this decade has been succesfull in my opinion.. two giant great tours..
They've done 'giant, great tours' in every decade. Including this one. The Licks tour was fabulous.
However, there hasnt been another decade where theyve made just ONE record.
Taking that into account, I can't see how anyone can argue that the title of this thread is wrong.
The 2000's may have been a great decade for the band's bank balance, but creatively they've never been less relevant and the decade has gradually seen the Stones status as a 'band' become pretty much subsumed by that of the Stones 'franchise'. At the end of the decade, they have absolutely and undeniably become the thing that Jagger always insisted they would never become - a nostalgia act (a strange paradox when you consider that his refusal to acknowledge this and insist that they're still a 'current' act creating new material - despite all evidence to the contrary - is the one main reason for the band's refusal to open their vaults)
I can't believe some people figured that the 80s were their worst decade. Even aside from the internal division within the band for 4 years or so in the middle of it, it was a decade in which they still managed to put out 5 studio albums (most of them reasonably good if a bit patchy, and one being a classic) and which either side of the 'spat' in question they bookended the decade with two tours which were, on each occasion, at the time the most successful in history.
Each decade previously has ended with the band on an upwardly creative curve. This one? Unfortunately, not. This decade ends with the Stones, to all intents and purposes, being driven in pretty much every way and more than ever before by Jagger and Cohl, not Jagger and Richards (or Jagger, Richards, Watts and Wood, even). I can't see that as being in any way a positive step.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-10 18:25 by Gazza.