Tell Me :
Talk
The "evidence" is nothing but your opinion
Kicking off with Hot Stuff seriously damages that album imo.
Other than factual things like 'they recorded and released 4 studio albums during 1968 - 1972' etc it's all personal opinion of fans, non fans, critics and even band members.
I don't think anyone is really denying that it was a great period, just that the 1968 - 1972 greatness wasn't necessarily better than what came before... maybe after.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-17 21:06 by His Majesty.
They left off with FF and kickstarted B and B with HS. I thought it was a good and funky choice
From sleaze to cheese.
Good thing I have impersonal opinions then!
So IORR ends with FF and BAB starts with HS - would you rather it have been MY? At least HS is funky and they used the good leftover material from the BAB sessions for TY.
Nice analysis
That is an interesting perspective, His Majesty. It involves the question of periodization and criteria for doing so from a unconventional point of view (to me, that is). You mention some criteria.
Somewhat a paradox, but not at all wrong, only seldom, is that then LET IT BLEED seems to become more or less a transitional album. So, less paradoxically, will BLACK AND BLUE be.
If I might suggest another approach, I would point to the ethnic music elements (blues, soul) that the Stones as a first major contribution crossed over to in what I have referred to as their existence from the outset as primarily a rhythm and blues band. During their ensuing period as an experimental pop and rock band, my impression is that the ethnic elements with a few exceptions (“Goin’ Home (?)) are rather absent or perhaps more correct much less pronounced.
In that sense I take BEGGARS BANQUET as their return not necessarily do ethnic music outright, well, sometimes outright, too, but to make it an underlying basis for their own music creation and to do this as an acquired working method for a matured band. That meant to me a major break in their development after THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES’ REQUEST. It was (of course), Doxa, however, that put forth the very interesting proposition that they learnt something by making SATANIC, which was vitally important to them to be capable to use such a working method to do BEGGARS BANQUET and the following albums. That is, to be able to employ ethnic music elements as underlying , but at the same time create music that would be almost completely their own.
That means to me both a break and a continuity from SATANIC to BEGGARS BANQUET. In the light of periodization I would think the break to be more important than the continuity.
On the other hand, it may be adequate to establish GOATS HEAD SOUP, IORR and (I add) BLACK AND BLUE as belonging more or less to the same period as the ’68 – ’72 studio albums, even if I for one would not consider those three following albums as part of the former peak. (GOATS HEADS SOUP is almost there, but falls apart on that scale, even if it is a grand representation of their coming down again feeling from such creative heights.)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-18 11:26 by Witness.
Jumpin' Jack Flash and Beggars Banquet are both still very much a product of the 60's. Their performance on The Rock and Roll Circus is too. They are not yet a solid arena blues, rock 'n' rolling band yet and it's not just because of Brian Jones.
Let It Bleed(Indeed it is a transitional album) is part swan song, part giant leep in to the harder edged, more focused musical future which appeared more fully formed on Get Yer Ya-ya's Out and Sticky Fingers. Hyde Park hints at it, but the 1969 US tour reveals a very different band to the one that existed before.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-18 20:03 by His Majesty.
I can't remember if I contributed to this earlier in the thread, but it's a great discussion point. I get what what you're saying - - the 63-65 era is when the Stones were introduced to the world and finally made their mark with 'Satisfaction' in 1965.
But everyone has their personal taste of 'eras'(that they be 'golden' you see). I prefer as my favorite the 65-66 era of say 'December's Children' to 'Between the Buttons'(if in fact that constitutes an 'era').
Actually, I like to think of the Stones as having two 'golden' eras: from 63-72 and then from 73- present.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-18 20:14 by nightskyman.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Their "golden era" 1968-1972
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: February 16, 2013 13:32
Quote
Eleanor RigbyQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Eleanor RigbyQuote
DandelionPowderman
All thoughts about music is subjective - don't you think it was a tongue in cheek-remark by our Beatles-named friend?
nope.
no tongue in cheek...just stating the obvious for all normal people to understand.
"Stating the obvious" in this case is stating your subjective opinion, just like the rest on this board, right?
it's not subjective...it's obvious due to the weight of evidence!
IMO I think it should include 1973....that's subjective.
The "evidence" is nothing but your opinion
Re: Their "golden era" 1968-1972
Posted by:
runaway
()
Date: February 16, 2013 18:52
1964-1989 "golden era"; I love their albums since 1964, here are my favorite vinyls;
England's Newest Hit Makers 1964
THE ROLLING STONES 1964
12 X 5 1964
The Rolling Stones, Now! 1965
Out of Our Heads 1965
December's Children 1965
Big Hits (High Tide and Green Grass) 1966
Aftermath 1966
Got LIVE if you Want it! 1966
Between the Buttons 1967
Flowers 1967
Their Satanic Majesties Request 1967
Beggars Banquet 1968
Through the Past, Darkly (Big Hits Vol. 2) 1969
Let it Bleed 1969
Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out! 1970
Sticky Fingers 1971
Exile on Main St. 1972
Goats Head Soup 1973
It's Only Rock 'n Roll 1974
Black and Blue 1976
Love You Live 1977
Emotional Rescue 1980
Tattoo You 1981
Undercover 1983
Dirty Work 1986
Steel Wheels 1989
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-16 23:05 by runaway.
England's Newest Hit Makers 1964
THE ROLLING STONES 1964
12 X 5 1964
The Rolling Stones, Now! 1965
Out of Our Heads 1965
December's Children 1965
Big Hits (High Tide and Green Grass) 1966
Aftermath 1966
Got LIVE if you Want it! 1966
Between the Buttons 1967
Flowers 1967
Their Satanic Majesties Request 1967
Beggars Banquet 1968
Through the Past, Darkly (Big Hits Vol. 2) 1969
Let it Bleed 1969
Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out! 1970
Sticky Fingers 1971
Exile on Main St. 1972
Goats Head Soup 1973
It's Only Rock 'n Roll 1974
Black and Blue 1976
Love You Live 1977
Emotional Rescue 1980
Tattoo You 1981
Undercover 1983
Dirty Work 1986
Steel Wheels 1989
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-16 23:05 by runaway.
Re: Their "golden era" 1968-1972
Posted by:
rob51
()
Date: February 17, 2013 01:28
It's hard to pick a favorite era for me. I loved the Stones music put out with the original band including all the Brian Jones stuff. Well, except for some of Between and Majesties which I never got. Still, the music on everything from Let It Bleed until It's Only RnR was just fantastic in my opinion and it's hard now to believe so many years later just how good the Stones used to be. Fantastic music that was at the time so important to our lives. Miss those days and what a great time to be young and alive. I doubt the world will ever experiance anything quite like it again and I'm just glad I was born at a time when I could experiance atleast part of this whole thing!
Re: Their "golden era" 1968-1972
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: February 17, 2013 14:02
Quote
rob51
It's hard to pick a favorite era for me. I loved the Stones music put out with the original band including all the Brian Jones stuff. Well, except for some of Between and Majesties which I never got. Still, the music on everything from Let It Bleed until It's Only RnR was just fantastic in my opinion and it's hard now to believe so many years later just how good the Stones used to be. Fantastic music that was at the time so important to our lives. Miss those days and what a great time to be young and alive. I doubt the world will ever experiance anything quite like it again and I'm just glad I was born at a time when I could experiance atleast part of this whole thing!
Re: Their "golden era" 1968-1972
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: February 17, 2013 20:31
I can't phatom why IORR is fantastic and Black And Blue is not??
Re: Their "golden era" 1968-1972
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: February 17, 2013 20:44
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I can't phatom why IORR is fantastic and Black And Blue is not??
Kicking off with Hot Stuff seriously damages that album imo.
Re: Their "golden era" 1968-1972
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: February 17, 2013 20:49
Personal opinions doesn't matter. It's a well-recognized view that 1968-1972 was a particularly good period for the band. There are substantial evidence to support that notion (as pointed out earlier). The only "era" that might challenge that opinion is, perhaps, 1964-1967 which is popular among older fans. Everything else is just personal opinions...
Re: Their "golden era" 1968-1972
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: February 17, 2013 21:03
Quote
Stoneage
Personal opinions doesn't matter. It's a well-recognized view that 1968-1972 was a particularly good period for the band. There are substantial evidence to support that notion (as pointed out earlier). The only "era" that might challenge that opinion is, perhaps, 1964-1967 which is popular among older fans. Everything else is just personal opinions...
Other than factual things like 'they recorded and released 4 studio albums during 1968 - 1972' etc it's all personal opinion of fans, non fans, critics and even band members.
I don't think anyone is really denying that it was a great period, just that the 1968 - 1972 greatness wasn't necessarily better than what came before... maybe after.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-17 21:06 by His Majesty.
Re: Their "golden era" 1968-1972
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: February 17, 2013 21:30
Quote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
I can't phatom why IORR is fantastic and Black And Blue is not??
Kicking off with Hot Stuff seriously damages that album imo.
They left off with FF and kickstarted B and B with HS. I thought it was a good and funky choice
Re: Their "golden era" 1968-1972
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: February 17, 2013 21:34
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
I can't phatom why IORR is fantastic and Black And Blue is not??
Kicking off with Hot Stuff seriously damages that album imo.
They left off with FF and kickstarted B and B with HS. I thought it was a good and funky choice
From sleaze to cheese.
Re: Their "golden era" 1968-1972
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: February 17, 2013 21:57
Quote
Stoneage
Personal opinions doesn't matter. It's a well-recognized view that 1968-1972 was a particularly good period for the band. There are substantial evidence to support that notion (as pointed out earlier). The only "era" that might challenge that opinion is, perhaps, 1964-1967 which is popular among older fans. Everything else is just personal opinions...
Good thing I have impersonal opinions then!
Re: Their "golden era" 1968-1972
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: February 17, 2013 21:59
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
His MajestyQuote
DandelionPowderman
I can't phatom why IORR is fantastic and Black And Blue is not??
Kicking off with Hot Stuff seriously damages that album imo.
They left off with FF and kickstarted B and B with HS. I thought it was a good and funky choice
So IORR ends with FF and BAB starts with HS - would you rather it have been MY? At least HS is funky and they used the good leftover material from the BAB sessions for TY.
Re: Their "golden era" 1968-1972
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: February 17, 2013 22:12
No Hot Stuff on any album would have been better.
Re: Their "golden era" 1968-1972
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: February 17, 2013 22:40
I prefer to hold another point of view. It involves
1) a multi peak perspective
2) where it is difficult to make comparisons between periods and peaks. Because, what common measure sticks are there, which are not themselves coloured of individuals' personal preferences? Of course, that applies to my point of view as well.
As to 1963/4 – 67 I would suggest a somewhat rough distinction between
a) the early rhythm'n'blues band.
b) the rock and experimenting pop band that gradually developed out of the original R&B band.
From the former I reckon volume 1 and the songs on the German(?) Decca compilation AROUND AND AROUND as a first peak, Not quite to the same extent volume 2, but almost.
OUT OF OUR HEADS (British catalogue) might perhaps be seen as a transitional record
Then the three albums AFTERMATH, BETWEEN THE BUTTONS and, controversial to some, THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES' REQUEST , together with their suite of single A- and B-sides to me constitute a second peak (British catalogue once again)
Then there follows the obvious third peak, consisting of c) their '68 – '72 albums
After that the live Stones do not suffer as much, if at all, but studiowise there is a comparative decline at first with the almost great GOATS HEAD SOUP, and a more decided slump with IORR and BLACK AND BLUE, despite both albums' gems (among them "Fingerprint File" and "Hot Stuff" ).
However, I would suggest that there follows a fourth peak, where at least three out of four consequtive albums are either great or semi-great and qualify the verdict of a fourth peak. SOME GIRLS, EMOTIONAL RESCUE, then to most people apparently, but not at all to me TATTOO YOU, and the very best of the four, UNDERCOVER.
Then in my view there is an absolute slump with DIRTY WORK and STEEL WHEELS, even if there are some value or even more in those albums too.
The following albums are spread over such long time, that it is difficult to periodize them.
I will only in this connection express my disagreement to «the Las Vegas» epithet that those late albums have been given.
[The last two edits are corrections of language errors.]
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-18 01:54 by Witness.
1) a multi peak perspective
2) where it is difficult to make comparisons between periods and peaks. Because, what common measure sticks are there, which are not themselves coloured of individuals' personal preferences? Of course, that applies to my point of view as well.
As to 1963/4 – 67 I would suggest a somewhat rough distinction between
a) the early rhythm'n'blues band.
b) the rock and experimenting pop band that gradually developed out of the original R&B band.
From the former I reckon volume 1 and the songs on the German(?) Decca compilation AROUND AND AROUND as a first peak, Not quite to the same extent volume 2, but almost.
OUT OF OUR HEADS (British catalogue) might perhaps be seen as a transitional record
Then the three albums AFTERMATH, BETWEEN THE BUTTONS and, controversial to some, THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES' REQUEST , together with their suite of single A- and B-sides to me constitute a second peak (British catalogue once again)
Then there follows the obvious third peak, consisting of c) their '68 – '72 albums
After that the live Stones do not suffer as much, if at all, but studiowise there is a comparative decline at first with the almost great GOATS HEAD SOUP, and a more decided slump with IORR and BLACK AND BLUE, despite both albums' gems (among them "Fingerprint File" and "Hot Stuff" ).
However, I would suggest that there follows a fourth peak, where at least three out of four consequtive albums are either great or semi-great and qualify the verdict of a fourth peak. SOME GIRLS, EMOTIONAL RESCUE, then to most people apparently, but not at all to me TATTOO YOU, and the very best of the four, UNDERCOVER.
Then in my view there is an absolute slump with DIRTY WORK and STEEL WHEELS, even if there are some value or even more in those albums too.
The following albums are spread over such long time, that it is difficult to periodize them.
I will only in this connection express my disagreement to «the Las Vegas» epithet that those late albums have been given.
[The last two edits are corrections of language errors.]
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-18 01:54 by Witness.
Re: Their "golden era" 1968-1972
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: February 18, 2013 00:27
The collective clout of these albums and their related Ep's and singles at the very least matches the greatness and impact of Let It Bleed, Get Yer Ya-ya's Out, Sticky Fingers and Exile... Throw in Goat's Head Soup and IORR as well as they don't really upset the balance.
Rolling Stones
No 2
Out OF Our Heads
Aftermath
Between The Buttons
Satanic Majesties Request
Beggars Banquet
I include Beggars Banquet because it is very much a part of the 60's sound and feel. It's essentially the same band who created Their Satanic Majesties Request with the addition of a producer and a mix 'n' match of roots and experiemental pop/rock music... An updated Aftermath with some elements of 1967 thrown in.
The true change from 60's pop/rock group to arena rock band etc takes place in time for Get Yer Ya-ya's Out/Sticky Fingers. Keith embracing open G, the arrival of Mick Taylor, far more organised tours, introduction of additional musicans onstage...
By 1969/1970 an almost totally different approach and band emerged.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-18 09:54 by His Majesty.
Rolling Stones
No 2
Out OF Our Heads
Aftermath
Between The Buttons
Satanic Majesties Request
Beggars Banquet
I include Beggars Banquet because it is very much a part of the 60's sound and feel. It's essentially the same band who created Their Satanic Majesties Request with the addition of a producer and a mix 'n' match of roots and experiemental pop/rock music... An updated Aftermath with some elements of 1967 thrown in.
The true change from 60's pop/rock group to arena rock band etc takes place in time for Get Yer Ya-ya's Out/Sticky Fingers. Keith embracing open G, the arrival of Mick Taylor, far more organised tours, introduction of additional musicans onstage...
By 1969/1970 an almost totally different approach and band emerged.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-18 09:54 by His Majesty.
Re: Their "golden era" 1968-1972
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: February 18, 2013 09:30
Quote
Witness
I prefer to hold another point of view. It involves
1) a multi peak perspective
2) where it is difficult to make comparisons between periods and peaks. Because, what common measure sticks are there, which are not themselves coloured of individuals' personal preferences? Of course, that applies to my point of view as well.
As to 1963/4 – 67 I would suggest a somewhat rough distinction between
a) the early rhythm'n'blues band.
b) the rock and experimenting pop band that gradually developed out of the original R&B band.
From the former I reckon volume 1 and the songs on the German(?) Decca compilation AROUND AND AROUND as a first peak, Not quite to the same extent volume 2, but almost.
OUT OF OUR HEADS (British catalogue) might perhaps be seen as a transitional record
Then the three albums AFTERMATH, BETWEEN THE BUTTONS and, controversial to some, THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES' REQUEST , together with their suite of single A- and B-sides to me constitute a second peak (British catalogue once again)
Then there follows the obvious third peak, consisting of c) their '68 – '72 albums
After that the live Stones do not suffer as much, if at all, but studiowise there is a comparative decline at first with the almost great GOATS HEAD SOUP, and a more decided slump with IORR and BLACK AND BLUE, despite both albums' gems (among them "Fingerprint File" and "Hot Stuff" ).
However, I would suggest that there follows a fourth peak, where at least three out of four consequtive albums are either great or semi-great and qualify the verdict of a fourth peak. SOME GIRLS, EMOTIONAL RESCUE, then to most people apparently, but not at all to me TATTOO YOU, and the very best of the four, UNDERCOVER.
Then in my view there is an absolute slump with DIRTY WORK and STEEL WHEELS, even if there are some value or even more in those albums too.
The following albums are spread over such long time, that it is difficult to periodize them.
I will only in this connection express my disagreement to «the Las Vegas» epithet that those late albums have been given.
[The last two edits are corrections of language errors.]
Nice analysis
Re: I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Posted by:
owlbynite
()
Date: February 18, 2013 10:13
I agree. Amazed when today so many Brian Jones era tunes are signature songs for the band. Without his ability and creativity on every instrument he tackled, those unique sounds never would've been created.
Re: Their "golden era" 1968-1972
Posted by:
talkcheap
()
Date: February 18, 2013 10:16
The golden years are 1968-1974, 1978 and maybe 1981, this is in the studio I mean, not live. Since tattoo you the Stones has not made a decent album in my opinion. Peace.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-18 10:17 by talkcheap.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-18 10:17 by talkcheap.
Re: Their "golden era" 1968-1972
Posted by:
mikeeder
()
Date: February 18, 2013 11:03
So much debate. Maybe I will try to put it a different way.
I think they were the best blues based hard rock band from 1968-78, but once they catagorized themselves as a hard rock band there were less things coming out of left field. I do give them props for getting so deep into reggae in the seventies.
Yet 1963-67 each year felt very different and unexpected. They weren't set on one sound as much. Brian Jones was a lot of that, but Mick and Keith allowed theselves to be a bit more sensitive too. Charlie and Bill seemed more a part of the shows. Some of the Mick and Keith demos were dire, a few cuts on Satanic should have been tightened, but as a whole that is the work that does the most for me.
I think they were the best blues based hard rock band from 1968-78, but once they catagorized themselves as a hard rock band there were less things coming out of left field. I do give them props for getting so deep into reggae in the seventies.
Yet 1963-67 each year felt very different and unexpected. They weren't set on one sound as much. Brian Jones was a lot of that, but Mick and Keith allowed theselves to be a bit more sensitive too. Charlie and Bill seemed more a part of the shows. Some of the Mick and Keith demos were dire, a few cuts on Satanic should have been tightened, but as a whole that is the work that does the most for me.
Re: Their "golden era" 1968-1972
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: February 18, 2013 11:23
Quote
His Majesty
The collective clout of these albums and their related Ep's and singles at the very least matches the greatness and impact of Let It Bleed, Get Yer Ya-ya's Out, Sticky Fingers and Exile... Throw in Goat's Head Soup and IORR as well as they don't really upset the balance.
Rolling Stones
No 2
Out OF Our Heads
Aftermath
Between The Buttons
Satanic Majesties Request
Beggars Banquet
I include Beggars Banquet because it is very much a part of the 60's sound and feel. It's essentially the same band who created Their Satanic Majesties Request with the addition of a producer and a mix 'n' match of roots and experiemental pop/rock music... An updated Aftermath with some elements of 1967 thrown in.
The true change from 60's pop/rock group to arena rock band etc takes place in time for Get Yer Ya-ya's Out/Sticky Fingers. Keith embracing open G, the arrival of Mick Taylor, far more organised tours, introduction of additional musicans onstage...
By 1969/1970 an almost totally different approach and band emerged.
That is an interesting perspective, His Majesty. It involves the question of periodization and criteria for doing so from a unconventional point of view (to me, that is). You mention some criteria.
Somewhat a paradox, but not at all wrong, only seldom, is that then LET IT BLEED seems to become more or less a transitional album. So, less paradoxically, will BLACK AND BLUE be.
If I might suggest another approach, I would point to the ethnic music elements (blues, soul) that the Stones as a first major contribution crossed over to in what I have referred to as their existence from the outset as primarily a rhythm and blues band. During their ensuing period as an experimental pop and rock band, my impression is that the ethnic elements with a few exceptions (“Goin’ Home (?)) are rather absent or perhaps more correct much less pronounced.
In that sense I take BEGGARS BANQUET as their return not necessarily do ethnic music outright, well, sometimes outright, too, but to make it an underlying basis for their own music creation and to do this as an acquired working method for a matured band. That meant to me a major break in their development after THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES’ REQUEST. It was (of course), Doxa, however, that put forth the very interesting proposition that they learnt something by making SATANIC, which was vitally important to them to be capable to use such a working method to do BEGGARS BANQUET and the following albums. That is, to be able to employ ethnic music elements as underlying , but at the same time create music that would be almost completely their own.
That means to me both a break and a continuity from SATANIC to BEGGARS BANQUET. In the light of periodization I would think the break to be more important than the continuity.
On the other hand, it may be adequate to establish GOATS HEAD SOUP, IORR and (I add) BLACK AND BLUE as belonging more or less to the same period as the ’68 – ’72 studio albums, even if I for one would not consider those three following albums as part of the former peak. (GOATS HEADS SOUP is almost there, but falls apart on that scale, even if it is a grand representation of their coming down again feeling from such creative heights.)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-18 11:26 by Witness.
Re: Their "golden era" 1968-1972
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: February 18, 2013 17:27
It kicked off with Jumping Jack Flash and ended with Angie. It is an undeniable era where they ruled fame wise and artistically. There were peaks before, and peaks after, but nothing as extended, and as deeply satisfying. Those two singles represent a beginning to something, and an ending.
Re: Their "golden era" 1968-1972
Posted by:
Munichhilton
()
Date: February 18, 2013 17:28
So you could call this a high plateau?
Re: Their "golden era" 1968-1972
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: February 18, 2013 19:40
I fully agree that what I hold to be their third peak, kicks off right away with the single A-side "Jumping Jack Flash". And to add to that, to me (as I seem to have read others say something likewise before) "Child of the Moon" somehow constitutes this fabulous bridge from where they came, to this their new starting point.
More than "Angie", I like to consider the album track "Coming Down Again" as symbolising the end of the third peak.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-18 19:46 by Witness.
More than "Angie", I like to consider the album track "Coming Down Again" as symbolising the end of the third peak.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-18 19:46 by Witness.
Re: Their "golden era" 1968-1972
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: February 18, 2013 19:54
Quote
Witness
That is an interesting perspective, His Majesty. It involves the question of periodization and criteria for doing so from a unconventional point of view (to me, that is). You mention some criteria.
Somewhat a paradox, but not at all wrong, only seldom, is that then LET IT BLEED seems to become more or less a transitional album. So, less paradoxically, will BLACK AND BLUE be.
Jumpin' Jack Flash and Beggars Banquet are both still very much a product of the 60's. Their performance on The Rock and Roll Circus is too. They are not yet a solid arena blues, rock 'n' rolling band yet and it's not just because of Brian Jones.
Let It Bleed(Indeed it is a transitional album) is part swan song, part giant leep in to the harder edged, more focused musical future which appeared more fully formed on Get Yer Ya-ya's Out and Sticky Fingers. Hyde Park hints at it, but the 1969 US tour reveals a very different band to the one that existed before.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-18 20:03 by His Majesty.
Re: Their "golden era" 1968-1972
Posted by:
nightskyman
()
Date: February 18, 2013 20:08
Quote
Havo
I cant understand, why always the time between 1968-1972are most mentioned as their "golden era"
Well, it was a great time, but i like their earlier stuff most. from their first Album til "Aftermath!! All their great Hit-singles like Tell me, little red rooster, its all over, now, last time, cloud, paint it black etc.. This was the time the Stones done very very good recordings. Whats your opinion?
BTW--my favourite is " Empty heart"
I can't remember if I contributed to this earlier in the thread, but it's a great discussion point. I get what what you're saying - - the 63-65 era is when the Stones were introduced to the world and finally made their mark with 'Satisfaction' in 1965.
But everyone has their personal taste of 'eras'(that they be 'golden' you see). I prefer as my favorite the 65-66 era of say 'December's Children' to 'Between the Buttons'(if in fact that constitutes an 'era').
Actually, I like to think of the Stones as having two 'golden' eras: from 63-72 and then from 73- present.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-02-18 20:14 by nightskyman.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
biggzee , EJM , gotdablouse , Irix , jstones , latvianinexile , midimannz , Nankstone , NilsHolgersson , Paddy , Rambler62 , SecondSet , steffialicia , swimtothemoon , Witness
Guests:
1752
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10