Tell Me :
Talk
To be true, I have sometimes wondered how on earth they can present the same old songs with such a convincing and fresh attitude and energy. Are they not going to be simply bored by presenting "Brown Sugar" and "Jumping Jack Flash" for milionth time? They, indeed, do sound like enjoying, and I have find that, actually, wierd. Playing the song exactly same way they have done for, what, 30 years. And still sound like almost being inspired. I think THAT is their true professionalism and uniquoness in thier present form. I think they do it because THEY LOVE PERFORMING - they love to be BE THERE - in the middle of the attention or, to be poetic, 'hurricane'. It must be some kind of addiction or a drug for them. I don't think the songs mean them anything - they are just good vehicles of doing the trick - the best weapons they have to in causing their most hectic moments of performing. I am sure they must hate - they must! - those standard numbers of theirs, but they know that those songs work for their purposes.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-12 10:36 by Doxa.
Would you say that John Lee Hooker has performed only two songs in his whole career (different lyrics apart) - a slow blues and an up-tempo blues?
What's the purpose of seeing the Stones live? Getting Star Star instead of IORR?
The whole big deal with the stones is them playing. The songs in the set list are just the tangible form of the show. Jumping Jack Flash now tells us a different story than it did in 1969. This through the way it is played. It's in the details, the tempo, and, of course the tone.
That other thread with the clip of the stones crew performing the sound check. Well that sound is a closer link to the stones than any cover of a stones song made by any other artist.
Songwriters like are different. In their case the words have a meaning. They express themselves principally through the lyrics.
But is there any Stones song that can be considered "immortal" regardless who is performing it? I see very few of them.
The Stones today are more close to the conceptual idea of art developed by people like Joseph Beuys. But how can one explain the greatness of modern art to someone who grew up learning that the rules of proportion and perspective are all that matters?
C
I was not saying that the stones have something in common with Beuys, I'm saying that you appreciate more what the Stones are now if you share Beuys' view of what art should be.
That said, when I see Keith with his hat and shaman stick playing games to stop the rain, well there I see something ...
C
well, for me it is both the good music and the fun experiences that make something memorable, and I had a lot of both on the ABB tour.
plexi
its tough reading, but I think it hits the nail on its head.
lets face it, creatively speaking, their last truly great band effort album was Some Girls - and their last truly great album was Tattoo You.
everything that came after Tattoo You were afterthoughts, variations of the scheme that has been established until Tatto You release in 1981 - and the tours since 1989 reflect that.
very wise, doxa, a lot of truth to this. Yes, they love the limelight and maybe, just maybe, it is that energy that they get from this/from the audience that fuels them. Maybe not just professionalism, but all of this also helps them to be inspired and to turn in good performances, both the "show" and the music.
Remember that Keith has also said that there is always something a little different for him each time he plays Satisfaction, maybe that is how he keeps it fresh, and keeps him going.
ANd thus, I dont necessarily know that it is a fact that they hate the warhorses. You assert, "they must." Must they?
p
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-13 19:27 by timbernardis.
You know, Dylan did it, Brando did it - both of them re-invented their act, both founded a new creative spark in late of their career that can be without hesitation compared anything they did in their revolutionary 'young' days. And will be discussed in future as well when their careers are put into larger perspective. The Stones, on the other hand - has not created anything of the sort to add to what they have done from 1962 to 1982. No one is going be interested in the future how much, say, THE LAST TANGO IN PARIS or TIME OUT OF MIND grossed in $$$ but they are most probably talking about the artistic value of those products in respect to the career of the artists made them. There is nothing that sort of thing to be found in the Stones doings in the last twenty years. I would guess that Dylan's "Never-Ending Tour " will be much respected and discussed than any of these mammuth tours The Stones have done since 1989.
The point is: Dylan HAS DONE IT, Brando DID IT. The Stones DON'T. 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. Some of us are not just much impressed of their doings. We know - or at least hope - they could do much better.
Personally, since TIME OUT OF MY MIND (prior that I had lost my faith in Dylan) I have hoped that The Stones would come up also their own TIME OUT OF MY MIND, if you know what I mean.
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-13 20:03 by Doxa.
Yes, we sure agree. I certainly hope that they have another ace still in their hands. I have hoped all these years. The problem is the more I followed their career and tried to make sense out of it, the more I have turned out to be skeptical. I am afraid that the muse is gone for good. They have other interests in their life than making the story of the Stones to go any further in terms of creativity. I haver come to the conclusion that for them it is just 'from nine to five work' they do for a living. Nothing more. And they want to charge as much for that work as possible.
So I think the difference between you and me is only that I am a bit more skeptical about the possible Great Future. But then again, in 1996 I was sure the muse of Dylan was gone for good... I would be more than happy to be proved wrong, once again...
- Doxa
P.S. I don't think anything done since 1981 is "crap". I think it is more like 'non-significant' or 'repitive'. The point is what they did prior 1981 rose such great standards and expectations against which it is easy to sound mediocre. They were not called "the greatest rock and roll band in the world" for nothing.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-13 21:18 by Doxa.
So for you is the "best Stones yet"? You consider the leading single of A BIGGER BANG to be basically same quality as the leading single of STICKY FINGERS?
- Doxa
it aint over til its over...good. one of my favourite "after 1981 albums" was Bridges To Babylon. that was a time when I still believed the Stones were on an upswing after the 80s. Bridges fuelled expectations that another truly great, not to speak of "classic" album was on the horizon, maybe just around the corner. but what actually followed was an 8 year gap. nada. nothing. well, 4 new songs on Licks which dont exactly cut the mustard. in 8 years! then ABB - solid, but did not survive the initial hype very long. maybe for many older fans like me a "just solid" Stones album after an 8 years gap is just not good enough - whatever: time is passing by and, as mentioned in another thread, I lost my optimism.
Doxa mentioned it: We knew - or at least hoped - they could do much better.
At present I tend to think: "Really? Can they do much better?"
Of course, the future is open and its not over til its over. Speaking for me - I dont want (just) "another new album". I want an album that really derserves a title like "Bigger Bang". Selfish? Maybe!
And no, just like you I am not convinced that "everything since 81 has been crap" - not at all. In fact, "crap" is the wrong word. I would name songs like "Back To Zero" crap.
What I meant is that their releases after 1981 are more or less variations of an established scheme (with some notable exceptions like Undercover Of The Night, Continental Drift, Might As Well Get Juiced for example) and by now this same old scheme increasingly wears off.
Just like Doxa had lost faith in Dylan prior to TIME OUT OF MY MIND, I have lost faith in the Stones as a creative force.
Im pretty sure that they are able to come up with yet another album full of "Stones by numbers" tracks - but thats not what I want.
Oh please also from here....
Through the eyes of a fan, possibly. In the bigger scheme of things, I have my doubts.
When I hear people who are not Stones fans in particular, more general "classic rock fans" after ABB shows, Im afraid that currently, theyre not on a journey "to rise above anything anyone else could ever hope to achieve" - its more a case of risking to destroy the status they achieved to build up many years ago. And THAT worries me no end.
Assuming that a definition of "quality of a single" exists, this remains a sterile argument. There ain't no Shelter in Bang, that's for sure, but for many other reasons the band today is just as good as it was in the 60's and 70's. Less flash but more depth.
C
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
Baboon Bro
()
Date: February 12, 2009 10:29
Just wanted to throw in my 25c:
I lost interest in ABB album fairly fast,
I think I had too many & too high a expectations.
I still think they have (at lest one) a smashin album yet to produce.
In my peculiar mind I believe Keith has some good 20 or 25 good songs
up his sleeve, but he is actually to self-critical to let them out.
Somethin' similar with Ronnie. Wish the three of them could sit down
together & try to co-create some new fresh stuff outta the idea stock.
I lost interest in ABB album fairly fast,
I think I had too many & too high a expectations.
I still think they have (at lest one) a smashin album yet to produce.
In my peculiar mind I believe Keith has some good 20 or 25 good songs
up his sleeve, but he is actually to self-critical to let them out.
Somethin' similar with Ronnie. Wish the three of them could sit down
together & try to co-create some new fresh stuff outta the idea stock.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: February 12, 2009 10:34
Quote
timbernardis
But still, one cannot know what is in their heads unless u are them -- the difference between when they are just cashing it in and when the music, smiles, stage moves, etc are real. Does repetition necessarily mean "phoney"?
You know, a lot of great (oral) literature of the world relies heavily on repetition as a technique and a means of getting across a message and is well accepted. Does repetition mean reification -- maybe, but not always.
p
p
To be true, I have sometimes wondered how on earth they can present the same old songs with such a convincing and fresh attitude and energy. Are they not going to be simply bored by presenting "Brown Sugar" and "Jumping Jack Flash" for milionth time? They, indeed, do sound like enjoying, and I have find that, actually, wierd. Playing the song exactly same way they have done for, what, 30 years. And still sound like almost being inspired. I think THAT is their true professionalism and uniquoness in thier present form. I think they do it because THEY LOVE PERFORMING - they love to be BE THERE - in the middle of the attention or, to be poetic, 'hurricane'. It must be some kind of addiction or a drug for them. I don't think the songs mean them anything - they are just good vehicles of doing the trick - the best weapons they have to in causing their most hectic moments of performing. I am sure they must hate - they must! - those standard numbers of theirs, but they know that those songs work for their purposes.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-12 10:36 by Doxa.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: February 12, 2009 15:22
Quote
Doxa
To be true, I have sometimes wondered how on earth they can present the same old songs with such a convincing and fresh attitude and energy. Are they not going to be simply bored by presenting "Brown Sugar" and "Jumping Jack Flash" for milionth time?
- Doxa
Would you say that John Lee Hooker has performed only two songs in his whole career (different lyrics apart) - a slow blues and an up-tempo blues?
What's the purpose of seeing the Stones live? Getting Star Star instead of IORR?
The whole big deal with the stones is them playing. The songs in the set list are just the tangible form of the show. Jumping Jack Flash now tells us a different story than it did in 1969. This through the way it is played. It's in the details, the tempo, and, of course the tone.
That other thread with the clip of the stones crew performing the sound check. Well that sound is a closer link to the stones than any cover of a stones song made by any other artist.
Songwriters like are different. In their case the words have a meaning. They express themselves principally through the lyrics.
But is there any Stones song that can be considered "immortal" regardless who is performing it? I see very few of them.
The Stones today are more close to the conceptual idea of art developed by people like Joseph Beuys. But how can one explain the greatness of modern art to someone who grew up learning that the rules of proportion and perspective are all that matters?
C
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
stoneswashed77
()
Date: February 12, 2009 15:44
excuse me, but what do the rollng stones actually have in common with joseph beuys.
i would say close to nothing. it´s more like the opposite side of the spectrum.
i don´t know but i am almost sure mick does not like him and is not inspired by his ideas.
i would say close to nothing. it´s more like the opposite side of the spectrum.
i don´t know but i am almost sure mick does not like him and is not inspired by his ideas.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: February 12, 2009 18:04
Quote
stoneswashed77
excuse me, but what do the rollng stones actually have in common with joseph beuys.
i would say close to nothing. it´s more like the opposite side of the spectrum.
i don´t know but i am almost sure mick does not like him and is not inspired by his ideas.
I was not saying that the stones have something in common with Beuys, I'm saying that you appreciate more what the Stones are now if you share Beuys' view of what art should be.
That said, when I see Keith with his hat and shaman stick playing games to stop the rain, well there I see something ...
C
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
deadegad
()
Date: February 12, 2009 18:25
I'd rather see Keith just play his guitar, competently, or yield to someone who can.
"The songs in the set list are just the tangible form of the show. Jumping Jack Flash now tells us a different story than it did in 1969."
THAT'S A STRETCH!
"The songs in the set list are just the tangible form of the show. Jumping Jack Flash now tells us a different story than it did in 1969."
THAT'S A STRETCH!
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
timbernardis
()
Date: February 13, 2009 16:43
Quote
DoxaQuote
timbernardisQuote
GNAT
Me, I'm looking forward to the next tour. I'm still making memories to enjoy when they do call it quits.
GNAT, that was a GREAT statement and worth quoting. I love that -- some of u may continually be disappointed and disgusted and critical but I'M STILL MAKING MEMORIES.
That's exactly the way I feel -- I had more fun on the Bigger Bang tour than on any other Stones tour ever. Regardless of how the music may have changed -- for better or worse -- than in the past.
Keep it up. Thanks.
Plexi
I don't think the personal experiences of the fun we have for taking part of the show - for example, seeing our idols alive, have beer with fellow Stones fans, and really to taste the excitement of The Rolling Stones is 'in town' (the majority here voted A BIGGER BANG the best tour ever) - should be much stressed when we are talking about the actual performance of the band. I think quite many here do distinguish these issues - at least I do as I mentioned in some of my posts few pages ago. Of course we will have our memories of those show now and then and in future. But I think some of us care the band more than barely in terms of haning those personal, usually pleasent, privileged moments of seeing the band alive - that the band has some other functions than to make great party for me once in few years. Some of us actually do care about the actual musical quality of the band - the reason they have fallen in love with in the first place. That the band will not turn out as a total anti-thesis to the greatness and vitality they once represented and what earned them and now, unfortunately, quite meaningless cliche "the greatest rock and roll band in the world".
As far as their MUSIC goes the legacy of last few decades is not going to be much to be proud of. Dozens of documements in different from presenting more or less the same show - only with the difference that the leading members are declining year by year. I think we will not be much proud of THAT legacy. I believe that in future whatever happened since 1989 will be small footnote saying something like "since the come back of 1989 the band concentrated to bring their Vegas show all around the globe to milk out everything they have achieved in during their first twenty years of existence. They continued presenting a very succesful superhits cabaret show to entertain masses they had gathered during their massive career or other curious people who wanted to see the 'living' link to the legendary decades of classic rock and roll. They also released few new mediocre studio albums not getting much interest, and soon to be forgotten by anyone bothered, especially the band itself".
- Doxa
well, for me it is both the good music and the fun experiences that make something memorable, and I had a lot of both on the ABB tour.
plexi
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
jjflash73
()
Date: February 13, 2009 17:02
Mick is still perfect, carries the band, always has, always will. Charlie is top notch too. RW & KR need to pick it up but I don't think KR can with his arthritsis
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
alimente
()
Date: February 13, 2009 17:28
Quote
Doxa
[As far as their MUSIC goes the legacy of last few decades is not going to be much to be proud of. Dozens of documements in different from presenting more or less the same show - only with the difference that the leading members are declining year by year. I think we will not be much proud of THAT legacy. I believe that in future whatever happened since 1989 will be small footnote saying something like "since the come back of 1989 the band concentrated to bring their Vegas show all around the globe to milk out everything they have achieved in during their first twenty years of existence. They continued presenting a very succesful superhits cabaret show to entertain masses they had gathered during their massive career or other curious people who wanted to see the 'living' link to the legendary decades of classic rock and roll. They also released few new mediocre studio albums not getting much interest, and soon to be forgotten by anyone bothered, especially the band itself".
- Doxa
its tough reading, but I think it hits the nail on its head.
lets face it, creatively speaking, their last truly great band effort album was Some Girls - and their last truly great album was Tattoo You.
everything that came after Tattoo You were afterthoughts, variations of the scheme that has been established until Tatto You release in 1981 - and the tours since 1989 reflect that.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: February 13, 2009 17:33
OK so if they're gonna continue with a warhorses laden set there will be very little room, like on the Bang tour, for anything otherwise. As usual, YGMR will be the one 1990s song, there will be Start Me Up for the 1980s and the rest will be 1960s and a couple 1970s.
Of course, I'm speculating.
So if they were to put in some obscurities - what would they do now? There have been the ones that don't really work (Sway, She Was Hot, She's So Cold) and the ones that have (Worried About You, CYHMK, Monkey Man, Some Girls) worked. Hopefully they'll do something other than any of those. But what would work? What is of their capabilities? I can think of a couple - I've always wanted to hear What To Do because I think it's a fantastic song. Please Go Home is another one. Those are 1960s but I've never known of them being performed. There are some 70s, 80s and 90s songs I'd like to hear as well. But whatever. I guess the point is, I think this anyway, there are songs that would be easier for them to do, Keith mainly, but are they up for taking that kind of approach? I doubt this kind of stuff is anything they think about - 'Let's play easier songs' etc...
Of course, I'm speculating.
So if they were to put in some obscurities - what would they do now? There have been the ones that don't really work (Sway, She Was Hot, She's So Cold) and the ones that have (Worried About You, CYHMK, Monkey Man, Some Girls) worked. Hopefully they'll do something other than any of those. But what would work? What is of their capabilities? I can think of a couple - I've always wanted to hear What To Do because I think it's a fantastic song. Please Go Home is another one. Those are 1960s but I've never known of them being performed. There are some 70s, 80s and 90s songs I'd like to hear as well. But whatever. I guess the point is, I think this anyway, there are songs that would be easier for them to do, Keith mainly, but are they up for taking that kind of approach? I doubt this kind of stuff is anything they think about - 'Let's play easier songs' etc...
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
timbernardis
()
Date: February 13, 2009 19:24
Quote
DoxaQuote
timbernardis
But still, one cannot know what is in their heads unless u are them -- the difference between when they are just cashing it in and when the music, smiles, stage moves, etc are real. Does repetition necessarily mean "phoney"?
You know, a lot of great (oral) literature of the world relies heavily on repetition as a technique and a means of getting across a message and is well accepted. Does repetition mean reification -- maybe, but not always.
p
p
To be true, I have sometimes wondered how on earth they can present the same old songs with such a convincing and fresh attitude and energy. Are they not going to be simply bored by presenting "Brown Sugar" and "Jumping Jack Flash" for milionth time? They, indeed, do sound like enjoying, and I have find that, actually, wierd. Playing the song exactly same way they have done for, what, 30 years. And still sound like almost being inspired. I think THAT is their true professionalism and uniquoness in thier present form. I think they do it because THEY LOVE PERFORMING - they love to be BE THERE - in the middle of the attention or, to be poetic, 'hurricane'. It must be some kind of addiction or a drug for them. I don't think the songs mean them anything - they are just good vehicles of doing the trick - the best weapons they have to in causing their most hectic moments of performing. I am sure they must hate - they must! - those standard numbers of theirs, but they know that those songs work for their purposes.
- Doxa
very wise, doxa, a lot of truth to this. Yes, they love the limelight and maybe, just maybe, it is that energy that they get from this/from the audience that fuels them. Maybe not just professionalism, but all of this also helps them to be inspired and to turn in good performances, both the "show" and the music.
Remember that Keith has also said that there is always something a little different for him each time he plays Satisfaction, maybe that is how he keeps it fresh, and keeps him going.
ANd thus, I dont necessarily know that it is a fact that they hate the warhorses. You assert, "they must." Must they?
p
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-13 19:27 by timbernardis.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
timbernardis
()
Date: February 13, 2009 19:32
also, all this speculation that sounds like their career has ended and we can stand in judgment now.
well, u dont know but that (if I accept your premise that everything since 81 or whatever has been a footnote, etc) that they may not have a renewal/revival and come out with some great work yet that could rank with their best.
Look at Dylan, look at actors like Brando who some might have said that his best work was behind him and then he turns in a performance for not only him, but for the ages in The Godfather
look at Tony Bennett who has had a huge revival in the last 10 or 15 years and he is what, 80 something or at least late 70s
there are other such examples
one cannot assume the book is shut
it's not over til it's over
p
well, u dont know but that (if I accept your premise that everything since 81 or whatever has been a footnote, etc) that they may not have a renewal/revival and come out with some great work yet that could rank with their best.
Look at Dylan, look at actors like Brando who some might have said that his best work was behind him and then he turns in a performance for not only him, but for the ages in The Godfather
look at Tony Bennett who has had a huge revival in the last 10 or 15 years and he is what, 80 something or at least late 70s
there are other such examples
one cannot assume the book is shut
it's not over til it's over
p
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: February 13, 2009 20:00
Quote
timbernardis
also, all this speculation that sounds like their career has ended and we can stand in judgment now.
well, u dont know but that (if I accept your premise that everything since 81 or whatever has been a footnote, etc) that they may not have a renewal/revival and come out with some great work yet that could rank with their best.
Look at Dylan, look at actors like Brando who some might have said that his best work was behind him and then he turns in a performance for not only him, but for the ages in The Godfather
look at Tony Bennett who has had a huge revival in the last 10 or 15 years and he is what, 80 something or at least late 70s
there are other such examples
one cannot assume the book is shut
it's not over til it's over
p
You know, Dylan did it, Brando did it - both of them re-invented their act, both founded a new creative spark in late of their career that can be without hesitation compared anything they did in their revolutionary 'young' days. And will be discussed in future as well when their careers are put into larger perspective. The Stones, on the other hand - has not created anything of the sort to add to what they have done from 1962 to 1982. No one is going be interested in the future how much, say, THE LAST TANGO IN PARIS or TIME OUT OF MIND grossed in $$$ but they are most probably talking about the artistic value of those products in respect to the career of the artists made them. There is nothing that sort of thing to be found in the Stones doings in the last twenty years. I would guess that Dylan's "Never-Ending Tour " will be much respected and discussed than any of these mammuth tours The Stones have done since 1989.
The point is: Dylan HAS DONE IT, Brando DID IT. The Stones DON'T. 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. Some of us are not just much impressed of their doings. We know - or at least hope - they could do much better.
Personally, since TIME OUT OF MY MIND (prior that I had lost my faith in Dylan) I have hoped that The Stones would come up also their own TIME OUT OF MY MIND, if you know what I mean.
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-13 20:03 by Doxa.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
T&A
()
Date: February 13, 2009 20:06
i know what you mean
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
roby
()
Date: February 13, 2009 20:27
Paris SDF 2007 was just sad. Keith was out. And the stadium... far from filled.
Last time for me forever.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-13 20:32 by roby.
Last time for me forever.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-13 20:32 by roby.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
timbernardis
()
Date: February 13, 2009 20:35
Doxa:
The Stones, on the other hand - has not created anything of the sort to add to what they have done from 1962 to 1982.
There is nothing that sort of thing to be found in the Stones doings in the last twenty years.
The point is: Dylan HAS DONE IT, Brando DID IT. The Stones DON'T.
Some of us are not just much impressed of their doings. We know - or at least hope - they could do much better.
Personally, since TIME OUT OF MY MIND (prior that I had lost my faith in Dylan) I have hoped that The Stones would come up also their own TIME OUT OF MY MIND, if you know what I mean.
Well, then, we agree. You continue to point out that they DON'T but that is not to say they WON'T. Like Dylan and others. As Mr. Spock in Star Trek used to say, "I always like to think that the possibilities are infinite."
It may not be happenin now, but DON'T write them off. It ain't over til it's over.
For that matter, I am not convinced that everything since 81 has been crap, not at all.
p
The Stones, on the other hand - has not created anything of the sort to add to what they have done from 1962 to 1982.
There is nothing that sort of thing to be found in the Stones doings in the last twenty years.
The point is: Dylan HAS DONE IT, Brando DID IT. The Stones DON'T.
Some of us are not just much impressed of their doings. We know - or at least hope - they could do much better.
Personally, since TIME OUT OF MY MIND (prior that I had lost my faith in Dylan) I have hoped that The Stones would come up also their own TIME OUT OF MY MIND, if you know what I mean.
Well, then, we agree. You continue to point out that they DON'T but that is not to say they WON'T. Like Dylan and others. As Mr. Spock in Star Trek used to say, "I always like to think that the possibilities are infinite."
It may not be happenin now, but DON'T write them off. It ain't over til it's over.
For that matter, I am not convinced that everything since 81 has been crap, not at all.
p
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
gmanp
()
Date: February 13, 2009 20:43
Having "grown up" with the Stones, they are part of my life, a huge part.
Many milestones are remembered at times that coincide with a certain album or show, etc.
I can't bring myself to criticize them too much for their faults or periods of non-creativity, when I have the same problems. It's been 45 years, I was 16 and now I'm almost 61. I'll take whatever comes along and be glad about.
Many milestones are remembered at times that coincide with a certain album or show, etc.
I can't bring myself to criticize them too much for their faults or periods of non-creativity, when I have the same problems. It's been 45 years, I was 16 and now I'm almost 61. I'll take whatever comes along and be glad about.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: February 13, 2009 21:11
Quote
timbernardis
Well, then, we agree. You continue to point out that they DON'T but that is not to say they WON'T. Like Dylan and others. As Mr. Spock in Star Trek used to say, "I always like to think that the possibilities are infinite."
It may not be happenin now, but DON'T write them off. It ain't over til it's over.
For that matter, I am not convinced that everything since 81 has been crap, not at all.
p
Yes, we sure agree. I certainly hope that they have another ace still in their hands. I have hoped all these years. The problem is the more I followed their career and tried to make sense out of it, the more I have turned out to be skeptical. I am afraid that the muse is gone for good. They have other interests in their life than making the story of the Stones to go any further in terms of creativity. I haver come to the conclusion that for them it is just 'from nine to five work' they do for a living. Nothing more. And they want to charge as much for that work as possible.
So I think the difference between you and me is only that I am a bit more skeptical about the possible Great Future. But then again, in 1996 I was sure the muse of Dylan was gone for good... I would be more than happy to be proved wrong, once again...
- Doxa
P.S. I don't think anything done since 1981 is "crap". I think it is more like 'non-significant' or 'repitive'. The point is what they did prior 1981 rose such great standards and expectations against which it is easy to sound mediocre. They were not called "the greatest rock and roll band in the world" for nothing.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-13 21:18 by Doxa.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: February 13, 2009 21:33
Dylan's Time Out of Mind is a good album (although quite overrated), but no one will ever convince me that it is any better than Bigger Bang.
I think that many of you simply confuse "decline" with "don't like".
C
I think that many of you simply confuse "decline" with "don't like".
C
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: February 13, 2009 21:40
Quote
liddas
I think that many of you simply confuse "decline" with "don't like".
C
So for you is the "best Stones yet"? You consider the leading single of A BIGGER BANG to be basically same quality as the leading single of STICKY FINGERS?
- Doxa
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
alimente
()
Date: February 13, 2009 21:43
Quote
timbernardis
Well, then, we agree. You continue to point out that they DON'T but that is not to say they WON'T. Like Dylan and others. As Mr. Spock in Star Trek used to say, "I always like to think that the possibilities are infinite."
It may not be happenin now, but DON'T write them off. It ain't over til it's over.
For that matter, I am not convinced that everything since 81 has been crap, not at all.
it aint over til its over...good. one of my favourite "after 1981 albums" was Bridges To Babylon. that was a time when I still believed the Stones were on an upswing after the 80s. Bridges fuelled expectations that another truly great, not to speak of "classic" album was on the horizon, maybe just around the corner. but what actually followed was an 8 year gap. nada. nothing. well, 4 new songs on Licks which dont exactly cut the mustard. in 8 years! then ABB - solid, but did not survive the initial hype very long. maybe for many older fans like me a "just solid" Stones album after an 8 years gap is just not good enough - whatever: time is passing by and, as mentioned in another thread, I lost my optimism.
Doxa mentioned it: We knew - or at least hoped - they could do much better.
At present I tend to think: "Really? Can they do much better?"
Of course, the future is open and its not over til its over. Speaking for me - I dont want (just) "another new album". I want an album that really derserves a title like "Bigger Bang". Selfish? Maybe!
And no, just like you I am not convinced that "everything since 81 has been crap" - not at all. In fact, "crap" is the wrong word. I would name songs like "Back To Zero" crap.
What I meant is that their releases after 1981 are more or less variations of an established scheme (with some notable exceptions like Undercover Of The Night, Continental Drift, Might As Well Get Juiced for example) and by now this same old scheme increasingly wears off.
Just like Doxa had lost faith in Dylan prior to TIME OUT OF MY MIND, I have lost faith in the Stones as a creative force.
Im pretty sure that they are able to come up with yet another album full of "Stones by numbers" tracks - but thats not what I want.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
timbernardis
()
Date: February 13, 2009 21:53
I really do not think it is simply a matter of money. Money is more important to Mick perhaps, but that is not all that drives him.
As u yourself pointed out, they like to be onstage at the center of attention. I do think they enjoy touring, or at least part of it. And it just may be why some of them are still alive today.
I do not think the onstage smiles are phoney.
However, I do think that writing their page in the history books, taking it further in one sense than anyone ever has, and LEGACY, are at least part of what drives them.
Does that mean just larger tours, larger grosses, setting those kinda records -- yes, in part. But part of it is simply carrying on chronologically for more years and at a more advanced age than anyone else heretofore, is part of it. Sometimes I wonder if they keep going and going as they want to achieve that immortality that their fame in the 60s perhaps never gave and could never give them -- it was not possible as that was only 10 ('62 - 8) years.
Perhaps they are fighting time and history and bringing the STONES EXPERIENCE to new generational masses as a way of achieving that sorta immortality, divinity if u will.
They will become known to so many people so far beyond anyone else, so far beyond the Beatles and others -- that FOR ALL TIME, they will have permanent immortality in the minds of people all over the planet in a transgenerational way so that they RISE ABOVE anything anyone else could EVER hope to achieve -- that is, they are untouchably and for all time THE GREATEST ROCK N ROLL BAND IN THE WORLD, FOREVER.
As u yourself pointed out, they like to be onstage at the center of attention. I do think they enjoy touring, or at least part of it. And it just may be why some of them are still alive today.
I do not think the onstage smiles are phoney.
However, I do think that writing their page in the history books, taking it further in one sense than anyone ever has, and LEGACY, are at least part of what drives them.
Does that mean just larger tours, larger grosses, setting those kinda records -- yes, in part. But part of it is simply carrying on chronologically for more years and at a more advanced age than anyone else heretofore, is part of it. Sometimes I wonder if they keep going and going as they want to achieve that immortality that their fame in the 60s perhaps never gave and could never give them -- it was not possible as that was only 10 ('62 - 8) years.
Perhaps they are fighting time and history and bringing the STONES EXPERIENCE to new generational masses as a way of achieving that sorta immortality, divinity if u will.
They will become known to so many people so far beyond anyone else, so far beyond the Beatles and others -- that FOR ALL TIME, they will have permanent immortality in the minds of people all over the planet in a transgenerational way so that they RISE ABOVE anything anyone else could EVER hope to achieve -- that is, they are untouchably and for all time THE GREATEST ROCK N ROLL BAND IN THE WORLD, FOREVER.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
T&A
()
Date: February 13, 2009 21:58
oh, please
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
timbernardis
()
Date: February 13, 2009 22:02
I hadnt planned that last post -- either the composition of it nor the way I ended it, but it just seemed so right and fitting to end it there.
I just got into a zone and perhaps expressed some things about the band that i have thought of around the edges for years, maybe a long-nascent idea now come full forth after you had driven me to think deeply.
I just got into a somewhat wide, world view, insightful zone and just took off and let my thoughts and inspiration carry me.
Can I prove it? No more than u can some of your statements. I can perhaps cite observational evidence and if I researched it, maybe some more solid evidence, but I was reaching, stretching my mind and my soul. Corny, stupid, rip it apart, OK -- I have certainly left myself open to all of that and if it pleases any of u, go ahead and indulge yourself.
And I do agree that they set tremendous standards and, carrying that a bit further, the times and people are simply different than in the 60s and 70s, the world is not the same. That ferment and social mileu are so different, I don't know that anyone could do this. Do what, I am losing my way here a bit.
In history, it is often asked, "is it the person or the times" that have created such amazing events and accomplishments. If truth be told, it is both.
p
I just got into a zone and perhaps expressed some things about the band that i have thought of around the edges for years, maybe a long-nascent idea now come full forth after you had driven me to think deeply.
I just got into a somewhat wide, world view, insightful zone and just took off and let my thoughts and inspiration carry me.
Can I prove it? No more than u can some of your statements. I can perhaps cite observational evidence and if I researched it, maybe some more solid evidence, but I was reaching, stretching my mind and my soul. Corny, stupid, rip it apart, OK -- I have certainly left myself open to all of that and if it pleases any of u, go ahead and indulge yourself.
And I do agree that they set tremendous standards and, carrying that a bit further, the times and people are simply different than in the 60s and 70s, the world is not the same. That ferment and social mileu are so different, I don't know that anyone could do this. Do what, I am losing my way here a bit.
In history, it is often asked, "is it the person or the times" that have created such amazing events and accomplishments. If truth be told, it is both.
p
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
T&A
()
Date: February 13, 2009 22:10
get a giant grip
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
timbernardis
()
Date: February 13, 2009 22:16
and I say "stretch your mind", let your grip go a bit.
It doesn't hurt.
p
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-14 02:08 by timbernardis.
It doesn't hurt.
p
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-14 02:08 by timbernardis.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
ablett
()
Date: February 13, 2009 22:21
Blimey, I couldn't be arsed to even try and write that lot. Its friday night, switch the damn computer of and go down the pub!!!
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
alimente
()
Date: February 13, 2009 22:22
Quote
timbernardis
They will become known to so many people so far beyond anyone else, so far beyond the Beatles and others -- that FOR ALL TIME, they will have permanent immortality in the minds of people all over the planet in a transgenerational way so that they RISE ABOVE anything anyone else could EVER hope to achieve -- that is, they are untouchably and for all time THE GREATEST ROCK N ROLL BAND IN THE WORLD, FOREVER.
Oh please also from here....
Through the eyes of a fan, possibly. In the bigger scheme of things, I have my doubts.
When I hear people who are not Stones fans in particular, more general "classic rock fans" after ABB shows, Im afraid that currently, theyre not on a journey "to rise above anything anyone else could ever hope to achieve" - its more a case of risking to destroy the status they achieved to build up many years ago. And THAT worries me no end.
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
ablett
()
Date: February 13, 2009 22:27
"permanent immortality in the minds of people all over the planet in a transgenerational way so that they RISE ABOVE anything anyone else could EVER hope to achieve "
Perhaps you've already been to the pub?
Perhaps you've already been to the pub?
Re: The Decline of the Stones: Mick's singin' or Keith's playin' ?
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: February 14, 2009 00:07
Quote
DoxaQuote
liddas
I think that many of you simply confuse "decline" with "don't like".
C
So for you is the "best Stones yet"? You consider the leading single of A BIGGER BANG to be basically same quality as the leading single of STICKY FINGERS?
- Doxa
Assuming that a definition of "quality of a single" exists, this remains a sterile argument. There ain't no Shelter in Bang, that's for sure, but for many other reasons the band today is just as good as it was in the 60's and 70's. Less flash but more depth.
C
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
CaptainAcid , DandelionPowderman , dishevelmentblues , Doxa , elvisloose , falo01 , franzk , gativubi , grzegorz67 , guyrachel , HotStuff92 , Kuntaman , makemeburnthecandle , Martin90 , mmarloe , PaintMonkeyManBlack , philrock90 , Pvk2 , rbarnes00 , Rockchef , snarf2014 , Stonesfan2146 , tiffanyblu , walkingthedog
Guests:
2017
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10