Tell Me :
Talk
Doxa, posts like this remind me why you are IMO one of great posters and minds on the forum.
Oh c'mon, Doxa. There are parts of BB, LIB, Sticky Fingers, and certainly Exile that DO WRONG. Much of these albums, especially LIB, SF and Exile, is basically a good dose of Americana-inspired guitar rock, nothing more. There's not much in the way of experimentation. The texturing and arrangement is bare-bones simple, using a brass section and some back-up singers to spice things up. Much of the songs from this period, I believe, are also pretty bored and uninspired. I'll take the adveturous, tight-sounding pop of Think over the drugged-up, belching, keeled-over-the-toilet feel of Shine A Light any day! Don't get me wrong. I like much of the supposed Golden Era albums and, with a little Jack Daniels in the bloodstream, Exile is brilliant. But this notion that the Stones came of age in 1968 is pure horse dung. They came of age in 1963 when they took on the Beatles and the world, forever changing the landscape of rock music with their blues-inspired sound.
Well, I think the way you describe the efforts made in these albums is what's the Stones are good for. They never be any Beatles or Simon&Garfunkel in making catchy pop tunes nor they never be any Pink Floyd either. Basically they were a hot rhythm'n'blues group based on English take on American black music. I really love the 'pop-era' Stones (66-67), the guys trying to find their way through the days of experimentation and swinging sixties, but I think the idea of "going back to roots" in 1968 (they did it two ways: back to the blues & back to 'Satisfaction') really defined the band as an entity of its own, and settled their status as the "greatest rock&roll band of the world" (I have always thought that there is some very conservative or non-progressive, a sort of 'not trying to be anything more than an extended Chuck Berry three-chord creature' element in that label - the same philosophy as expressed in lyrics of "It's Only Rock&Roll"). True, the wildest idealism and trial and error was left behind, but I think their new 'stoic' attitude towards the form and the substance, was a step of maturation. But I can also see why some people might find that 'boring' or 'uninspired' - I take that as finding their own voice.
But I think that is also one of the reasons of their creative downhill in the seventies. They were already mastered the receipt by EXILE, so it was quite natural that they were running out of ideas. How can one make a better a 'pure' rock album than EXILE? How can one develop from that taken that sort of style?
- Doxa
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-01 18:05 by Doxa.
They couldn't. No possible more than an under-age child can jump from baby-garden into a full-right citizen. That's it what I call 'maturation'. I think the years from Dartford railway station and Elmo Jones, via "Come On" and ""The Last Time" and "Sing This Altogether" were all needed to "Jumping Jack Flash" and BEGGARS BANQUET to happen. The feature I find in golden era, especially starting with BEGGARS is their self-security - they believe on what they do, and they know what they do; being very focused - sounding like being control of their music. I don't find that element very much in the three prior albums. I think to have that kind of feeling one needs to have already taken few scars.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-01 18:28 by Doxa.
No point but it is fun!
- Doxa
They can hardly be said to have "come of age" in 1963 when they had not yet written any original songs. They can also hardly be said to have "took on the Beatles" when they needed the Beatles to write their first hit for them.
They came of age in 1963 because they introduced a new sound. It didn't matter much at the time that they hadn't written their own songs yet. What was more important was their swagger, charisma, and blues-derived sound which would help influence an entire generation of rock musicians from the Who to Jimi Hendrix. Yes, the Beatles tossed the Stones one of their songs. But the Stones turned that into their first major hit, transforming the song entirely with Brian's electrifying slide guitar and setting the stage for their great rivalry with the Beatles, one which would define the modern rock era. My point throughout all this is that the pre-1968 era receives very little credit and fanfare, and this is entirely unjustified. How do you think the Stones got to 1968 in the first place? They got there with some of the most legendary hits in rock history and a canon of material that was as revolutionary and significant as the Beatles and Dylan. There was no maturation here. The Stones were mature beyond their years as early as 1963!
I think you are absolutely right: The phase you describe is the era The Stones were most relevant and significant ever - in fact, those years are the ones that wrote them into history, and still to be remembered most when the history of modern culture is written. And yes: their most well-known song derives from there too. (And sometimes when I am really in the mood, I would say American version of OUT OF OUR HEADS - their only #1 album in US in the 60's, by the way! - might be the essential Rolling Stones album: it is the most energetic, rawest, wildest and vital they probably ever had done (and what the Stones essentially are but of those factors?)
But I think that as an artistic entity of their own - if we just listen to their music - they reached their peak in the so called golden era. For example, when they released their probably best album ever, EXILE ON MAIN STREET, they already were a sort of granddaddies of British rock - funny as that is: their days of TRUE relevance and impact were gone (and still, I think to most of the people even today they are just that "anti-Beatles" with a big-lipped singer)
And as far as their sound is concerned, I think you are spot on when you say they were already matured in 1963 - what makes the band unique is THAT sound: how they work together. That was also the base on where Mick and Keith later build their musical world. I think those two forces 'clicked' in the golden era: the band and the material they play.
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-02 11:41 by Doxa.
I have a big heart!
- Doxa
That's right, Doxa. Fact is, IF the Stones had hung it up for good in late 1967 never to play together again, they would still be considered the #2 greatest band in rock history (yes,everyone, most pundits today consider the Beatles #1). Their pre-1968 material is what catapulted the Stones to that lofty pedestal in the first place and solidified their legendary status. Their subsequent material, even the 1968-1972 era, did not move them in either way from the #2 spot and was only cherry on the top.
The Beatles and Stones fed off eachother. It wasn't just the Stones copying the Beatles . . .
Guitar - modify this to: 1963 - 1973
that 73 Brussels live is as "untouchable" as you can get - Live
MLC
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:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: August 1, 2009 15:19
Quote
Doxa
Because...
(a) Mick and Keith were in peak of their creativity - in 1968 they found their own voice how to write, and in the four following studio albums (plus the singles) are full of masterful rock tunes. For example, the sequence of "Jumpin' Jack Flash", "Honky Tonk Women" and "Brown Sugar" is perhaps the strongest three singles ever released. And they are just icing the cake... (the actual signature masterpieces of the era are buried on the albums: "Sympathy", "Gimme Shelter"...)
(b) Because all those FIVE albums (don't dare to forget YA-YA's!) are dated very well; each of them is an universal masterpiece, and to be listened in its own terms without any "excuses", no matter "capturing the climate" or anything. Plus each of them is unique and having an identity of its own. As where as prior BEGGARS albums, no matter they being more "raw" or "adventurous", are very much albums of their date - and having ideas and songs that have not dated so well, especially the ones Mick and Keith were desperately trying to follow the trends (AFTERMATH, BUTTONS, SATANIC MAJESTIES). They are "interesting" and inspired but not always hit the mark. But from BEGGARS to EXILE, like said here, they just couldn't do wrong.
(c) It looks like the classical rock period culminated in the late-60's and early 70's - the whole progression from the 50's through the Beatlemania, Dylan, the recognition of the blues - and black music over-all, hippies, etc. The whole 'scene' was matured by then - thanks to pros like Jimi Hendric, Zeppelin etc. the quality of music, and especially how to present that, was in another level, and The Stones reflected the times very well - the whole genre and generation that once was inspired by Elvis and Chuck Berry was on peak.
(d) The Stones - like many of their 60's contemporaries - lost the momentum in the seventies thanks to drugs, money, age, lazyness, the emergency of new acts, etc - which was natural, and even though they did dome great albums (read: SOME GIRLS and rest of the Marconi sessions) they never reached the natural height in creativitywise again. It's been "best since EXILE" ever since. By the 80s's the band had cemented its sound, and they seem to rest on their musical canon created during the 'golden era'. But it is creativitywise always the relation of a copy to an original, and somehow the original always wins the comparison. The magic of, say, "Jumping Jack Flash" or "Brown Sugar" or "Street Fighting Man" can never to be repeated.
(e) As a live act, I think the golden era needs to be extended further - perhaps even to 1982. Once hitting the road again in 1969, they evolved and changed interestingly through the following twelve years; the change of the guitarist just kept it more fresh, and gave them another kick.
- Doxa
Doxa, posts like this remind me why you are IMO one of great posters and minds on the forum.
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: August 1, 2009 16:15
To add to Doxa's comments which are right on. We also have to remember that the Stones are human and started to develop other interests away from the band. Mick after meeting Bianca has never been the same he became a "celebrity as well as a rock star and has hung with the "jetset" ever since. Prior to 1972 I think the band was everyone's sould interest its only human to develop other interests in life. Keith's drug problem sapped some of his creativity after Exile and he's never really recovered from it save for a few flashes of brilliance. The Stones have always appeared to be trapped by how good they were at that time and try to come up with the best album since Exile by trying to sound that way I've even heard Mick say this on a few occasions, "I think its the best since we'vedone since the early 70's. They became jaded rock stars, less hungry. if we had their kind of wealth and fame we'd probably be lazy too.
All that being said their 74-83 period is still better than most other bands that is how good they are/were and we take it for granted. Sadly they won't be around much longer and we won't see their like again.
All that being said their 74-83 period is still better than most other bands that is how good they are/were and we take it for granted. Sadly they won't be around much longer and we won't see their like again.
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: August 1, 2009 16:39
I still see them at wanting to put out good, even great albums. IMO they are just going at it the wrong way. Yes-men as producer, Leavell with too much say-so, not singing together, and not including Ronnie in the early process.
But they Stones have always been superb under pressure, with their back against the wall. "Some Girls" was a major statement at a time when they need to make one; with Punk, and Keith in legal trouble.
"Tattoo You" started off the 80's, and kind of made up for ER.
And after the big comeback in 89 (where the tour, not the album was the real hero) they delivered in a big way: Jagger doing his best solo album. Keith putting the Winos together and releasing 2 hot albums, and Ron Wood doing "Slide on This", plus his own (for him) professional tour. Even Charlie was alight. "Voodoo Lounge" caps it off.
"Stripped" is in many ways one of the strongest post 89 albums because it is charming.
"Babylon" to me is the best since 89. What B2B had over SW and VL is that right away it offered three legitimate powerhouses for the stage-show: Flip the Switch was part of thew opening salvo, and Saint of me, and Out of Control could be called the centerpieces of that tour.
And I just listened to ABb today; something I don't do near enough. Everytime I do this, I am reminded how good it actually is. IMO it is weighed down by a few clunkers. "Neocon" and both Keith tunes are weak to me.
But they Stones have always been superb under pressure, with their back against the wall. "Some Girls" was a major statement at a time when they need to make one; with Punk, and Keith in legal trouble.
"Tattoo You" started off the 80's, and kind of made up for ER.
And after the big comeback in 89 (where the tour, not the album was the real hero) they delivered in a big way: Jagger doing his best solo album. Keith putting the Winos together and releasing 2 hot albums, and Ron Wood doing "Slide on This", plus his own (for him) professional tour. Even Charlie was alight. "Voodoo Lounge" caps it off.
"Stripped" is in many ways one of the strongest post 89 albums because it is charming.
"Babylon" to me is the best since 89. What B2B had over SW and VL is that right away it offered three legitimate powerhouses for the stage-show: Flip the Switch was part of thew opening salvo, and Saint of me, and Out of Control could be called the centerpieces of that tour.
And I just listened to ABb today; something I don't do near enough. Everytime I do this, I am reminded how good it actually is. IMO it is weighed down by a few clunkers. "Neocon" and both Keith tunes are weak to me.
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: August 1, 2009 16:47
There is another way to see why this really can be called as a 'golden era': this is to check out the status of the following songs within the history of their set lists:
"Jumpin' Jack Flash"
"Sympathy For The Devil"
"Street Fighting Man"
"Honky Tonk Women"
"Gimme Shelter"
"You Can't Always Get What You Want"
"Live With Me"
"Midnight Rambler"
"Monkey Man"
"Brown Sugar"
"Bitch"
"Wild Horses"
"Tumblin' Dice"
"Happy"
"All Down The Line"
None any "obscurity", but each more or less a "war horse". To summarize, they just about define the live presence of the Rolling Stones. There are not many songs, expect "Satisfaction", "Paint It Black", "Ruby Tuesday", "Angie", "It's Only Rock'n'Roll", "Miss You" and Start Me Up" to add anything substantial. Seemingly, by looking their set lists alone, the Stones themselves believe that the the bulk of their stuff derives from this particular era (and seemingly, 1968-69 is especially the source of their most memorable and popular live material - that laid the foundation for the band from 1969 on)
I think Gazza might have some interesting statistics to back up this claim?
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-01 16:48 by Doxa.
"Jumpin' Jack Flash"
"Sympathy For The Devil"
"Street Fighting Man"
"Honky Tonk Women"
"Gimme Shelter"
"You Can't Always Get What You Want"
"Live With Me"
"Midnight Rambler"
"Monkey Man"
"Brown Sugar"
"Bitch"
"Wild Horses"
"Tumblin' Dice"
"Happy"
"All Down The Line"
None any "obscurity", but each more or less a "war horse". To summarize, they just about define the live presence of the Rolling Stones. There are not many songs, expect "Satisfaction", "Paint It Black", "Ruby Tuesday", "Angie", "It's Only Rock'n'Roll", "Miss You" and Start Me Up" to add anything substantial. Seemingly, by looking their set lists alone, the Stones themselves believe that the the bulk of their stuff derives from this particular era (and seemingly, 1968-69 is especially the source of their most memorable and popular live material - that laid the foundation for the band from 1969 on)
I think Gazza might have some interesting statistics to back up this claim?
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-01 16:48 by Doxa.
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
neptune
()
Date: August 1, 2009 16:54
Quote
Doxa
Because...
(a) Mick and Keith were in peak of their creativity - in 1968 they found their own voice how to write, and in the four following studio albums (plus the singles) are full of masterful rock tunes . . .
(b) Because all those FIVE albums (don't dare to forget YA-YA's!) are dated very well; each of them is an universal masterpiece, and to be listened in its own terms without any "excuses", no matter "capturing the climate" or anything. Plus each of them is unique and having an identity of its own. As where as prior BEGGARS albums, no matter they being more "raw" or "adventurous", are very much albums of their date - and having ideas and songs that have not dated so well, especially the ones Mick and Keith were desperately trying to follow the trends (AFTERMATH, BUTTONS, SATANIC MAJESTIES). They are "interesting" and inspired but not always hit the mark. But from BEGGARS to EXILE, like said here, they just couldn't do wrong.
Oh c'mon, Doxa. There are parts of BB, LIB, Sticky Fingers, and certainly Exile that DO WRONG. Much of these albums, especially LIB, SF and Exile, is basically a good dose of Americana-inspired guitar rock, nothing more. There's not much in the way of experimentation. The texturing and arrangement is bare-bones simple, using a brass section and some back-up singers to spice things up. Much of the songs from this period, I believe, are also pretty bored and uninspired. I'll take the adveturous, tight-sounding pop of Think over the drugged-up, belching, keeled-over-the-toilet feel of Shine A Light any day! Don't get me wrong. I like much of the supposed Golden Era albums and, with a little Jack Daniels in the bloodstream, Exile is brilliant. But this notion that the Stones came of age in 1968 is pure horse dung. They came of age in 1963 when they took on the Beatles and the world, forever changing the landscape of rock music with their blues-inspired sound.
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: August 1, 2009 17:41
Quote
neptune
Oh c'mon, Doxa. There are parts of BB, LIB, Sticky Fingers, and certainly Exile that DO WRONG. Much of these albums, especially LIB, SF and Exile, is basically a good dose of Americana-inspired guitar rock, nothing more. There's not much in the way of experimentation. The texturing and arrangement is bare-bones simple, using a brass section and some back-up singers to spice things up.
Well, I think the way you describe the efforts made in these albums is what's the Stones are good for. They never be any Beatles or Simon&Garfunkel in making catchy pop tunes nor they never be any Pink Floyd either. Basically they were a hot rhythm'n'blues group based on English take on American black music. I really love the 'pop-era' Stones (66-67), the guys trying to find their way through the days of experimentation and swinging sixties, but I think the idea of "going back to roots" in 1968 (they did it two ways: back to the blues & back to 'Satisfaction') really defined the band as an entity of its own, and settled their status as the "greatest rock&roll band of the world" (I have always thought that there is some very conservative or non-progressive, a sort of 'not trying to be anything more than an extended Chuck Berry three-chord creature' element in that label - the same philosophy as expressed in lyrics of "It's Only Rock&Roll"). True, the wildest idealism and trial and error was left behind, but I think their new 'stoic' attitude towards the form and the substance, was a step of maturation. But I can also see why some people might find that 'boring' or 'uninspired' - I take that as finding their own voice.
But I think that is also one of the reasons of their creative downhill in the seventies. They were already mastered the receipt by EXILE, so it was quite natural that they were running out of ideas. How can one make a better a 'pure' rock album than EXILE? How can one develop from that taken that sort of style?
- Doxa
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-01 18:05 by Doxa.
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: August 1, 2009 18:07
It's interesting to me that one of their most dated albums is also one of the freshest sounding. Their Satanic Majesties Request continues to amaze and puzzle me in equal measure. >
<
If the golden period is their true voice(I don't think it is, it's just another phase in their ever changing sound), I'm glad they supposedly didn't find it till 1968.
No point arguing about this stuff though, it's really all down to what you like and what you don't like.
<If the golden period is their true voice(I don't think it is, it's just another phase in their ever changing sound), I'm glad they supposedly didn't find it till 1968.
No point arguing about this stuff though, it's really all down to what you like and what you don't like.
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: August 1, 2009 18:25
Quote
His Majesty
If the golden period is their true voice(I don't think it is, it's just another phase in their ever changing sound), I'm glad they supposedly didn't find it till 1968.
They couldn't. No possible more than an under-age child can jump from baby-garden into a full-right citizen. That's it what I call 'maturation'. I think the years from Dartford railway station and Elmo Jones, via "Come On" and ""The Last Time" and "Sing This Altogether" were all needed to "Jumping Jack Flash" and BEGGARS BANQUET to happen. The feature I find in golden era, especially starting with BEGGARS is their self-security - they believe on what they do, and they know what they do; being very focused - sounding like being control of their music. I don't find that element very much in the three prior albums. I think to have that kind of feeling one needs to have already taken few scars.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-01 18:28 by Doxa.
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: August 1, 2009 18:37
Quote
His Majesty
No point arguing about this stuff though, it's really all down to what you like and what you don't like.
No point but it is fun!
- Doxa
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
tatters
()
Date: August 1, 2009 21:26
Quote
neptune
But this notion that the Stones came of age in 1968 is pure horse dung. They came of age in 1963 when they took on the Beatles and the world, forever changing the landscape of rock music with their blues-inspired sound.
They can hardly be said to have "come of age" in 1963 when they had not yet written any original songs. They can also hardly be said to have "took on the Beatles" when they needed the Beatles to write their first hit for them.
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: August 1, 2009 21:36
Doxa's observations are pretty much dead right (as always), and i for one would never question the fact that in the 68-72 period they were most definitely in their prime, yet that doesn't stop me from believing their pre - 68 period has been grossly, and unfairly overlooked, especially with reference to fans perceptions of that early period. I put this perhaps down to a lack of musical sophistication who's introduction really co-incided with the appointment of Jimmy Miller as producer (as well as Mick Taylor's contributions, especially live)
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
buffalo7478
()
Date: August 2, 2009 00:01
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.
I also think Taylor's playing elevated Keith's.
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
ryanpow
()
Date: August 2, 2009 00:09
I would say up thru 81 is the golden era but the real high water mark is 68- 72 because those were by far the best albums they had ever made. I think that's what it comes down to. Beggars thru Exile are among the best that anyone's ever done.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-02 00:10 by ryanpow.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-02 00:10 by ryanpow.
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
neptune
()
Date: August 2, 2009 02:02
Quote
tatters
They can hardly be said to have "come of age" in 1963 when they had not yet written any original songs. They can also hardly be said to have "took on the Beatles" when they needed the Beatles to write their first hit for them.
They came of age in 1963 because they introduced a new sound. It didn't matter much at the time that they hadn't written their own songs yet. What was more important was their swagger, charisma, and blues-derived sound which would help influence an entire generation of rock musicians from the Who to Jimi Hendrix. Yes, the Beatles tossed the Stones one of their songs. But the Stones turned that into their first major hit, transforming the song entirely with Brian's electrifying slide guitar and setting the stage for their great rivalry with the Beatles, one which would define the modern rock era. My point throughout all this is that the pre-1968 era receives very little credit and fanfare, and this is entirely unjustified. How do you think the Stones got to 1968 in the first place? They got there with some of the most legendary hits in rock history and a canon of material that was as revolutionary and significant as the Beatles and Dylan. There was no maturation here. The Stones were mature beyond their years as early as 1963!
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
JK
()
Date: August 2, 2009 02:15
Whatever the "golden era" is albums like Steel Wheels, Voodoo Lounge, Birdges To Babylon and A Bigger Bang beat the s**t out of most rock albums on the same era.
For me personally the "golden era" is 75- which is the time I have been a fan.
Listening to Black and Blue for the first time... and especially the years since 82 when I have had the luck to see them live.
And yes, I want anoter tour!!!
For me personally the "golden era" is 75- which is the time I have been a fan.
Listening to Black and Blue for the first time... and especially the years since 82 when I have had the luck to see them live.
And yes, I want anoter tour!!!
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
JK
()
Date: August 2, 2009 02:23
One more comment about the "golden era" 68-72: producer Jimmy Miller.
Ok..another one: ยด73 the were great live and released a very underrated masterpiece
GHS.
Ok..another one: ยด73 the were great live and released a very underrated masterpiece
GHS.
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
stonesrule
()
Date: August 2, 2009 02:54
Has anyone mentioned that "Satisfaction," one of THE great rock anthems, was written in 1965?
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
rooster
()
Date: August 2, 2009 10:47
Well I like the old stuff so much....but im so young!!Quote
Elmo
I guess it depends on your age and when you started with the Stones. The older you are the more you might dig the earlier stuff more than the more recent offerings.
I started in 1964 with Not Fade Away and for me from that time to the end of the Mick Taylor era is the best. However, I know that others will disagree, which is fine.....
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: August 2, 2009 11:33
Quote
neptune
They came of age in 1963 because they introduced a new sound. It didn't matter much at the time that they hadn't written their own songs yet. What was more important was their swagger, charisma, and blues-derived sound which would help influence an entire generation of rock musicians from the Who to Jimi Hendrix. Yes, the Beatles tossed the Stones one of their songs. But the Stones turned that into their first major hit, transforming the song entirely with Brian's electrifying slide guitar and setting the stage for their great rivalry with the Beatles, one which would define the modern rock era. My point throughout all this is that the pre-1968 era receives very little credit and fanfare, and this is entirely unjustified. How do you think the Stones got to 1968 in the first place? They got there with some of the most legendary hits in rock history and a canon of material that was as revolutionary and significant as the Beatles and Dylan. There was no maturation here. The Stones were mature beyond their years as early as 1963!
I think you are absolutely right: The phase you describe is the era The Stones were most relevant and significant ever - in fact, those years are the ones that wrote them into history, and still to be remembered most when the history of modern culture is written. And yes: their most well-known song derives from there too. (And sometimes when I am really in the mood, I would say American version of OUT OF OUR HEADS - their only #1 album in US in the 60's, by the way! - might be the essential Rolling Stones album: it is the most energetic, rawest, wildest and vital they probably ever had done (and what the Stones essentially are but of those factors?)
But I think that as an artistic entity of their own - if we just listen to their music - they reached their peak in the so called golden era. For example, when they released their probably best album ever, EXILE ON MAIN STREET, they already were a sort of granddaddies of British rock - funny as that is: their days of TRUE relevance and impact were gone (and still, I think to most of the people even today they are just that "anti-Beatles" with a big-lipped singer)
And as far as their sound is concerned, I think you are spot on when you say they were already matured in 1963 - what makes the band unique is THAT sound: how they work together. That was also the base on where Mick and Keith later build their musical world. I think those two forces 'clicked' in the golden era: the band and the material they play.
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-02 11:41 by Doxa.
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: August 2, 2009 13:22
"the change of the guitarist just kept it more fresh, and gave them another kick."
Are you OK?
Are you OK?
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: August 2, 2009 13:26
Quote
Amsterdamned
"the change of the guitarist just kept it more fresh, and gave them another kick."
Are you OK?
I have a big heart!
- Doxa
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: August 2, 2009 13:44
I do think 68-72 is the Golden Era, because they hit their peak; the top of the game. But I do believe that the early years are criminally overlooked here at IORR. Early period itself can be subdivided; with the very first hard Blues stage, adding the soul sound, then comes the pop-band of Aftermath, when IMO they came the closest to the Beatles, and then the British psychedelia of Buttons and Satanic.
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: August 2, 2009 18:05
It is pointless to argue this - Doxa and Neptune both have a valid argument. I do wish the band if they ever play live again would play some mor of the early stuff. I don't discount 62-67 it is wondeful music. I would agree with Doxa though that the band was more focused and knew exactly what they wanted to do and did not follow what The Beatles were doing any longer. 1968 is when they became the greatest RNR ban in the World!
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
neptune
()
Date: August 2, 2009 18:57
Quote
Doxa
I think you are absolutely right: The phase you describe is the era The Stones were most relevant and significant ever - in fact, those years are the ones that wrote them into history, and still to be remembered most when the history of modern culture is written. And yes: their most well-known song derives from there too.
That's right, Doxa. Fact is, IF the Stones had hung it up for good in late 1967 never to play together again, they would still be considered the #2 greatest band in rock history (yes,everyone, most pundits today consider the Beatles #1). Their pre-1968 material is what catapulted the Stones to that lofty pedestal in the first place and solidified their legendary status. Their subsequent material, even the 1968-1972 era, did not move them in either way from the #2 spot and was only cherry on the top.
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: August 2, 2009 19:25
x
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-02 22:00 by His Majesty.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-08-02 22:00 by His Majesty.
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
Havo
()
Date: August 2, 2009 22:05
Thanks for your post---maybe its the answer of our age. Well I am 56 --so 63-68 were their golden "era"---for me.
By the way--for me the Rolling stones are sure the no. 1 Band til now. from their first Album back in 64 til Shine a light (2008)
under the boardwalk---down by the sea
By the way--for me the Rolling stones are sure the no. 1 Band til now. from their first Album back in 64 til Shine a light (2008)
under the boardwalk---down by the sea
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
neptune
()
Date: August 3, 2009 00:39
Quote
slew
I would agree with Doxa though that the band was more focused and knew exactly what they wanted to do and did not follow what The Beatles were doing any longer.
The Beatles and Stones fed off eachother. It wasn't just the Stones copying the Beatles . . .
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
mikeeder
()
Date: February 14, 2013 12:46
Well I like the records of the early period. Brian is a one of a kind to me. Someone who really broke the mold as far as what he brought to the table. Actually I think the whole group was better before they took on the role of "outlaws" so to speak.
I like the 1968-72 records a lot, but I like the band through "We Love You" best. "Satanic" is half great, and I would say Jumping Jack Flash/Child Of The Moon is the last one I consider perfect. I love the UK lineups, think Aftermath and the debut are the best, and like that nothing feels like a pose.
Again I still think they were wonderful through 1978, but that original sound they had does so much more for me because I find it more varied and sincere. I am 36 and became a fan in 1988 if that means anything.
I like the 1968-72 records a lot, but I like the band through "We Love You" best. "Satanic" is half great, and I would say Jumping Jack Flash/Child Of The Moon is the last one I consider perfect. I love the UK lineups, think Aftermath and the debut are the best, and like that nothing feels like a pose.
Again I still think they were wonderful through 1978, but that original sound they had does so much more for me because I find it more varied and sincere. I am 36 and became a fan in 1988 if that means anything.
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
JumpinJackOLantern
()
Date: February 14, 2013 16:12
Yeah, somebody writes an article about how great a particular era or album is and before long it's cast in stone that it out excels all others. Silly isn't it. Satanic is a masterpiece, yet even the Stones have bought into the false notion that it was a bomb. Their performance on Circus was raw, but powerful, yet it took them years to release it. Mick never thought much of Exile, yet today, it's considered a classic. The bottom line in all this is that there are far more sheep than shepherds.
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
MCDDTLC
()
Date: February 14, 2013 16:54
Quote
guitarbastard
someone posted it on another thread in simlar words:
1963-1972 best band ever. untouchable.
1973 -1983 very good band
1984 - 2009 good and still better then most of the other crap...
Guitar - modify this to: 1963 - 1973
that 73 Brussels live is as "untouchable" as you can get - Live
MLC
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
1963luca0 , arc-angel , Asgard60 , Doxa , grzegorz67 , liddas , NeddieFlanders , PaintMonkeyManBlack , spiderman , wiredallnight , witterings
Guests:
1602
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10