"I take my hat off for Bob Dylan who is still raising eyebrows among his peers artistically...what an artist."

That's funny. Didn't Dylan just release an album of Christmas songs?

It's like the last discussion here about Charlie not beeing on the top xx list of best drummers of all time.
When I see the list of CD's in the 00'ies, I can see ABB better than many of them.
Some bands are always popular, no matter what they produce fx. 3 U2 CD's, as well as for Coldplay or Radiohead to mention a few.
Stones could just as well have been on the top 50 if they had been a media plaesing band like U2.

The worst decade - sure, but not a bad decade I think. ABB is one of their best albums, Four Flicks, Biggest Bang and Shine a Light are great to some extent. I'm disappointed about the tremendous decline of Ronnie Wood, his solo efforts are partly terrible, the number of bump-notes during Bigger Bang aren't tolerable and destroyed some tracks completely. Hope he will recover; Keith will not be able to play two guitars.

Quote
RobertJohnson
The worst decade - sure, but not a bad decade I think. ABB is one of their best albums, Four Flicks, Biggest Bang and Shine a Light are great to some extent. I'm disappointed about the tremendous decline of Ronnie Wood, his solo efforts are partly terrible, the number of bump-notes during Bigger Bang aren't tolerable and destroyed some tracks completely. Hope he will recover; Keith will not be able to play two guitars.

have you seen the stones live in this decade (licks tour, bigger bang tour) ?

I think the Licks tour saved their reputation this decade .I saw 6 shows and all were SUPERB ! and with LIND and UTR they proved that they can still come up with the goods in the studio,if rarely.

sc uk

Quote
Pietro
"I take my hat off for Bob Dylan who is still raising eyebrows among his peers artistically...what an artist."

That's funny. Didn't Dylan just release an album of Christmas songs?

Yep..and for all its daftness, it still raised eyebrows - however as it came out 6 months after his last studio album of original songs (and a superb one at that), I think the point remains valid

Its not like he's suddenly run out of steam.

I like Dylan, a lot, but eyebrows have been raised this decade over his lyrics on both Love and Theft and Modern Times. The comparisons in question go beyond slight borrowing, they come closer to just plain copying. This is a big black eye considering he has been held in such high esteem as a songwriter for many decades. In this context I wouldn't call it a great decade for him.

The '00's plusses: phenomonal Licks tour song selection w/ theater shows, the song Under the Radar, the return of distorted upfront guitar in the mix on the ABB tour, ABB-best cd since TY.

IMHO, that's better than the '80's whose one bright spot (to me) was TY and the '81-'82 tour. TY; lotsa great leftovers souped up made it the last classic RS cd. SW- too slick a cd and too antiseptic-sounding of a tour. Undercover and DW? -c'mon, lamest consecutive cds in RS history.

Again this thread is not about The Stones touring success , its about their artistic output over this decade compared with the ones past. A Bigger Bang is a repackaged greatest hits álbum ignored by their peers and RS magazine, a publication More pro STones than anyother on the planet.

Touring wise they made a killing, so? The Stones always reinvented themselves and put out great músic. If they made músic For themselves maybe something good would come out of the speakers.

Quote
winter
IMHO, that's better than the '80's whose one bright spot (to me) was TY and the '81-'82 tour. TY; lotsa great leftovers souped up made it the last classic RS cd. SW- too slick a cd and too antiseptic-sounding of a tour. Undercover and DW? -c'mon, lamest consecutive cds in RS history.

Pass the joint mate.
The 80's were a dream in comparison, we got new music in 1980, 1981, 1983, 1986 and 1989, Mick's albums in 1985, 1987 and Keith's one in 1988.
The creative force was there, there's not even a spark now.

I think as a creative force they are not really with it anymore. They can still inspire live when the shows are scaled back a little bit.

Worst decade musically based on one album?

This whole concept makes no sense.

How can you 'compare' decades when every other one has more than one album to base it on?

The album by the Stones is nowhere in sight in this magazine's poll, or whatever, because the Stones were not one of the most relevant, popular, recognized bands/artists this decade. That has nothing to do with if they are any good or not.

How many bands/artists from 1929 had any relevance in 1969?

With the same demographic that Rolling Stone is aimed at?

Things change. Look at Elvis 1956 vs. Elvis 1976. And that's only 20 years.

Don't hold the fact that the band is human and actually ages, and that the world and culture and art change over time, against them.

Damn, are you still doing what you did 20 or 30 years ago? the same way? Are you still popular with people that are 20 or 30 years younger than you? Is that what you are aiming for?

Here's a suggestion: STOP READING ROLLING STONE! It SUCKS!

J

I would say with what Mick writes about sex and love he is not aiming at the fan base of the group which I think is a mistake. He has not matured well as a writer.

Were the 90s better musically for the Stones than the 80s or 70s or 60s? No.

Were the 80s better musically for the Stones than the 70s or 60s? No.

Were the 70s better musically for the Stones than the 60s? That's probably the only one up for debate.

Funny, seems the more time passes, the 'worse' each decade gets musically or in terms of 'relevance' or 'creativity.'

J

Quote

Worst decade musically based on one album?

This whole concept makes no sense.

How can you 'compare' decades when every other one has more than one album to base it on?

No offense, but that's the whole point of the argument here, that it's their worst decade creatively because they only put out one new album, and the reason they only put out one new album this decade is because they have ceased to be a functioning CREATIVE group. They are still functioning as a business and may be able to tour again, they are even relevant in that respect, but not creatively. Even if they are capable as people, as individuals, of still being creative, they certainly haven't done very much this decade. The fact that they've only done the one album is proof of that.

Quote
The Greek

Quote
RobertJohnson
The worst decade - sure, but not a bad decade I think. ABB is one of their best albums, Four Flicks, Biggest Bang and Shine a Light are great to some extent. I'm disappointed about the tremendous decline of Ronnie Wood, his solo efforts are partly terrible, the number of bump-notes during Bigger Bang aren't tolerable and destroyed some tracks completely. Hope he will recover; Keith will not be able to play two guitars.

have you seen the stones live in this decade (licks tour, bigger bang tour) ?

Yes, 5 shows, 3 Licks, 2 Bigger Bang

Why should the Stones put out an new album and show creativity which just doesn' come?
And if the Stones would put out a new album the same people would moan again that the old days have been better.
Fans may like to hear odd songs, never played songs,etc. But the World is different and would like to see and hear the Stones as a monument in time in Rock and Roll and Blues History.
Besides the money issue you just cannot expect big wonders from a band which have been together for so long. I am happy that I was able to share moments in the last 40 years which peaked my live and I am happy that we sill may have a glimpse of a chance to see them again.
Expect nothing and your reward will be everything.

I predict that the 2020's will be worse for new output and tours.

I think is their laziest decade

And i think RS magazine is crap and shit, spanish version is awful

Clint Eastwood its 80 yearsold and just had his best decade as a film maker.


# Invictus (2009)
# Gran Torino (2008)
... aka Gran Torino (Germany)
# Changeling (2008)
# Letters from Iwo Jima (2006)
# Flags of Our Fathers (2006)
# Million Dollar Baby (2004)
# "The Blues" (1 episode, 2003)
- Piano Blues (2003) TV episode
# Mystic River (2003)
# Blood Work (2002)
# Space Cowboys (2000)

I don't know how much he makes on these movies, but obviously this cat gets his Rocks Off creating.

Radiohead is one of the most overrated bands and KId A ist just an awful album.

They go on these tours and have all these days off in between shows... perfect for writing and recording new stuff on the road... a la Muscle Shoals sessions back in 69'

Stones music does not have to be overly produced... just record some good songs damn it.

"At a certain age, people minds close up: they live on their intellectual fat." - WLP

"A Bigger Bang is a repackaged greatest hits album"???

How is that? That makes ZERO sense.

Of course one can't compare this decade to the 1960s or 70s because that's when they were almost doing an album per year. They slowed down in the 1980s and really started to drag the bottom release wise in the 1990s.

The 20's, well, for a bunch of rich fuckheads that travel all over the place with all this time on their hands, one might think they could release a few more albums.

But when it comes down to it - they've really got nothing to write about lyrically - just listen to A Bigger Bang. Mick writes about...how he hurt someone again? And how grand it sounds? Hence Streets Of Shit. At least She Saw Me Coming and Rough Justice is comical and musically boogieing.

"Relevance" and rock'n'roll (or any music) do not go together. There is nothing 'relevant' about any musician.

2000 was a great decade for the Stones----Bigger Bang was as good if not better then all the other music that was released at the time..
This decade is the best because the Stones are still together...Not just old fart band playing to senior centers...
They played the Super Bowl, Great world tours, Jagger even had a tv show written around him. Plus they released NEW ---Yes NEW Music...Not just the same old rehashed Stones albums..They tried to write something new and fresh...

Its the best of times as they have nothing to prove and they keeping making something new....And if your a new fan seeing them for the very 1st time during the Bigger Bang tour then they will think this was the BEST of TIMES!
Rock on!

Maybe this thread should have been titled 2000's Worst Decade For Stones Releases.

I know what you mean skip, people's lack of comprehension when it comes the topics on here is very frustrating.

Talk to me in 20 years about the slew of U2, Wilco, Strokes and Radiohead records that are coming out and how they are all so 'relevant' and creative 40 years into their careers. They'll be lucky if they have any new material released TEN years from now.

And as much as I love and respect Dylan, even his stage announcer cites his near vanishing in the 80s and 90s.

Do The Strokes even exist anymore?

J

ANYONE will be lucky to have an album released by the mid/late Twentyteens, yet alone the 2020s...

Quote
skipstone
ANYONE will be lucky to have an album released by the mid/late Twentyteens, yet alone the 2020s...

Too true, too true.

J