top 5 hit single.

thats only 20 years...

Quote
melillo
of course the flame has gone out, they havent had a hit single in 28 YEARS what the hell do ya think? its not that complicated

if you are comparing mixed emotions to start me up there are plenty of clinics around the nation to get help

dude the last smash hit that turned peoples heads was start me up, its not even an issue

Thankfully they haven't gotten FAT but they have become lazy, to some degree. Maybe Lazy is too strong a word, perhaps they really do feel that everything they put out today is going to be compared to their classic, and will pale in comparison, so why bother.

I wish that they would be like Dylan he does not care what people think.

Quote
mickschix
Thankfully they haven't gotten FAT but they have become lazy, to some degree. Maybe Lazy is too strong a word, perhaps they really do feel that everything they put out today is going to be compared to their classic, and will pale in comparison, so why bother.

the why bother is to at least have the pretense of being relevant, or to make things interesting for themselves...there's such an idea of recording new music not for commercial appeal sake, but for ones' self. i don't think neil or bob continue to record with the idea that they are competing with their legacies...just as a couple of examples

Mick is still concerned with trying to make hit records. Please they have enough hit records. DO IT FOR YOURSELF!!!!!

Quote
slew
I wish that they would be like Dylan he does not care what people think.

...unless Mick thinks that he really CAN compete in the charts with the likes of Justin Timberlake and Robbie Williams!

"I wonder how Mick and Keith feel when they see their contemporaries (Dylan, Springsteen, Bowie, Aerosmith) still recieving critical acclaim and huge sales for their current albums. It must sting, even just a little, to have their latter compositions so widely panned."


Eh? Are you smoking crack my boy? Maybe by this time Magic has outsold ABB or maybe not- I don't know. None of the other three artists you mention are outselling The Stones so there goes half your argument. Modern times didn't outsell ABB worldwide and I highly doubt if the latest studio releases by Bowie or Aerosmith have either.

As far as the critical acclaim argument you are partially right. Dylan and Springsteen have gotten better reviews if you look at their last few albums compared to the last few by The Stones. We can argue whether or not these reviews are on target but it's pretty clear that the critics are biased when it comes to certain artists such as U2, Springsteen and Dylan. These artists could literally fart an album and would receive ten grammy nominations apiece. On the other hand critics are always expecting The Stones to do something extraordinary even years after their peak and their reviews show that good is not good enough for them.

Aerosmith hasn't gotten great reviews for their last few studio albums. Haven't seen the Bowie reviews so I'm not sure about him. BTW, Springsteen and Aerosmith are not contemporaries of The Stones. They are nearly a decade later which does make a huge difference in record sales. Just compare the sales of BTB to ABB and you will see a 25 percent decline.

"Lyin' awake in a cold, cold sweat. Am I overdrawn, am I going in debt?
It gets worse, the older that you get. No escape from the state of confusion I'm in.

Quote
melillo
dude the last smash hit that turned peoples heads was start me up, its not even an issue

But so effing what? It's not unusual for this to happen. When was the last Dylan or Springsteen song to turn people's heads? A long time ago too, maybe the seventees for Dylan. It's not unusual for an artist to have all of their "turn the world on it's head" type of songs early in their career.

"Lyin' awake in a cold, cold sweat. Am I overdrawn, am I going in debt?
It gets worse, the older that you get. No escape from the state of confusion I'm in.

but the topic of this thread is has the flame gone out, and as for putting out smash singles it has gone out



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-01 01:28 by melillo.

Not having singles or good songs for that matter on their credit since the 80's is one component of such flame.

IMO they are still writing good songs; but they ruin them.
And Dylan, Young, Springsteen all get way better reviews than the Stones. yes, the Stones get good reviews, but they are hollow. Either from RS magazine, or it is a fawning review that speaks of the "Peter Pan of Rockn Roll", the jester and then of "Mr Cool Himself" still talking about snorting his dad etc. That kind of stuff...yawn.
By now it is the other artists who are being taken seriously. And I do think at this time the Stones would want such; has to do with age, grace, respect and legacy

"When was the last time Dylan or Springsteen song turned people's heads?"
Probably on last album; I think it is happening like always just with a lot less people. because they have accepted that it is not the mass audiences they must hit anymore. I don't think these artists are competing with their own legacy, but I think they are adding to it. And this might be the key difference:
the Stones are not adding to their legacy and history anymore, but coasting and feeding off old glories. These other cats are still adding and building to it.

What a cool post this has turned out to be. Good one for getting a passionate discussion DJ. When I first saw it I thought it was another of those negative tirades but you have lit the blue touch paper and created a bit of a monster. Best discussion on the board for ages.

Quote
FrankM

Quote
melillo
dude the last smash hit that turned peoples heads was start me up, its not even an issue

But so effing what? It's not unusual for this to happen. When was the last Dylan or Springsteen song to turn people's heads? A long time ago too, maybe the seventees for Dylan.

Obviously the critical acclaim and multiple Grammies for his last three albums passed you by. Likewise with Springsteen. His fanbase (and that of Dylan) seem to have been pretty enthusiastic towards his recent output. Can you say that about that of the Stones?

Maybe you're mixing with people with very stiff heads.

Whar we all more or less middle aged Stones fans must agree on I think is that they are closing in on 70! What do we do at the moment that is totally new and fresh? My self as a professor in archaeology fell a bit jaded. Been there, seen it read it! We have all, a lot of us at least, been following Mick and Keith for decades now, almost our entire lives! Just think about the joy and happeiness they have given us during the years and stop complaining! They will never, I orrepeat never, give us a new Satisfaction, JJF d even Start us up! Can we really demand that from these guys anymore? The most astonishing thing is that we all really bother to think about it. Are we pathethic or not that is the question really. I will always love their music and I will always? buy new boots with re-hashed stuff but still think WoW!! So please let us all like the Stones grow old in style!!

I think one of the greatest qualities that Stones as people have showed us is that they have great taste. If you put their discography under a microscope you'd find a lot of musical genres being interpreted, and they kind of guided you through some pretty awesome stuff to listen to as well. I don't think they are listening anything anymore pre 1982 and if they are listening (MICK) to anything new worth a crack at its all crap and artificial.

MICK - A GOSPEL BLUES ALBUM! Bring back the horns, add some african percusion, mix down the guitars and drums ...show us the music MOTHAFOCA!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-01-31 22:48 by Loudei.

T&A, I agree to some extent BUT maybe they have had enough and we can't make them get that fire in the belly! Gazza, you're lucky that you love Dylan and Springsteen quite a lot too. Bruce's new material is very good, but remember, he is not 65...let's see what any of these other guys churn out at 65. Masseolle's right, we should be pleased that they had so many really creative years and may still tour next year. I hate this aging thing...I hate it in myself and in the Stones but as they have said, " Time Waits For No One" and it marches on, no turning back the clock. If I could, I'd go right back to the summer of 1975, without a moments hesitation. That was their peak, for me! They were sexy, sometimes messy, always raw and full of energy. Kinda describes all of us, hey?? I am thankful that I lived through it all, we were blessed.

Quote
billwebster

Quote
Gazza
Hard to believe that in the entire second half of their career (23 years), the Stones have released just four studio albums with no sign of a fifth in the immediate future. The fact that theyve put out five LIVE albums in that time plus several compilations speaks volumes however.

Well, Chuck Berry might be seen as a role model here, too. He quit recording new albums circa 1979 and is still touring and having compilations put out of his earlier material.

It's a widespread trend these days that bigger bands go on hiatus after two years of touring the world in support (or vice versa) of a single disc studio album, and only get back together again after at least a one year break to record the next album. That's too bad, because that way, they don't enter the studio when they come "hot" off their previous tour, but rather when they are "cold". I guess it shows in the studio albums.

In retrospect, it's strange that the time between B2B (1997) and their next package containing new songs, 40 Licks (2002) is longer than their actual 3 year hiatus in the 80s.

Had they put out a new album in around 2000, all this talk of them being in their "latter stage of their career" wouldn't exist.

In 23 years they have done DW, SW, VL, BTB and BB and 4 new songs on 40L.
More MJ has done 4 CD's, KR 2 CD's and Charlie and Ron have done theirs as well.
If we put that all together it ain't that bad.
But it could have been much better.