As an IORR newbie, I spent the last few weeks browsing through numerous threads on this forum, and one thing I often noticed is that there doesn’t seem to be a lot of love for the Stones‘ "modern-day" work around here (and with "modern day" I refer to the last 20 years), be it albums or live shows. The opinion of many people appears to be that Mick & company sold out to Michael Cohl in 1989 for the "Steel Wheels"/"Urban Jungle" tours and were more of a purely money-driven commercial entity than a real rock band from that point on. You see, I really got into the Stones very late (in 1990), when I saw them at what was my first real big stadium concert, and I love their last few studio albums, in particular "A Bigger Bang". One of my fave songs of theirs is "One Hit" from the much-despised "Dirty Work", which I understand has a reputation of being the worst Stones record ever. It would be interesting to read opinions from long-time fans who've known them since the 1970s, or 1960s even, in regards of their work from, say, "Steel Wheels" onwards. Was it all really that bad? Please discuss.

I presonally think that from Voodoo Lounge onwards, they have released nothing but great albums (Rarities does not count!) lol.
I don't find the need to compare them to the albums regarded as classics, I just love them for what they are.

Steel Wheels for me suffers from the production of that period, although there are some great tracks on there.

I think the Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle tour featured some fantastic guitar playing but the overall sound is a bit sterile with too much in the Keyboard department.

Every tour since has been fantastic, although most would agree that 2007 was not a great year for the Stones as a live group, mainly due to Keiths medications.
There were some truly great shows from that tour and I cant wait for them to hit the road again!

Stones' last two tours were totally awesome, with Licks theatre shows being top of the world.

Welcome aboard.

I find your perspective interesting, too, since I can't imagine what it would have been like to discover them in 1990. To answer your question directly -- no, I do not think everything since 1989 has been "all that bad." I think much of it, live and in the studio, has been good

I do think the earlier material was stronger; in my opinion, not much of what's been done in the last 20 years ranks with the band's very best work.

It's also true that the Stones were more relevant in the 60s and early 70s -- they were actually a cultural and musical force. On a personal level,also, they had more influence and impact on me when I was younger - I don't think any band could possibly have the impact on me at my current age that the Stones did when I was in my teens and 20s. So, I'm naturally biased toward the earlier stuff. I suspect others here are too, for similar reasons.

Hopefully, you'll hear from some others on this



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-06-06 19:30 by texas fan.

I'm a newbie too. Ok, not new just new to posting much of anything. And I've noticed what you mean. I happen to love "Voodoo Lounge" and play it as much as "Some Girls".
I've been a fan since 78 and the much maligned SNL appearance. I was only 10 years old. The AOR station in my hometown started playing alot of the albums at midnight. I taped them and that is how I had my first copies of any Stones LP.
"Dirty Work" is the one I care for as a whole the least. "Sleep Tonight", "One Hit to the Body" and "Harlem Shuffle" I think are great. The rest, well, not bad just not great.
"Steel Wheels" is a great little disc. I love the barely finished sound that disc has.
"Bridges to Babylon" is the weakest of the modern Stones era in my opinion. I never did like "Has Anybody Seen My Baby" or "Saint of Me". Whereas "Thief in the Night", "Lowdown" and "Might as Well Get Juiced" I have on the mp3 player and play all the time.
"A Bigger Bang" I think is a great disc, period. Some tracks are stronger than others, but that is true of every album they have ever recorded except "Sticky Fingers" if you ask me. But like everything else that is a matter of taste.

Like Keith once said of my generation...We've had the sun, the moon, the stars and the Rolling Stones...and I like it that way.><

What i disapprove of is the Stones perspective involving their own legacy. I just wish they could have found a different angle to approach their music in their latter years instead of trying to emulate how they appeared in their youth. I think there have been too many compromises and half measures in the last 20 years instead of a clear view of where they stand and where they'd like to take their music. Maybe it's a great deal harder to have a clear vision when you're one of a number belonging to a group than an individual which a democratic right to do what he or she pleases. Maybe they are too conservative in their approach because of this, because despite some mild flirtation with attempting to stay current, everything the Stones have done in the last 20 years has lacked conviction.

Thanks for your comments so far, which are very interesting to read. Keep 'em coming!

Yeah well I am not one of the posters that thinks they bit the dust post 73. I agree with above posts, I think their stuff since voodoo Lounge has been great, as have been the tours. Bigger Bang is a bit of a let down, mostly because of production and digital constructing, and a few clinkers, but not bad! Better than Steel Wheels... Bridges to Babylon is such an exciting release, and deep! Love it!
The tours have been fun as hell. Just the boys playing their favs and having a great time and more accessible than they ever have been. A lot more warmth and not so much the narcotic haze that created that boundary between them and the fans live. Smiles, camaraderie and a lot of high fives. It is thrilling. People complain about them being too drunk, too many musicians on stage...blah blah blah, it is great! Like I have said before they are recreating the big production that was in their heads during Exile. Gospel backing singers, wall of sound acoustic that creates a subtle wave throughout their playing. And they are more adventuresome. THey have always had a core of songs that people call warhorses, yet now they sprinkle in gems that they would not have even attempted in the past. Monkey Man, Moonlight Mile, Shine A Light, 2000 Light Years From Home, Paint it Black (They dropped from their live set circa 1967!!), CAN'T YOU HEAR ME KNOCKING!!! Come on man, that is just incredible! Lots of folks complain about them not releasing the past, yet they have little patience to appreciate the present. Buddha works! Focus on the now! Forget about your used to be!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-06-06 18:33 by whitem8.

Quote
whitem8
Lots of folks complain about them not releasing the past, yet they have little patience to appreciate the present. Buddha works! Focus on the now! Forget about your used to be!

We'd gladly do that if the Stones did the same. And by the way, living in the present AND embracing and acknowledging your legacy aren't mutually exclusive. Plenty of other acts seem to manage to do it.

I happen to like the last few Stones albums. There are some fine songs on there. If any other act had put out records of that standard, they'd be doing pretty well. OK, they're not going to be on a par with 'Exile on main street' but its unreasonable to expect anyone, let alone someone 45 years into a career, to come close to that kind of zenith...and let's face it, it's tougher for the Stones to follow what theyve done before than pretty much anyone.

The main gripe is that they havent released enough of them and are largely content to live on the profits of nostalgia and coast instead of trying to keep evolving artistically - that outlook has influenced pretty much every musical and business decision theyve made for the last decade. The easy option which involves minimal effort for maximum financial gain will pretty much always be the path chosen. Four studio albums in the second half of a long and great career and an ever diminishing involvement in the quality control aspect of other product released in their name (Live Licks, Rarities, the recent remasters series) are statistics that tell their own story and suggest a band who consider themselves to be winding down artistically and creatively



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-06-06 19:26 by Gazza.

Well it's funny how we see things differently, whitem8, because i hardly see the Stones existing as a band at all these days, certainly not in a creative sense - and i certainly see no sense of them recreating what they had with Exile On Main Street in a live format. The Stones were all about rawness and spontaneity in their peak years (especially live) - Exile On Main Street being a prime example. Exile in many ways saw them recreating the raw abrasiveness of their live performances in a studio setting, which they didn't always manage to achieve, or necessarily want to a achieve in the studio. I think with Exile they did manage to recreate those elements successfully without getting too hooked on sophistication, which they had done to a much greater degree on a number of their previous albums. Yes, they may have been augmented a little more with a broader sound at times, but the abrasive edge was always very much at the core. I think their later live format is anything but that.

Quote
whitem8
THey have always had a core of songs that people call warhorses,

Not true.

There have been several tours in the past where they concentrated on recent material.

The 1969-73 era being a fine example. They hardly did anything prior to 1968 on those tours and dropped most of their biggest hit singles. HTW, Brown Sugar, Tumbling Dice etc werent warhorses then - they were new or recent songs that many audiences were hearing live for the first time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-06-06 19:31 by Gazza.

Not what they were during their heyday, but still better than anybody else out there.

Yes I understand Gazza, what I meant was they kept pretty static set lists playing JJF, BS, GS, HTW, etc...and have kept that tradition up to the present with those core songs. However, I also meant that starting in 89 they started really expanding their live shows to a broader range of their catalog, and I like that aspect. Hey at the end of the day was what I really meant is that I still am having fun with the stones what ever they do, and just really enjoy the music and life, and don't get too hung up on drama, just dig the music and fun. Don't take it sooooo serious...lol.

Quote
whitem8
Yes I understand Gazza, what I meant was they kept pretty static set lists playing JJF, BS, GS, HTW, etc...and have kept that tradition up to the present with those core songs. However, I also meant that starting in 89 they started really expanding their live shows to a broader range of their catalog, and I like that aspect. Hey at the end of the day was what I really meant is that I still am having fun with the stones what ever they do, and just really enjoy the music and life, and don't get too hung up on drama, just dig the music and fun. Don't take it sooooo serious...lol.

It's only rock and roll, but I like it ......

"No Anchovies, Please"

right on Elmo:-)!!!!!

1990-- sure doesn't seem like almost 20 years ago. glad to read the thoughts on this. here are some of mine:
1. Charlie has really come into his own since then, becoming an important design consultant, being more available for interviews. every show I've listened to, or been to, in the 'modern era', when Charlie is introduced, he gets a wildly enthusiastic, long ovation; his playing has become focused, strong, and sure in the groove, but it always has been really. it just seems more confident now IMO...

2. Keith has given a lot of control if not all, of the band and the running of it to Mick. and it seems to me he has not focused his playing, and has chosen to coast on reputation. this is also apparent and has been commented on often, here.

3. Like Elmo says, despite all this they're still better than anyone else out there!
what can I say? I've loved them since 1965.

I think we all have our favorite period with the Stones . Fore me that is the Black and Blue and Some Girls period. Yes, with Ronnie! Although I consider BB, SF, Exile and LIB for sure historical master works. Same count for the tours,
76 / 78 and 81/82 are my favorites
I don;t care much for them anymore I realise these days since the SW tour/CD. Although I was very happy that time they were on the road again. I miss the dirty sound very much. Incl. Keith and Ronnie as back ground vocalists. I don't like Lisa as a back ground vocalist. And I don't like Chuck, although I appreciate his pushing for more rare songs, as an piano player. Also he makes the band sound less and less rock and roll.
The decline of Keith and Ronnie has been discussed and agreed upon here often. It is clearly that the Stones are not a guitar drived band anymore like they used to be.
The boring setlists, the terrible website and complete lack of opening the vaults makes my interest in today's RS 0.
ABB was a decent almum btw in my opinion, I liked a a lot better than SW, BTB and VL .
The highlights live were the club gigs in 95 and 2002/2003. They all are worth releasing in great sound quality!

much of the basic irrelevance of their "modern-day" work really comes from outside factors. They started as young, obsessed music fans who were in the right place and time to participate in a gigantic cultural movement. By the early '70s, rock music was waning as that kind of cultural force, and pretty much after Exile, the band was a career, no longer "a way of life." This was gradual, and there's a band feeling through the Some Girls era to Undercover, even if apparently mick and keith hadn't really been friends since the early '70s. The atmosphere around the Steel Wheels reunion may have reminded us of what the band was about, but the product certainly didn't reflect it. Sure, there are decent songs on the albums since '89, but I think rather than comparisons to the 60s & 70s hurting their appeal, it's the opposite--if they weren't the Stones, no one would be listening to these records at all. Certainly in 10 or 20 years, hardly anyone will, while the 60s material will live on.

I say this as someone who was also born after the days that mattered, not as someone pining for the old days.

cc:

I think that is a concise and fair summary of the band's career. Nicely put.

Personally I have no problem about newer work paling in comparison to the older golden days. If there only was some more newer work.
I'd rather see them fall flat on their face in a new live format if I felt they were trying to keep morphing, and changing up. Going stale and comfortable is the only criticism I have. One of the greatest strengths of the Stones has always been to re invent the songs for the live stage. That in a big way has contributed to certain warhorse becoming warhorses. I see so many passages or key ingredients of the performances getting gratuitous treatment. E.g the end part for YCAGWYW: nowadays we get something closer to the studio version. That means the BU vocals rise, rise, and Charlie's drums double up on the snare and crash. A gospel beat. But that whole change is supposed to be a pay-off, it evolves after a long build-up and then comes as a beautiful release. But we now get is as a rush-job, a jack-shack.
This whole argument about them being old now, and they should get some slack because of that doesn't cut it. Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen,Tom Waits even McCartney manage to keep plenty adventure in live shows, in the format, in the releases. And this is not by ignoring the warhorses. There is an in between.
Yeah it is a negative post, and presumptuous; just wish my band would not grow old gracefully. More disasters please.

Quote
AngieBlue
I'm a newbie too. Ok, not new just new to posting much of anything. And I've noticed what you mean. I happen to love "Voodoo Lounge" and play it as much as "Some Girls".
I've been a fan since 78 and the much maligned SNL appearance. I was only 10 years old. The AOR station in my hometown started playing alot of the albums at midnight. I taped them and that is how I had my first copies of any Stones LP.
"Dirty Work" is the one I care for as a whole the least. "Sleep Tonight", "One Hit to the Body" and "Harlem Shuffle" I think are great. The rest, well, not bad just not great.
"Steel Wheels" is a great little disc. I love the barely finished sound that disc has.
"Bridges to Babylon" is the weakest of the modern Stones era in my opinion. I never did like "Has Anybody Seen My Baby" or "Saint of Me". Whereas "Thief in the Night", "Lowdown" and "Might as Well Get Juiced" I have on the mp3 player and play all the time.
"A Bigger Bang" I think is a great disc, period. Some tracks are stronger than others, but that is true of every album they have ever recorded except "Sticky Fingers" if you ask me. But like everything else that is a matter of taste.

Like Keith once said of my generation...We've had the sun, the moon, the stars and the Rolling Stones...and I like it that way.><

I like your taste AngieBlue, agree with most all of it. I also like Bridges the least of the modern releases. "Has anybody seen my Baby" has grown on me a bit, despite a few of the lyrics that are a bit silly.

what I find maddening are the 'missed opportunities' and bizarre oversights. when the well runs a little dry (only 4 new studio cds in 20 years), you need to take care of your output far more than when you were generating lots of music. that frustration is amplified when you know the clock is ticking and see how they have squandered (ie- could have been a classic) simple stuff. 4 brief examples:

ABB-let's not take the time to craft intros, outros, solo breaks, dynamics, and heck, while we're at it, let's not put one of our greatest tracks in 35 years (UTR) on the main cd. with a few less tracks and some attention to songcraft, ABB should have been their most amazing cd since SG. only 4 of the songs seemed to have actually been 'arranged' and cared about.

40L-let's put 4 of our most amateurish recordings and lame songs nestled forever among some of the greatest rock and roll the world will ever know.

FP-let's take the showstopper/masterpiece of our 'comeback' tour (2000LYFH) and make sure it's not on the live cd documenting that tour.

SAL- let's make a film and not put ONE SINGLE song from our great new cd on it. heck, let's not put anything from the last 25 years of ours on it.

really, i'm not a naysayer. i really like, and can feel the potential of all of their '89-now output. it just seems that with an extra 1-5% of attention to detail, songcraft, song selection, production, that they could have had 3 truly classic cds and 3 medium cds instead of 4 hit-or-miss ones. And their live practice of 'killing their young', ignoring current material after its respective tour, further cheapens all of their post-'tattoo you' output. kids who came into the fold because of Mixed Emotions, LIS, OOC, SOM, Undercover, RFD, UTR, ASMB, etc. will rarely or never get the chance to hear what should have been new setlist regulars, because the stones have no faith in their post-'83 catalog, so why should we?. nevertheless, i always look forward to any new cd from them, because there's always going to be something special. i just wish we could get them or their producer to care even half as much as we do.

Winter you make some excellent points. Very well written as well. Good read!
And your right! But also the flip side of it is that this is current history for us fans, and like they have done a lot through their careers, is they don't give a f u c k. They just keep doing what they want and if you don't like it, they don't care much. I truly believe that when they are done as a band the corporation will start chugging out all the deluxe re-packaged stuff that will look great. Yeah it is frustrating. Good points.

Since 1989 the stones have put out four albums, each of them features some terrific tracks. VL might have been the weakest of the four, yet it has wonderful moments. If another band had put out B2B, SW or ABB this would have been considered as a fantastic album. As a live band the Stones were incredible until 1999, no band defined what a rock'n'roll show is like the Stones. In the nineties the Stones performed much better than in 75/76 and 81/82. The Stones were never a Vegas act. Unfortunately one has to say that the playing on the ABB got much worse, yet we have a rocking Rio show from that tour. In 2007 the guitarplaying was a nightmare, another Stones tour only makes sense if the guitarplaying will be much better than in 2007.

Stones is the Stones
and there is none better

not a day goes by where I dont listen to them , and i ALWAYS get my rocks off

Good post wind! Loved it!

Agree with whitem8.. Great post my windmelopy!
Only one thing: Was also Ronnie's playin' less good in 2007?
I havent percepted it that way!

Steel wheels is a touch sterile and Jagger over sings a bit trying to prove he still has energy, but if you cut vl, b2b or abb down to 10 songs you would have 5-star albums. A nice tell for me is when I play licks for my kids and the transition from the tired sappy fool to cry to the ragged and inspired Love is Strong says it all.

The Stones played an amazing show on Feb 1 2006 in Baltimore. I am sure whoever was there would say the same thing; awesome show!So "Modern-Day" stones are like Old- Day Stones in that some nights they are really great but not every night.
Rock and Roll,
Mops

Dear Mick

Hey Mick! Not trying to tell you what to do but maybe you should gather all of the Stones together in one room and discuss the future. Play Ya Ya's,Exile, Sticky Fingers and let it Bleed. Ask the members how the band can best duplicate this kind of energy and song writing and implement it to a new album. In my opinion the skill and craft that made all of these albums classics has gone by the way side. If you guy's are thinking of maybe one more tour, do it the old fashioned way. With a truely good album under your belt instead of one that has 2 or 3 decent songs. As much as I love you guy's, the music has become stale and the concerts too repetitious. My wife asked me the other night if I had any Stones albums or Dvd's that don't have Start me up on it. Rekindle that raucous,smoking amplifier type of music that I heard when I saw you guy's in 1972. Because of the economy I probably couldn't afford to go to one of the future tour shows anyway, I may be on unemployment by then. But if you were touring with a just released Exile type album I would spend all of my unemployment check and then some to get in. Beans and cornbread would be fine for a few weeks if I could just witness that thunder & lightning one more time.