Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2
2000's worst decade for The Rolling Stones
Posted by: Loudei ()
Date: December 10, 2009 05:09

Rolling Stone's recent issue about the decades top music - best albums and songs is out this week. In a Stones friendly magazine, worshipped by its publisher - The Stones only released album this decade is no where in site. A decade where garage bands and indie bands made their marks with good songs, recorded in a very loose way but yet full of creativity, such as The Strokes, Wilco, Arcade Fire and veterans like Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen (with two albums each in the top 20 or so albums list). I honestly believe this decade sucked musically for The Rolling Stones- their worst decade ever. They could not make an album for the times, a relevant piece of art of new music. Where is the creativity in the band? Are they still serious artists?

[www.rollingstone.com]

I take my hat off for Bob Dylan who is still raising eyebrows among his peers artistically...what an artist. I really hope The Stones have something left and make a good album before they are done, if they are not done already.

Personally I think Wilco's Yankee Hotel Foxtrot was the best album of the decade.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-10 05:10 by Loudei.

Re: 2000's worst decade for The Rolling Stones
Posted by: J.J.Flash ()
Date: December 10, 2009 05:11

the 40's were their worst decade. pooping their pants and drooling all over the place.

Re: 2000's worst decade for The Rolling Stones
Posted by: skipstone ()
Date: December 10, 2009 05:12

Ha ha. That's funny!

Re: 2000's worst decade for The Rolling Stones
Posted by: Loudei ()
Date: December 10, 2009 05:15

I guess you can't get over your Hot Rocks 8 Track... >grinning smiley<

Re: 2000's worst decade for The Rolling Stones
Posted by: gomp ()
Date: December 10, 2009 06:42

I don't think it a stretch to say that 2000 wasn't the best decade for the Stones, but their "worst" decade is far better than most.
I also agree that Dylan has produced some great music this decade, though he too has played some clunker shows.
Lastly, I think Wilco has surpassed both (this decade).

Re: 2000's worst decade for The Rolling Stones
Posted by: ryanpow ()
Date: December 10, 2009 07:13

I think this is Rolling Stone Magazine's worst decade by far. I don't even read it anymore. Its Sh*t.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-10 07:15 by ryanpow.

Re: 2000's worst decade for The Rolling Stones
Posted by: theimposter ()
Date: December 10, 2009 07:21

How was it their worst? Because a sell-out rag like Rolling Stone didn't include the ONLY album they released this decade on their pointless list? Look Loudei, with all respect I think you could rethink this statement a little bit. And I agree about Wilco, and that Dylan has put out some amazing stuff in the last 10 years. I'll concede to that much. But WORST decade? They're pushing 70! It's probably their LAST decade, so cut them some slack. Besides, you could do a whole lot worse than having a multi-platinum greatest hits collection, a gold-selling new record, and 2 of the top selling tours in history in a ten-year span. Those things don't make for a bad decade. And once more, f*ck Rolling Stone magazine - their lists suck, with or without the Stones being on them. On their top 100 lists, trust me, if Kanye West had put out 99 albums this year, than he would have occupied all but 1 spot on the oh-so-venerated top 100 list.

Re: 2000's worst decade for The Rolling Stones
Posted by: MKjan ()
Date: December 10, 2009 07:45

Just look at the cover shot of Taylor Lautner...whoever he is.... on the new RS, and you can see Jann Wenner gave himself a merry little xmas present, he and his rag couldn't be bothered with music.

Re: 2000's worst decade for The Rolling Stones
Posted by: ghostryder13 ()
Date: December 10, 2009 08:48

maybe worst for studio album releases but they made a killing during this decade with touring

Re: 2000's worst decade for The Rolling Stones
Posted by: georgeV ()
Date: December 10, 2009 11:13

80's started and ended with good albums and tours but in between was their worst. Even more so than the 2000's.

Re: 2000's worst decade for The Rolling Stones
Posted by: SwayStones ()
Date: December 10, 2009 11:14

Quote
ryanpow
I think this is Rolling Stone Magazine's worst decade by far. I don't even read it anymore. Its Sh*t.

lol



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

Re: 2000's worst decade for The Rolling Stones
Posted by: Filip020169 ()
Date: December 10, 2009 12:05

"the 40's were their worst decade. pooping their pants and drooling all over the place."
...They'll probably be back at that in another 2 or 3 decades time...

Re: 2000's worst decade for The Rolling Stones
Posted by: Single Malt ()
Date: December 10, 2009 12:11

Quote
Filip020169
"the 40's were their worst decade. pooping their pants and drooling all over the place."
...They'll probably be back at that in another 2 or 3 decades time...

And possibly was quite much of that in the seventies when being high on drugs :-)

Re: 2000's worst decade for The Rolling Stones
Posted by: Bimmelzerbott ()
Date: December 10, 2009 12:14

The 80s were a way worse decade for the Stones. Since I don't think that the Stones are really relevant musically in terms of creativity or as a recording band these days, they're still delivering it live IMO. But with every year that goes by I doubt that they will be able to do so in the future. They are officially old now and the ABB tour was the first tour where I was a bit disappointed by them as a live band.

Re: 2000's worst decade for The Rolling Stones
Posted by: shortfatfanny ()
Date: December 10, 2009 13:53

Quote
Bimmelzerbott
They are officially old now...

Did I miss a press conference ?


Re: 2000's worst decade for The Rolling Stones
Posted by: yorkey ()
Date: December 10, 2009 14:29

2000's is the worst decade in music - fact.

You got the Sun, You got the Moon,
and you've got
The Rolling Stones

Re: 2000's worst decade for The Rolling Stones
Posted by: Grison ()
Date: December 10, 2009 14:46

Somehow it's sad to come up with the same tabloids month after month.
For me the Licks Tour has been outstanding for decades as it gave the chance to see the Stones in Stadium, Arena, and Theatres for quite a few fans.
ABB was good on the first leg of the North American part. It struggled somehow with the palmtree news and didn't really get up to much at first in 2007.
At least the 02 shows proved again that the Stones still can fire the night.
For me it is absolutely clear the the Rolling Stones are a big band since the Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle Tour. They replaced their own lack ability with musicians to please the big audiences. And for me it works fine.
It's just a different style and level.
They Rolling Stones may not be the inspiring band for new music. But hey let's face it: Are you inspiring the world being out there for more than 45 years.

As yorkey said: You got the SUN the MOON and the ROLLING STONES

Re: 2000's worst decade for The Rolling Stones
Posted by: Loudei ()
Date: December 10, 2009 14:56

No one here can argue the FACT that this decade was the worse decade MUSICALLY for The Rolling Stones... you can use denial accessories ( like blaming my post on Rolling Stone Magazine ) The 80's was a far better decade that this one musically for them they released 5 albums and Tattoo You was one of their best ever.

It really dissapoints me how people here are close to being fantatics or act like drug addicts who get upset when someone tells them they have a problem with drugs. Denials and denials. Actions speak louder than words.

Yes they continued to have incredible tours - ABB greatest in history ( maybe because it was so long) however musically it was the worse for them. No need to get defensive about it, ITS THE TRUTH!!!!!!! Artiscally forgotten.

The topic is about the music... and by the way, Dylan is 69, Johnnny Cash was older even and still produced great albums that got rave reviews by its peers.

If you check the article on Rolling Stone, there is a section on it where you can actually see the ballots and voters, well some of them anyway.

[www.rollingstone.com]

You people are a bunch cry babies. Hypocrites...

Re: 2000's worst decade for The Rolling Stones
Posted by: duke richardson ()
Date: December 10, 2009 15:06

the Rolling Stones are what they are. The music will come from them in whatever form they choose, as they shape it over time. Their tradition isn't like ylan's. He's basically a solo performer with a backing band, as is Bruce Springsteen.
So the Stones will take their usual 'take it or leave it' stance. I hope for a few surprises but I'll be happy to hear new slices of that Charlie/Keith groove.

Re: 2000's worst decade for The Rolling Stones
Posted by: Loudei ()
Date: December 10, 2009 15:10

Quote
duke richardson
..... I hope for a few surprises but I'll be happy to hear new slices of that Charlie/Keith groove.

There you go.

Re: 2000's worst decade for The Rolling Stones
Posted by: Anonymous User ()
Date: December 10, 2009 15:32

rolling stone magazine is irrelavant .the stones (mick, keith,and cohl )will probably tell you this decade was there most succesfull .based on how big there mega wallet busting tours were .i think mick cares about the bottom line the $ or pounds .at the end of the day no one can touch the stones as far as raking in the cash .thats all that matters to them.

Re: 2000's worst decade for The Rolling Stones
Posted by: Pelle ()
Date: December 10, 2009 16:25

this decade has been succesfull in my opinion.. two giant great tours..

Re: 2000's worst decade for The Rolling Stones
Posted by: billwebster ()
Date: December 10, 2009 16:31

Well, for Jagger, it's not. But both Keith and Charlie had serious health problems at one point - and Ronnie ... well, you know it's still in the press.

Re: 2000's worst decade for The Rolling Stones
Posted by: Elmo Lewis ()
Date: December 10, 2009 16:45

Pretty much the worst decade for music (the 90's sucked too).

The world in general had a bad decade.

"No Anchovies, Please"

Re: 2000's worst decade for The Rolling Stones
Posted by: mailexile67 ()
Date: December 10, 2009 17:12

They are a Live-act now, and sometimes they are still the best live-act...

Re: 2000's worst decade for The Rolling Stones
Posted by: Honestman ()
Date: December 10, 2009 17:15

Quote
yorkey
2000's is the worst decade in music - fact.

Agreed 400%winking smiley

HMN
[collectingthestones.blogspot.com]

Re: 2000's worst decade for The Rolling Stones
Posted by: MJRocksoff ()
Date: December 10, 2009 17:43

As a younger fan of 32 years, I thought the 2000's were a great decade for the band! I saw them 14 times in 02 for the licks tour. I even met the webmaster from this site on my air canada plane to SARSFEST in Toronto in 03! I saw them play the Philly Trifecta(Vet, First Union Cent, Tower) ABB was great too, my highlight of that was the Atlantic City show in Nov of 06. Just a steller show!!! Bring on te next decade Mick, Keith, Charlie, and Ronnie!!!!

Re: 2000's worst decade for The Rolling Stones
Posted by: Gazza ()
Date: December 10, 2009 18:16

Quote
Pelle
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.

Re: 2000's worst decade for The Rolling Stones
Posted by: Anonymous User ()
Date: December 10, 2009 18:57

in the eighties the stones put out some great albums where the creative juices were still flowing .you cannot compare emotional rescue,tattoo you ,and undercover to a bigger bang.i left out dirty work because the stones were at each others throats (mick and keith),and steel wheels which i for one like but the basic way the stones work had changed because of the turbulence from several years back .so to me the stones still had something to say and they were still at there peak where as now it's all about the mega touring machine that jagger/cohl have been operating .

Re: 2000's worst decade for The Rolling Stones
Posted by: georgelicks ()
Date: December 10, 2009 19:21

This is by far their worst decade, 1 studio album (and not a good one), 1 Mick solo album (8 years ago) no Keith solo album.
The Stones are creatively dead, sad but true.

Goto Page: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 474
Record Number of Users: 189 on August 24, 2021 20:10
Record Number of Guests: 6295 on November 30, 2021 14:09

Previous page Next page First page IORR home