Tell Me :
Talk
wow are you out of touch with reality?
the more I watch 'Live In Texas' and listening to Some Girls, Handsome Girls, I think you are right about this DP
and only 3/4 of that album is a clunker!
Yes. The Beatles had George Martin. The Stones didn't. But Out of Our Heads sure sounds good, except for the sound on The Last Time. A great song, but badly recorded.
Nonono...BTW, is Dancing With Mr. D...is that you, Mr. D/Mr. Douglas?
Mwa-ha-haaaaa!!!
[thepowergoats.com]
Count Floyd?!
50 percent clunkers tops
Sorry but that is not their commercial peak. Some Girls is their highest selling album, six times platinum just in the US. Their tours starting in 81 were the biggest of their careers and have been grossing far more than any tour they did between '68-72. So, while I think '68-'72 is one of their creative peaks, and yes they has more no. 1s, (Some Girls was a return to that glory), I can't aggree it was their commercial peak.
high praise indeed!
Eggzactly! Anyone that thinks there are better eras of the Stones doesn't know much about music, plain & simple. That was an amazing period, not just because of all the great tracks, and flawless albums, but what an unbelievably creative period of the Stones history there ... never before or after did they have songs like Honky Tonk Women, Sympathy For The Devil, Moonlight Mile, Sway, Can't You Hear Me Knocking ... or even tracks like Sister Morphine, Stray Cat Blues, No Expectations, Let It Loose ... wow, it was such an unbelievable set of albums in a row, there is no way they could ever repeat anything like that again, nor have they.
I love Some Girls and Tattoo You as much as anyone else but those tracks just can't compare to the ones from the big 4.
Well put, but the goldenera for me is 1962-2012! Love Doom and Gloom.
Rgds
Rod
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: February 14, 2013 17:04
Watch the T.A.M.I.-show from 1964, and say that the Stones wasn't already in their "golden era" again
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
bam
()
Date: February 14, 2013 17:34
I agree the Stones did their best work then, even though I love the earlier work and much of the later work. I agree that Miller and Taylor gave them a fresh burst of creativity. And I agree that drugs and growing older brought them down a notch or more after 1972.
But I think the biggest reason the Stones' golden era was 1968-72 is because the Stones caught the Zeitgeist. They fed on, embodied, and advanced the changes in the broader culture around them.
During much of the '60's the Beatles mattered. Bob Dylan mattered. What they were saying was of the moment and changed the views of millions (tens of millions, hundreds of millions?) of people.
The Stones rarely wrote in a political vein. But for those few years, they captured and expressed the spirit of the times. While there was still exuberance as well, the danger, and desperation of the end of the '60's was expressed in SFTD, GS, YCAGWYW and others. The quality of the music was superb, and everyone knew and cared about the music. The Stones mattered. Their albums mattered. In a way they didn't, before or since.
But I think the biggest reason the Stones' golden era was 1968-72 is because the Stones caught the Zeitgeist. They fed on, embodied, and advanced the changes in the broader culture around them.
During much of the '60's the Beatles mattered. Bob Dylan mattered. What they were saying was of the moment and changed the views of millions (tens of millions, hundreds of millions?) of people.
The Stones rarely wrote in a political vein. But for those few years, they captured and expressed the spirit of the times. While there was still exuberance as well, the danger, and desperation of the end of the '60's was expressed in SFTD, GS, YCAGWYW and others. The quality of the music was superb, and everyone knew and cared about the music. The Stones mattered. Their albums mattered. In a way they didn't, before or since.
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
More Hot Rocks
()
Date: February 14, 2013 17:38
Quote
Mathijs
In my opinion the golden era is '77 to '83, they truly were at their best both live and in the studio in my opinion.
Mathijs
wow are you out of touch with reality?
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
Slimharpo
()
Date: February 14, 2013 17:42
You had great albums like LIB, SF and Exile during that period. I don't think Beggars Banquet is all that good, but it does have three good songs.
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: February 14, 2013 17:44
They were clearly at their best as a live BAND in 1978, if you manage to see the whole picture, not just how good the guitar solos were, imo.
Charlie was better
+ Bill was better
+ Keith was better
+ and certainly Mick was better
---------------------------------
= The core of the band was better
Charlie was better
+ Bill was better
+ Keith was better
+ and certainly Mick was better
---------------------------------
= The core of the band was better
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: February 14, 2013 17:47
I wonder whether we'd have had such an amazing period, had it not been for the pressure they must have felt after 'flopping' sort of, with TSMR?
While I even like that album, it didn't do well for their reputation at the time, but I think drove them to greatness...the need to compete.
Interesting because most bands would have been creatively tapped out by that point, having put out so many albums in such a short period of time, a career's worth by today's standards.
Having said that, they were able to hit new peaks for several more albums, before the whole thing finally comes crashing down (creatively that is) with GHS.
While I even like that album, it didn't do well for their reputation at the time, but I think drove them to greatness...the need to compete.
Interesting because most bands would have been creatively tapped out by that point, having put out so many albums in such a short period of time, a career's worth by today's standards.
Having said that, they were able to hit new peaks for several more albums, before the whole thing finally comes crashing down (creatively that is) with GHS.
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
duke richardson
()
Date: February 14, 2013 17:56
Quote
DandelionPowderman
They were clearly at their best as a live BAND in 1978, if you manage to see the whole picture, not just how good the guitar solos were, imo.
Charlie was better
+ Bill was better
+ Keith was better
+ and certainly Mick was better
---------------------------------
= The core of the band was better
the more I watch 'Live In Texas' and listening to Some Girls, Handsome Girls, I think you are right about this DP
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
nomis
()
Date: February 14, 2013 18:28
I think the Golden Era is 68 to 78. The only clunker there is Love You Live.
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: February 14, 2013 18:29
Quote
nomis
I think the Golden Era is 68 to 78. The only clunker there is Love You Live.
and only 3/4 of that album is a clunker!
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
nomis
()
Date: February 14, 2013 18:37
Quote
buffalo7478
I do agree with Edward. Jimmy Miller in the studio and Taylor live definitely help the era. I have often wondered what the earlier stuff would have sounded like with a decent producer. The band may have been hot and raw and full of energy, but it didn't translate as well to vinyl.
I also think Taylor's playing elevated Keith's.
Yes. The Beatles had George Martin. The Stones didn't. But Out of Our Heads sure sounds good, except for the sound on The Last Time. A great song, but badly recorded.
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
jamesfdouglas
()
Date: February 14, 2013 18:48
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: February 14, 2013 18:51
Quote
jamesfdouglas
I've never considered 1968-1972 to be their golden era.
1968 to 1973 however...
Nonono...BTW, is Dancing With Mr. D...is that you, Mr. D/Mr. Douglas?
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
jamesfdouglas
()
Date: February 14, 2013 18:54
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
jamesfdouglas
I've never considered 1968-1972 to be their golden era.
1968 to 1973 however...
Nonono...BTW, is Dancing With Mr. D...is that you, Mr. D/Mr. Douglas?
Mwa-ha-haaaaa!!!
[thepowergoats.com]
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: February 14, 2013 19:13
Yeah, the grrrand old golden era, 1962-2013! It's all been golden! 50 years of golden!
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: February 14, 2013 19:31
Quote
jamesfdouglasQuote
treaclefingersQuote
jamesfdouglas
I've never considered 1968-1972 to be their golden era.
1968 to 1973 however...
Nonono...BTW, is Dancing With Mr. D...is that you, Mr. D/Mr. Douglas?
Mwa-ha-haaaaa!!!
Count Floyd?!
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: February 14, 2013 19:43
Maybe 68-72 is their commerical peak, and a certain rounding out of their sound to its zenith. But man, this is my favorite period, the earlier the better. Brian honking, Keith riffing, Stu barrelhousing, Bill thumping, Mick being cocksure, and Charlie 'Tick Tock' Watts keeping time. This music was their mission. I ain't gonna say they were on a mission from God, because, well....
[www.youtube.com]
[www.youtube.com]
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: February 14, 2013 19:44
Quote
24FPS
Maybe 68-72 is their commerical peak, and a certain rounding out of their sound to its zenith. But man, this is my favorite period, the earlier the better. Brian honking, Keith riffing, Stu barrelhousing, Bill thumping, Mick being cocksure, and Charlie 'Tick Tock' Watts keeping time. This music was their mission. I ain't gonna say they were on a mission from God, because, well....
And now, ladies and germs, the first side of Bright Lights, Big City:
[www.youtube.com]
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: February 14, 2013 21:19
What's wrong with FF, IORR, HS, IYCRM/GOOMC and SFTD???Quote
treaclefingersQuote
nomis
I think the Golden Era is 68 to 78. The only clunker there is Love You Live.
and only 3/4 of that album is a clunker!
50 percent clunkers tops
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: February 15, 2013 03:20
Quote
24FPS
Maybe 68-72 is their commerical peak, and a certain rounding out of their sound to its zenith. But man, this is my favorite period, the earlier the better. Brian honking, Keith riffing, Stu barrelhousing, Bill thumping, Mick being cocksure, and Charlie 'Tick Tock' Watts keeping time. This music was their mission. I ain't gonna say they were on a mission from God, because, well....
[www.youtube.com]
Sorry but that is not their commercial peak. Some Girls is their highest selling album, six times platinum just in the US. Their tours starting in 81 were the biggest of their careers and have been grossing far more than any tour they did between '68-72. So, while I think '68-'72 is one of their creative peaks, and yes they has more no. 1s, (Some Girls was a return to that glory), I can't aggree it was their commercial peak.
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: February 15, 2013 04:16
Quote
DandelionPowdermanWhat's wrong with FF, IORR, HS, IYCRM/GOOMC and SFTD???Quote
treaclefingersQuote
nomis
I think the Golden Era is 68 to 78. The only clunker there is Love You Live.
and only 3/4 of that album is a clunker!
50 percent clunkers tops
high praise indeed!
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: February 15, 2013 04:48
We all have our favorires but 1968-1972 is the best Rolling Stones there are roughly 50 studio tracks all of them worthwhile. The live music from 69-73 is a band at its peak plus the best live album ever. For that 5 year period there has never been a better rock band NEVER!!!
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: February 15, 2013 04:58
Quote
Bimmelzerbott
Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main Street.
Nuff said.
Eggzactly! Anyone that thinks there are better eras of the Stones doesn't know much about music, plain & simple. That was an amazing period, not just because of all the great tracks, and flawless albums, but what an unbelievably creative period of the Stones history there ... never before or after did they have songs like Honky Tonk Women, Sympathy For The Devil, Moonlight Mile, Sway, Can't You Hear Me Knocking ... or even tracks like Sister Morphine, Stray Cat Blues, No Expectations, Let It Loose ... wow, it was such an unbelievable set of albums in a row, there is no way they could ever repeat anything like that again, nor have they.
I love Some Girls and Tattoo You as much as anyone else but those tracks just can't compare to the ones from the big 4.
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
stonesrule
()
Date: February 15, 2013 05:02
I've been buying Stones records and seeing them in concert from 1966 through the years to the present.
At the top of this page, BAM said it all. Couldn't agree more.
At the top of this page, BAM said it all. Couldn't agree more.
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
DoomandGloom
()
Date: February 15, 2013 06:24
This thread is all about age and generations. My wife is younger and all she wants to hear is Goats Head, Some Girls and Tattoo. I love the Miller/Taylor era as that was my dream band as a kid, when I'd see them in the later 70's I missed Taylor in the way I miss Duane Allman in the ABB. Some people like the early stuff but I prefer the early Beatles and feel the quality of many of the early Andrew records inferior to the fabs. Beggars, Bleed, Ya Ya's, Sticky, Exile, IORR, Goat's, Some Girls, Brussels.. That's what I listen to, oh yes Love You Live since it is a perfect representation of the post Taylor band where Ronnie still had his Faces style.
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
howled
()
Date: February 15, 2013 06:53
1963-1968
The Stones experiment with Blues covers and other songs (some 50s R&R) and then the Stones start chasing the trends set by the Beatles as did a lot of bands because in the 60s a band really had no choice but to do Beatles like things or fall by the pop wayside and the Stones were a pop driven hits band that were trying for hits with the Jagger/Richards songs.
1968-1972
It's the back end of the psychedelic era and the Stones go back to more Blues based things and stop trying to chase the Beatles trends so much and the Stones start to incorporate Country elements and there were quite a few bands incorporating Country elements into the Rock mainstream.
The Beatles also stop following psychedelic "Walrus" trends and get more down to basics as well with things like Helter Skelter, Birthday, Back in the USSR, Get Back etc etc.
1973-1977
A few good hits and not that much else.
A pretty Country style Angie ballad and IORR.
1977
The peak of the Blues/Country Rock thing is basically over and Disco, Punk and New Wave is what is going to dominate.
The Stones start chasing "current at the time" pop hit trends again with Disco and semi-Punk songs this time.
The Stones were not a real Disco band or a real Punk band but some sort of pale imitation.
1978-????
I don't know because I lost interest in the Stones after hearing them do Disco and I didn't think Ronnie Wood added much of anything either.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-15 06:58 by howled.
The Stones experiment with Blues covers and other songs (some 50s R&R) and then the Stones start chasing the trends set by the Beatles as did a lot of bands because in the 60s a band really had no choice but to do Beatles like things or fall by the pop wayside and the Stones were a pop driven hits band that were trying for hits with the Jagger/Richards songs.
1968-1972
It's the back end of the psychedelic era and the Stones go back to more Blues based things and stop trying to chase the Beatles trends so much and the Stones start to incorporate Country elements and there were quite a few bands incorporating Country elements into the Rock mainstream.
The Beatles also stop following psychedelic "Walrus" trends and get more down to basics as well with things like Helter Skelter, Birthday, Back in the USSR, Get Back etc etc.
1973-1977
A few good hits and not that much else.
A pretty Country style Angie ballad and IORR.
1977
The peak of the Blues/Country Rock thing is basically over and Disco, Punk and New Wave is what is going to dominate.
The Stones start chasing "current at the time" pop hit trends again with Disco and semi-Punk songs this time.
The Stones were not a real Disco band or a real Punk band but some sort of pale imitation.
1978-????
I don't know because I lost interest in the Stones after hearing them do Disco and I didn't think Ronnie Wood added much of anything either.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-15 06:58 by howled.
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: February 15, 2013 08:15
The reason 68-72 is considered their "golden era" is because those songs fit so well in the "classic rock" radio format with all the 70s rock that followed those years.
Beginning in 1968, their post-psychedelic music is when they first transcended the more dated trends and sounds of the 60s, when they became renowned as an album band rather than as a singles band. It is the year that begins their mature period, when they crafted their own unique sound, style, and identity and moved beyond mere 60s pop songs.
After 1972, they began, little by little, to follow trends again, rather than define them. In 1973, for instance, Jagger adopts the style and look of "Glam Rock", whereas in those glory years of 68-72 Jagger was define rock's look and style.
Beginning in 1968, their post-psychedelic music is when they first transcended the more dated trends and sounds of the 60s, when they became renowned as an album band rather than as a singles band. It is the year that begins their mature period, when they crafted their own unique sound, style, and identity and moved beyond mere 60s pop songs.
After 1972, they began, little by little, to follow trends again, rather than define them. In 1973, for instance, Jagger adopts the style and look of "Glam Rock", whereas in those glory years of 68-72 Jagger was define rock's look and style.
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
mikeeder
()
Date: February 15, 2013 08:25
Again I love the music from 1968-78, especally the "big four", but I happen to like all that came before better. I like seventies music, but my big love is fifties and sixties.
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: February 15, 2013 08:32
Me neither since The Golden Rolling Stones Era is the time between 1963 - 1965...
2 1 2 0
2 1 2 0
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: February 15, 2013 08:54
Maybe because of this:
1968 - Beggars Banquet.
1969 - Let it Bleed and US Tour.
1970 - Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out and European Tour.
1971 - Sticky Fingers and UK Tour.
1972 - Exile on Main Street and US Tour.
Four classic studio albums, one great live album and four successful tours in five years time. Those were the days...
1968 - Beggars Banquet.
1969 - Let it Bleed and US Tour.
1970 - Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out and European Tour.
1971 - Sticky Fingers and UK Tour.
1972 - Exile on Main Street and US Tour.
Four classic studio albums, one great live album and four successful tours in five years time. Those were the days...
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
bitusa2012
()
Date: February 15, 2013 10:09
Quote
carlostones10
The old era is 1962-2009. I just love the Stones. They are my life!
Well put, but the goldenera for me is 1962-2012! Love Doom and Gloom.
Rgds
Rod
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Barkerboy2 , CaptainAcid , Chitown23 , crawdaddy , daspyknows , jason8903 , Jfk19562003 , keefmick , kstones79 , Kuntaman , letitloose6 , micha063 , MisterDDDD , Nosnibourbos , O2 , Peterh , Putty , Racca1962 , syrel , The Sicilian , TW2019 , voodoodrew , WarMachine , WillInUK
Guests:
1724
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10