Been following the stones since 1970 and have recently been looking at their performances over the years, I'm not sure how to put this or how well people will react but i really do think The Stones are a different band since Mick Taylor joined them in 69.

When we see them on the big tours I think they have built up a new reputation as a new band that started in 69 -70 because looking at all the old footage of them back in the sixties they had Brian and the sound did seem fresher then. The Stones we see now i think are a band that started in 69 and uses their name and reputation that was built in the sixties. Does anyone understand what I am trying to say? and do you agree?

Actually they've reinvented themselves plenty of times over the past 46 years - The Aftermath/Buttons/Flowers/Satanic Stones weren't the same band that made 'Now!' or '12 x 5'. JJF was sort of a big comeback, along with BB a vastly evolved Stones reconnexting with their 'roots'; the band that made 'Some Girls' was utterly unlike the early '70s Stones. Etc.

In a way, yes. The only objection I have is that I would not say that they have built up a new reputation as a new band that started in 69-70; I see the starting point in 1968 with the release of Jumping Jack Flash and Beggars Banquet. With the possible exception of the Hyde Park Concert when still a good number of early 60s songs were played (I'm Free, Down Home Girl, Mercy Mercy, Satisfaction), besides Chuck Berry covers like Carol (1969) and Bye Bye Johnny (1972) from 1969 onwards their shows were usually based on material from 1968 onwards, with (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction more or less the only song representing the 1963 to 1967 period (and even this anthemic classic surfaced, if at all, only sporadically in their setlists from 1972 to 1978).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-12 12:17 by retired_dog.

Quote
pgarof
Been following the stones since 1970 and have recently been looking at their performances over the years, I'm not sure how to put this or how well people will react but i really do think The Stones are a different band since Mick Taylor joined them in 69.

When we see them on the big tours I think they have built up a new reputation as a new band that started in 69 -70 because looking at all the old footage of them back in the sixties they had Brian and the sound did seem fresher then. The Stones we see now i think are a band that started in 69 and uses their name and reputation that was built in the sixties. Does anyone understand what I am trying to say? and do you agree?

It's a matter of taste an age..
First time I heard them was in my mothers kitchen,(5 years old)there was this song
paint it black on the radio,and it gave me chicken-skin. At the age of 8 I started to play the guitar,influenced by the Rolling Stones,and when I was 9,I heard MTaylor,and he became my biggest influence Saw the Stones line in '72-73-76.
Both gigs with Taylor were very impressive for a kid 12 years old.
When I was 15 I became more intersted in Jazz(Rock) and saw the Stones with Wood in The Hague '76.The spell was broken-they sounded bad to me,no more warm guitarsolo's,etc.
Since that time I follow them from a distance,but I still do love their '64-76 period.
The Rolling Stones now match perfect to the younger generation to say"I saw the RStones") or older people that go to the music museum.
But to me they are (since 1976) a coverband of them selves,apart from some handfull of nice songs they had ever since 1976..
Ron Wood was a wrong choice to me,the Stone needed a good leadplayer after Taylor left,but they choose the safe way.very.mediocre..


I think they are mainly interested in making money,musically they are getting worse by the time..

Quote
MTFan
But to me they are (since 1976) a coverband of them selves

Eeh, what about Some Girls, Tattoo You, Undercover (was this album really made of a stones "coverband"?). I agree from Bridges and till now, but the three records mentioned above are among my favourite stones albums, and IMO they are all standing rock solid on their own today. Even though TY was made of earlier recorded tracks.

I agree with the original poster. Musically the current Stones is a peril of that 68-69 period, when they created the songs and sound of the "Greatest Rock and Roll Band In The World", but their reputation - mostly do with extra-musical activities - is based on their whole rebellous 60's career as the 'anti-Beatles'. That is the period when they have their say in the history of rock and roll, even though their best musical efforts might have been done later... I think they still owe to Andrew Loog Oldham few thanks.... Anyway, since their 'come back' in 1989 they have been more friendly with their prior "Jumping Jack Flash" catalog (in compared to 1969-82 period). By taking old hits like "Ruby Tuesday" and "Paint It Black" to their repertuare, and presenting them almost copies of their originals (songs very difficult to imagine to be played at all or that way during 1969-82 tours: look what they did to "Under My Thumb", "Let's Spend The Night Together" or "Get Off of My Cloud"... Like Retired Dog reminded, they also had difficulties to give a serious treatment to their signature "Satisfaction", and they even dropped it out sometimes) they also seem to give a musical reminder of the days when their reputation was build. Some call it nostalgy.

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-12 13:30 by Doxa.

The way I see it there were numerous changes in the progression of the Stones. Started of as blues purists, concentrated on the black peoples music in the early 60s.
Then grabbed by the popularity of pop-bands in the mid 60s, following trends that fellow musicians like the Kinks, Beatles, Dylan followed too. Lots of screaming girls where ever they went.
The end of the 60s was the era when technical musical abilities took over from sex appeal with bands like Cream and Jimi Hendrix Exp were making name. Mick T fitted perfectly in those days.
The early 70s brought glam rock with Bowie, Queen et cetera. Mick put on make up and clothes that reveiled his belly button and again they were on top of the game.
Late 70s punk rock and we got a closer look at Keith' naked arms and chest.
The 80s. Ouch, the 80s. Not much of an era for rock music. This time Keith decided enough is enough when it comes to following trends and Mick had to go his own way if he wanted to put up with the youngsters.
And from the 90s on, the boys followed their own course, exploring many different styles, grabbing back to every era that preceeded.

So, I think you are right that the boys took a different course in 1969, but they did so on more occasions before and after that.

Of course, the Stones re-invented themselves on many occasions since 1969. But what still seems strange to me is that their early period 1963-1967 was largely neglected in their setlists between 1969 to 1978. Only from 1981 onwards Satisfaction became a setlist regular again, and 1981 also saw some other early songs included like Under My Thumb, Let's Spend The Night Together, Time Is On My Side and (if only occasionally) Mona and Down The Road Apiece, a trend which was continued in 1989 with Ruby Tuesday, 2000 Light Years From Home, Paint It Black, Play With Fire, Little Red Rooster ...
... but, since 1989 it's been a different story - it's not that much about re-inventing themselves, but increasingly resting on their past laurels, creating setlists by picking tracks from all career phases, and in general more and more emphasizing on concert tours than on releasing new music.

In my opinion during the 1969-1978 era every tour was mainly focused on supporting the new albums. That seems to be the main reason why they did not really play the old material on those tours. By now we regard songs like Brown Sugar, Bitch, Tumblin Dice et cetera as warhorses, in the 70s they were brand new songs they were proud of.

Maybe the 1981 tour was the first tour when it was largely appreciated that the Stones were something special to have survived 20 years. Maybe that is the reason why they focused more on the roots during this tour (like playing a section of songs from the 50s to honor their main influences).

Good point(s), marcovandereijk !

You can see it as reincarnation in different forms...or as a steady evolution. It doesn't really matter.
I suppose I'm lucky. I do perhaps perceive the Stones as being a series of different bands...but I'm equally fond of them all ;^)

Yeah, goods points keep appearing... it is true that since 1969 tour every new tour was strongly based on mixing the current album(s) and the old basic set of hits - so each tour has its own flavor (I am talking about 1969-82 time frame). But there is also differences in that.

Namely, I think 1968-69 catalog created the foundation for all their tours ever since: "Jumping Jack Flash", "Honky Tonk Women", "Sympathy For The Devil", "Street Fighting Man", "Gimme Shelter", "You Can't Always Get Wat you Want", Midnight Rambler"... these were the songs that that defined their sound and turned out be concert highlights (and they still are). After that, The new material of the forecoming albums was mixed with this strong basic material, and the gems of them were added among the regulars in their set in next tours: "Brown Sugar"; "Tumblin Dice", "Happy"; "Angie", "It's Only Rock and Roll", "Miss You", "Start Me Up". But my point is that 1968/69 catalog is the rock foundation of "the greatest rock nad roll in the world" - there are those profilic songs that earned them the title - and there aren't many songs caliber of them since then, and by looking their set its ever since they seem to be awere of that.

It is also true that probably 1981/82 tour was the first tour they really started to look back, and thereby rediscovering the prior "Jumping Jack Flash" period. But bloody hell, they treated the songs so brillantly, with their current sound of the time: "Under My Thumb", "Let's Spend The Night Together", "Time is On my Side". Wonderful, innovative versions.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-12 16:27 by Doxa.

Hmmm

I think in terms of each era, the 1964-67 era is a bit goofy. Aftermath is above and beyond anything else from that period, with Out Of Our Heads being probably the second best record from that era. Everything else pales in comparison and lacks the meat of those two records.

1968-72 is obviously The Stones as they have become known to be loved as with the warhorses. The Classic Era, The Golden Era, etc...

1973-1977 is obvious...the albums were being compared to the previous era and therefor they would never be as good again blah blah blah...I'm sure it sucks to be compared to yourself. Like when Wayne Gretzky "only" got 196 points after the previous season of 212 - he's just not as good anymore - when before the season of 212 he got something like 156 points - the most ever at that point!

1978 is one year....

1981-82...etc.... and so on. Up and down with the albums...the big tours....

I think the point is it's beyond any point...just for the money...whatever...if it was just for the money they would have stopped long ago. What, do you really think all that money goes in their pockets? HA HA! Ronnie is the one who needs the money because he's a moron. Mick, Keith and Charlie are still doing it because...it's what they do, they love to be themselves, they love music, they love to play.

And a lot of people love to see/hear them live.

Quote
Doxa
But bloody hell, they treated the songs so brillantly, with their current sound of the time: "Under My Thumb", "Let's Spend The Night Together", "Time is On my Side". Wonderful, innovative versions.

So true, Doxa!

The Stones are a great bunch of bands! (to mis paraphrase KR)

I still think The Stones are the greatest rock and roll band but seeing them with all the stage effects and modern sound they just are not the band from the 60's but are the Greatest for being what they are now.

it would be impossible for a band thats being going for nearly 46 years never to be compared to a tribute band. the stones have made many records from many different era,s and its only right that they play in concert songs that transcend every year possible.

what i like about them is they have reinvented many songs from all era,s that had been ignored for decades in some instances.

they are also still very good live, whether they use too many backing musicians or not, they still make good music but after 46 years it would be virtually impossible to recreate the 1964-66 or 1968-72 period.

everything they have done since 1972 has been compared unfavourably to pre 1972, and as a result many songs in the last 35 years are very underrated.

a lot of warhorses tend to be overrated in my opinion.

but what i love about the stones when you listen to a selection of thier albums is that you feel you are listening to more than 1 band and not many bands can do that.

I have to step in here for the pre-'69 band. It's too often tacitly assumed here, by Taylorites, "classic rock" drones, etc., that everything before the '69 tour, or perhaps "JJF," is a meaningless blur. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are many far-ranging shifts in the band's sound and history before then. The sheer range of music from '63 to '68, not to mention the quality, stands up to the so-called Golden Age of '68 to '72 and easily outstrips the rest of the '70s. I know I'm in a minority, but it needs to be said. Anyone who thinks the pre-'67 sound is "goofy" doesn't have good copies of the albums, or a good system for playing them, or good ears for hearing them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-12 22:47 by cc.

have to agree with CC, the pre 1968 era was fantastic aswell and was what origonally defined the stones early image.

each year seemed to herald a new musical direction for the stones.

i also loved the 1967 period and especially the excellent between the buttons album.

The one similarity running through each of the phases and stages of the Stones time periods is fundamentally good music written by a team of musical genius. From Little By Little to Biggest Mistake.