I think it was OK, but nothing more.

The ideas that floated around sounded promising, but unfortunatly they left many of them on the floor.

The decade started off nice with the ABKCO remasters. Lovely sound and packaging. And though it was a little messy here and there (the Uk/Us issues), it was overall a good job. The 1960's Stones catalog could now be laid to rest.

Forty Licks was great. Finally a carrer-spanning compilation, although four new songs was a bit overkill. 2 could have done it, to make room for a couple more oldies, which would have maked Disc 2 a little more comprehensive.

They recorded an albums worth of material in Paris that year (2002), but they left it in the can, which is a shame...

The Licks Tour was a great opportunity to play real rarities. They did, but only on the first helf of the tour. When they got to Europe, they had returned to the war horses...

Four Flicks was a great DVD. Something for everybody, and in a way the decade's greatest product. What it promissed, it had. Good value for money.

A Bigger Bang was a fine album, a bit long though. After Voodoo Lounge and Bridges To Babylon they should have learned that long albums isn't always a case of quality. A little more editing on those and ABB, and we could have had more consistent albums, which would have made them better listening experiences. Now ABB is just another Stones album with 5-6 good songs, the rest sounds half-baked...

Rarities was a complete waste of plastic. When I saw the first rumored tracklist posted on IORR, I thought "Finally they take care of the product, and make a good comprehensive collection of the lose ends. A nice addition to the catalog."
When I saw the final tracklist, I was so dissapointed. Who were they trying to sell that album to? Hadcore fans? -nope. Casual fans? -yes, but does casual or first time Stones fans buy Rarities? I don't think so. And therefore, they once again put themselves between two chairs, and made a product were it was difficult to see the point of release...

The Bigger Bang Tour was almost a repetition of the Licks Tour. Good shows, but with a bit uninspiring setlists, with the same songs as always. Also, the whole setup seemed like lacking in ideas.
Then Keith fell off the palm... A few bad shows, but the last part of the tour was fine.

The Biggest Bang paled compared to Four Flicks. The same ideas repeated...

Shine A Light was for me, a dissapointment. Although it was greatly filmed, the playing was untidy and unsteady. I wish Scorsese would have turned up when they made the Stripped concerts ten yers earlier...

2009 saw the release of the post-ABKCO remasters. Couldn't understand why they did it. They sounded almost as the Virgin's...

The decade ended quite nice with the 40th Anniversary Get Yer 'Ya-Ya's" Out!. Nice packaging, nice idea and nice product.

Next year we get the Exile On Main Street Deluxe Edition. It could be a nice start to what I think is the final decade for The Rolling Stones...

Ha ha. "They recorded an albums worth of material in Paris that year (2002), but they left it in the can, which is a shame..." you mean "which is a good thing" because Stealing My Heart and Keys To Your Love are CRAP! Imagine what an entire album of that shit would have sounded like!

It would have sounded like shit!

Maybe, but I think Keith had a lot of riffs and ideas for songs that they didn't finish.

It was quite obvious that Mick had 3 songs nearly finished and Keith had 1.
There wasn't time for the other stuff.
Maybe I'm just a wishful thinker though...

How does one run out of ideas though? They recorded 18 million - 18 MILLION - songs for Some Girls AND Emotional Rescue. Yet alone everything else they did in the 1970s.

They did about 300 - THREE HUNDRED! - songs for Voodoo Lounge.

Certainly, with a little, just a little more time, like 6 months more, Keith could tap back into that heavy trank shit he was taking to get that shit he was getting.

YET ALONE the tracks they've left behind that are stellar (Fiji Jim, Rotten Roll or whatever it's called, Munich Hilton, Misty Roads, etc...).

What a good thread. Great posts by Loudei

Quote
Blueranger
They recorded an albums worth of material in Paris that year (2002), but they left it in the can, which is a shame...

No they didnt. Yeah, OK..they apparently cut about 25 songs in that session, but considering the session lasted two weeks and four of them had enough time spent on them to be deemed finished and worthy of release, how much work do you seriously think was done on the rest of them?

Going by the evidence on bootlegs down the years of the way the Stones work in the studio, I doubt they were barely anything more than sketches with barely anything approaching a lyric.

And if the 4 songs they did release are anything to go by, the chances of the rest of that session being listenable let alone releasable would be pretty unlikely.

Quote
Blueranger


The Licks Tour was a great opportunity to play real rarities. They did, but only on the first helf of the tour. When they got to Europe, they had returned to the war horses...

I must have missed that. I saw 9 shows in Britain and Ireland on that tour and heard loads of non warhorses. I think the Twickenham/Astoria/Wembley trio of shows yielded something like 49 different songs alone.

You make some other good points though.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-02 03:59 by Gazza.

You see Blueranger, I just blast shit out while Gazza takes the time to explain things ha ha ha ha ha...

Quote
skipstone
...I just think it is realistic to THINK that they might be to the point of stopping. Nothing wrong with that. That's not anti-Stones or being an anti-fan etc. It's just reality. Or a reality or a possible reality.

I hope they don't fall down. I love Keith. Etc.

Agreed !

I will add that one day it will be the end, and it's life after all.
The world will keep on rollin', and I will still listenin' to my Rolling STONES,
who were and will still stay in my mind " the GREATEST f]@#@ ROCK AND ROLL BAND in the world" !
Growin' old gracefully, that's just what I wanted for them, but I'm really scared!
I could be wrong for sure and I hope there will be better days...

A one hour intimate show could be great, instead of these 2 hours Stadium Shows,
but I always read in some books , that if you lose your passion, something's going wrong, And that's what they do since...I don't know but a very long time!
Where are my Glimmer Twins?
Wake up Mick and Keith, please Wake up!!!

HMN

Albums & Other New Music - A Bigger Bang was utter shit. Not as bad as Bridges To Babylon (which was a disgrace) but not a good album at all. Rough Justice is classic stones (and calculated that way) and This Place Is Empty is typical nice Keith, but the rest can go in the trash. Appalling album. 2/4 good songs on Forty Licks. No other new material, which feels a bit lazy.

Tours - They've deteriorated as a live act due to Mick's inane posturing, uninspiring setlists, Keith's lacklustre playing, Ronnie being very hit and miss, the massive amounts of additional musicians making them sound less like a proper band, the stupid showbiz vibe given off at every show, and so on and so on. Occasionally you'll find a good gig (usually in a club) but usually they're very uninspired.


EDIT - Does anyone have the sessions for Forty Licks?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-02 04:34 by Ferret.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-02 05:13 by From4tilLate.

Keith can't play the rhythm guitar anymore.
The priceless, unique rhythm section is no more.
Jagger, while athletically impressive, has lost all his sensuality and soul.
The sullen, menacing magical image is completely gone.
It's the Rolling Stones in name only anymore.
Stick a fork in 'em. They're done.

Quote
Amused
equal to 90s and pretty much better than 80s (Tattoo You is tough, though)

1 very good studio album that I play quite often
2 very good live albums (SAL OST being the better one)
3 very good videos (Four Flicks being the best one, SAL 2nd and TBB 3rd)
1 very good compilation (Forty Licks) w/ new songs

2 very good tours

come on, cheer up ;^)

OST?

Quote
chenry9195

Quote
Amused
equal to 90s and pretty much better than 80s (Tattoo You is tough, though)

1 very good studio album that I play quite often
2 very good live albums (SAL OST being the better one)
3 very good videos (Four Flicks being the best one, SAL 2nd and TBB 3rd)
1 very good compilation (Forty Licks) w/ new songs

2 very good tours

come on, cheer up ;^)

OST?

Original soundtrack.

Quote
Ferret
Albums & Other New Music - A Bigger Bang was utter shit. Not as bad as Bridges To Babylon (which was a disgrace) but not a good album at all. Rough Justice is classic stones (and calculated that way) and This Place Is Empty is typical nice Keith, but the rest can go in the trash. Appalling album. 2/4 good songs on Forty Licks. No other new material, which feels a bit lazy.

Tours - They've deteriorated as a live act due to Mick's inane posturing, uninspiring setlists, Keith's lacklustre playing, Ronnie being very hit and miss, the massive amounts of additional musicians making them sound less like a proper band, the stupid showbiz vibe given off at every show, and so on and so on. Occasionally you'll find a good gig (usually in a club) but usually they're very uninspired.


EDIT - Does anyone have the sessions for Forty Licks?

... assuming you mean the Paris 2002 sessions--judging from the rest of your post, why would you ever want to hear them?

Quote
From4tilLate
Keith can't play the rhythm guitar anymore.
The priceless, unique rhythm section is no more.
Jagger, while athletically impressive, has lost all his sensuality and soul.
The sullen, menacing magical image is completely gone.
It's the Rolling Stones in name only anymore.
Stick a fork in 'em. They're done.

this is what am talking about. Reinvent yourself as an artist. Find out what you got going and canalize your creativity, but is very hard to do when decisions or politics are made money or business oriented. Keith is not fighting for the bands soul anymore. He has been bLackmailed for the simple fact that if he does not give in its over, and no one on this planet loves the stones More than Keef.

Has anyone seen "being mick" documentary? Talk about a fckin ego. Keith has done everything to keep things at peace, loyal to the lead singer. What a shame

Quote
Loudei
Keith has done everything to keep things at peace, loyal to the lead singer. What a shame

Are you kidding? Keith has spent the last 20-plus years bad-mouthing Mick at every opportunity.

And while Mick certainly has a big ego, Keith has demonstrated amply that his own ego is, if anything, bigger than Mick's.

The one thing everyone seems to agree on is the wish for them to age gracefully. Either keep going, or end it, but do it in style. And they sure ain't doing that.

Quote
From4tilLate

Quote
Loudei
Keith has done everything to keep things at peace, loyal to the lead singer. What a shame

Are you kidding? Keith has spent the last 20-plus years bad-mouthing Mick at every opportunity.

Which, in turn, speaks volumes of how frustrated he is with his role within the band. All he can do is a bit bad-mouth Mick in public. Keith is the one who came without balls after the ego war of the 80's that almost killed the band. As far as the control over The Rolling Stones goes, Keith is the loser of the two. Even in Keith's most druggy days in the 70's he did not have so little impact into doings of The Stones as he has had since 1989. At least at the time (the early to mid-70's) he was still the king in the studio and the rest of them needed to live according to "Keith's time", and every night the band played through maestro's guidance. Just ask Bill Wyman (oh, who he is?). But seemingly Keith is nowadays happy with the salary for just acting KEEF without any musical or artistic responsibilities. Mick and Cohl made an incredible offer for him in 1989 me thinks.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-02 09:52 by Doxa.

From 4 till late makes a great observation, Mick Jagger has lost all his sensuality and soul- musically in the way he expresses himself vocally, and also in the way he moves. He has lost his natural rhythm in the way he dances for sure, while still managing to maintain his slender frame. He never really connects with the music anymore, vocally or visually - it all seems to be about spectacle with Mick's large ego very much at the back of it. As a previous poster commented, McCartney is just so much better live these days (despite me never really feeling overawed by his talent). He seems to focus on the music to a much greater degree and vocally, unlike Jagger, his voice still sounds very fresh and flexible and brimming with vitality especially on the uptempo songs - in fact on some of the songs his voice sounds as good as ever. Keith may not be the creative force he once was but it's only when it's time for his solo spot, and Jagger's gimmicks are put to one side, that we hear music that portrays anything approaching sincere and heartfelt. I think Jagger is very much sided with in relation to Richards on this forum, but for me Jagger is very much the focal point to where the problem lies in relation to the Stones mediocre performances. He needs very much to find a new perspective and adapt to the aging process, instead of wanting to express himself as forever youthful. When he was in his youth he was always much more subtle in his physical delivery, without appearing forced, now he's very much bogged down in superficiality.

Thinking in retrospect of those two huge tours of the 00's... and this occurred to me after watching VERY LOUD the Twicks one of FOUR FLICKS in the new year's night.. (it is a great representative of the 00's Stones-show - I think perhaps the best of them all):

Keith Richards is what the Brian Jones used to be in the early days within the Stones: the second charismatic frontman, poser and dresser who mostly 'colors' the sound. Ronnie Wood is the Keith Richards of the early days: that low profile guitarist that needs to the dirty work behind the two high-profile front men. (This is even more true in A BIGGER BANG tour when Woodie concentrated more to his duties as a guitar player).

To make the analogy furthier: as far as the studio contribution goes: if we forget the formal Jagger/Richards agreement over the credicition policy, what would be the actual difference between the contribution of Brian Jones into, say, 1965-1967 Rolling Stones originals compared to what Keith did in the 00's? I guess in most of the A BIGGER BANG song if the credition criteria they used back in the 60's (over Brian or the rest) would be used, most of the songs would imply say: composed by Mick Jagger. Keith's solo tracks seem to be anomalies like Bill's "In Another Land".

It is incredible to think that Keith used to made almost ALL the melodies for the Rolling Stones originals ("Yesterday's Papers" being the first solely made by Mick). Keith had seen taken the Chuck Berry -route as far as making new material goes. Perhaps the muse just left the bulding. But Keith surely did enough for one man (as Chuck did as well)!

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-02 10:37 by Doxa.

Quote
Edward Twining
From 4 till late makes a great observation, Mick Jagger has lost all his sensuality and soul- musically in the way he expresses himself vocally, and also in the way he moves. He has lost his natural rhythm in the way he dances for sure, while still managing to maintain his slender frame. He never really connects with the music anymore, vocally or visually - it all seems to be about spectacle with Mick's large ego very much at the back of it. As a previous poster commented, McCartney is just so much better live these days (despite me never really feeling overawed by his talent). He seems to focus on the music to a much greater degree and vocally, unlike Jagger, his voice still sounds very fresh and flexible and brimming with vitality especially on the uptempo songs - in fact on some of the songs his voice sounds as good as ever. Keith may not be the creative force he once was but it's only when it's time for his solo spot, and Jagger's gimmicks are put to one side, that we hear music that portrays anything approaching sincere and heartfelt. I think Jagger is very much sided with in relation to Richards on this forum, but for me Jagger is very much the focal point to where the problem lies in relation to the Stones mediocre performances. He needs very much to find a new perspective and adapt to the aging process, instead of wanting to express himself as forever youthful. When he was in his youth he was always much more subtle in his physical delivery, without appearing forced, now he's very much bogged down in superficiality.

Spot on, every word. I need to say that I have started to hate the over-hype over Mick's physical presence; like the whole idea of a rock and roll band and its singer is the freak point that sixtysomething has a bum of thirtysomething's , and is able to top Jane Fonda's aerobic lessons by his peterpan energy - and that's about it. So called'singing' is nothing but mimicing, and giving a kind of impression of vocal delivery. Jagger's seem to view himself nothing more than that ever-young figure and robot performer. Like it's the only thing he has to sell or offer. It is just so... stupid, pop-like. What actually is the difference between Mick and Madonna? (well, both of those aerobic gym-wonders were created in the 80's actually - so, "Let's Work"! It's a "Material World"!)

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-02 11:03 by Doxa.

Quote
Bärs

When I started listening to them in the early nineties they seemed invincible. I couldn't believe my fortune to have found a band that not only made great music, but also was the leading creative cultural force on earth (or so I believed...).

So why weren't you listening to the Stones BEFORE the early nineties when you "found" them?

...had you been in a coma or (similarly) living in the north west of Scotland?

Quote
Barn Owl

Quote
Bärs

When I started listening to them in the early nineties they seemed invincible. I couldn't believe my fortune to have found a band that not only made great music, but also was the leading creative cultural force on earth (or so I believed...).

So why weren't you listening to the Stones BEFORE the early nineties when you "found" them?

...had you been in a coma or (similarly) living in the north west of Scotland?

I can't believe scots are as good as I am to abuse the english language.

Actually I was 15 years old and we put together a band that played classics in order to raise money for a school trip. One member, a devoted Beatles fan, recommended something of the Stones, which I was not familiar with at the time. Homever, on my way home that day I noticed Flaspoint for sale to a very reasonable price. For some unknown reason I bought it and two weeks later I admitted to myself that I liked it. A pivotal moment.

In other words, I'm not a 60+ fanatic who thinks some rock groups are the most important things in the world and the 1960s the central decade in man's history.

I took my then 12-year old son to his first big concert in 2003 - Stockholm´s Olympic Stadium. He enjoyed it quite a lot, though perhaps more for the event than it being the Stones...
At the time I thought it would be my last Rolling Stones concert, as I had begun to think they weren´t good enough for the high ticket prices anymore. This is still my feeling.

That said, I think A Bigger Bang is pretty good, and i liked watching Shine A Light.

Quote
From4tilLate
Keith can't play the rhythm guitar anymore.
The priceless, unique rhythm section is no more.
Jagger, while athletically impressive, has lost all his sensuality and soul.
The sullen, menacing magical image is completely gone.
It's the Rolling Stones in name only anymore.
Stick a fork in 'em. They're done.

it hurts to agree with you, but as sad as it is, it's the plain truth...

Here's my two cents. It hurts me to say this, but I think that the decline in the Stones power in the 00's was due to Keith. He seems to have entirely lost his creative muse, and after the fall his guitar playing became erratic (and on some nights really poor). I disagree with the idea that Jagger doesn't connect with the music, or that he's lost his soul/sensuality; his performances have been consistently remarkable, especially when you consider his age. (And, if you listen to something like "Laugh, I Nearly Died", you'll see that his voice is as strong as ever). Ronnie, when sober, is as solid on stage as he ever was. And Charlie, God bless him, swings as hard as ever.

The problem is Keith, I'm very sorry to say. I love the man (we all do), but maybe it's time to hang it up. It is only in the past few years that he's lost his touch: on the Licks tour, he was excellent.

Drew

Quote
From4tilLate
Keith can't play the rhythm guitar anymore.
The priceless, unique rhythm section is no more.
Jagger, while athletically impressive, has lost all his sensuality and soul.
The sullen, menacing magical image is completely gone.
It's the Rolling Stones in name only anymore.
Stick a fork in 'em. They're done.

yes, but they had a great run, eh? i'll choose to remember them fondly....

The problem seems to be that money has become the only reason to tour. There is nothing wrong with making millions, but in 2007 there were shows for which there was done no soundcheck, and that shows that the passion is gone.

I agree with Drewmaster, unless Keith has recovered to where he was on Licks it might be time to stop rolling.