"I am sure ALL THE PEOPLE here who are 'complaining' here would LOVE TO WITTNESS the Stones to do it also. No one is here AGAINST The Stones."

So much truth in this. I'd love my fav band ever to retire with a CD I would be proud to buy... Like TOOM, then.

Someone said a few years back that every time the Stones hit the stage, they are keenly aware of their history and legacy. I think this is true and it drives them to keep going and to try to outdo themselves.


p

I dunno if it's to out do themselves, I think it's just to continue on, keep on keepin' on. Which, seeing that that is the case, means they really don't have to strive to do a whole lot, just SHOW UP.

Aside from that, this thread is still alive? TFIUWT?

Well if what they do is just show up, then I like the fact that they do show up.

This thread is becoming overly critical of the band. They like what they do and they are professionals. If there's one thing that they always try to do -- it is that they put off a great and entertaining show and give people their money's worth.

If they didn't care, would Mick and Keith be getting visibly PISSED OFF at the others when they @#$%& something up?

I got Mick on film at O2 #1 getting pissed at Keith and the others when they frigged up the conclusion of All Down the Line (I forget, may have been another).

You won't see that on an offial release, but mine is raw and unedited.

Just go f your spouse for Valentine's Day and get some of your frustration out ...


p

The problem with the Stones studio work is virtually everything they've recorded post Tattoo You is sketchy and underdeveloped, whether that's in terms of the quality of the songs, or the arrangements, although it's usually both. Also they very much seem routed in playing things safe meaning too much of their music sounds typically like the classic Stones but very much trivialised without much in terms of inspiration. Also lyrically they seem pretty lazy, especially where their rockers are concerned, pretty much acting as though they are still young and still very virile, which leads very much to their music generally to sound shallow and insincere and a means by which the Stones can continue role playing their former selves in the way they continue to do on stage. Sometimes on a first listen there is a degree of nostalgia, or recognition that a song may remind the listener of the Stones in their prime, Rough Justice, for instance, but it doesn't take many listens for me at least to see how silly and unsubstantial those songs really are, and how utterly hollow they sound when compared with the Stones in their prime. It's a pretty sobering thought to consider the Stones have released little of any substance for nearly thirty years, and the last single that held my interest was Undercover Of The Night, hardly a Stones classic but at least interesting to a degree. The difference though with their contempories is Dylan especially is able to record music which is relevant to who he is today, so there's a degree of connection between the artist and the music, and the music is not just a vehicle to sell a few more tickets on some mammoth concert extravaganza. The template really was pretty much set with the album 'It's Only Rock 'N' Roll' although the Stones still had half a dozen years worth of inspiration still up their sleeves, but 'It's Only Rock 'N' Roll' is nonetheless a significant sign of what was to come all the same. However, the album still retained a level of interest, here and there, not least for the occasional majesty of Mick Taylor.

I think Doxa's pretty much spot on with all his posts on the subject.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-14 10:28 by Edward Twining.

"All they have to do is show up"...well, you really make it easy for me: That´s what I have been trying to say over and over: All they have to do is show up...and most of you clap your hands in a state of shock...but from -62 to -82 they played some dirty, raw r&r too...I hope I don´t offend anyone by saying that - but that´s how I feel! Have a nice day, folks!

bv should change the name of this group to

It's Only Significant Stones Rock 'N Roll or I Don't Like It

or

It's Only Pre-1982 Stones Rock 'N Roll or I Don't Like It

Quote
timbernardis
bv should change the name of this group to

It's Only Significant Stones Rock 'N Roll or I Don't Like It

or

It's Only Pre-1982 Stones Rock 'N Roll or I Don't Like It

Well, I think it is a good sign in a Rolling Stones discussion forum there is one thread - along Ice Hockey, The Future of America, If Keith Still Have the Cat etc. threads - that there is one thread where a critical discussion of the music of the band in its current form is allowed. Of course, that might annoy some people, but I ask some tolerance here. Taking the length of this thread - plus some very well-articulted contributions along the way - one can also see the topic of this thread seems to matter to quite large number of users here.

I would prefer to call this thread "A Therapy Thread" or even better: "The Music of the Stones Today: Reality Check" with the note "Not for Beginners or Non-Critical Worshippers".

- Doxa

Timbernardis, I struggle to think you're not joking. If you're not, then you really should attend a class of elementary logics soon. I love the way you attacked Doxa for not "proving" stuff, implying that only an omniscient deity could ever legitimately asserting anything (while all his points are perceptive and well backed-up) before flying into the most delirious fancy, relying fully on some sort of intuition of yours regarding the unfolding of history and what not. You speak the utter nonsense which postmodern thinkers, who disregard logics and empirical evience, consider as thoughts, then pin down others to the strictest criteria of logic and empirical evidence. Amazing.
As for the topic of the thread, Doxa, we see eye to eye it seems - except I was never too fond of Dylan's recent output.

Quote
timbernardis
Just go f your spouse for Valentine's Day and get some of your frustration out ...

LOL!!! Nothing to get upset about. It's just that people have different opinions.
No big deal.

That been said, I just watch the San Diego videos kindly posted by UrbanSteel... they're just so good on All over now and Love is strong, and even Out of Tears - and that's 2 new songs (at the time) out of 3, so - I guess I'd mark the beginning of the decline after that.

I don't think that discussions like this one are about supporting with evidence different opinions. We are not discussing contributions by Brian Jones to Devil, or by Richards to Moonlight Mile. One just cannot demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the 73 was better or worse than the 78 tour. Hard facts in art don't exist. It is just a matter of emotions.

What I don't get is the attitude of many people here.

If I were in Doxa's shoes (nothing personal, just to make an example) I would be more interested in trying to understand why so many people still find the stones relevant from a strictly musical/artistic point of view (including the so called back up band), instead of trying to convince them of the opposite.

This does not mean that one cannot be critical. I my self don't like many things that the stones have done now and in the past. I don't know how many times I've said that the way Devil is done since 89 is a crime. But the day I will find someone who explaines to me what the point is in having the loop instead of a percussionist, I don't say I will necessarily change my mind, but for sure I will try to see thing under a different perpective.

C

I can not speak for Doxa, but I certainly agree with all his posts and pints. What really grabbed me was the fictional historical note of the future. The way the Stones would be summed up. Because I have thought about exactly thew same. History is cruel. Just like it will never remember the well fought battle of the runner-up, but only the winners. The Stones are toying with tainting their reputation. Will the last 20 years be remembered over the glory of the first 20?
I can say that the reason I still find the Stones relevant is because when they were great they were just so great that it STILL over rides all "this".
What I firmly believe is that if they changed up; were they to go down and do that one last superb album that we all know they have within them; were they to change up on the live shows, not try to look like 25 year olds, and run about in stadiums.Become the great Bluesband they should be. I think it would justify, rectify everything that is being criticized nowadays. It would wipe out all "Lets' Work" videos, the erasing of Wyman's picture on covers. It would reverse the flow.
More and more I find myself watchingt Dylan, Springsteen, Neil Young, even McCartney - these artists have not ceased progressing. IMO the Stones have quit moving forward.