Sohoe, my original intention was to point that the way music is viewed has changed over the years - you know how A (a certain album or a song or a performance) does appear to X (a listener, a critic, etc) in T1 and T2 (different moments of time). In the case of the Stones the point is due the decline of the band as a creative force, and this has the effect that what was mediocre in the moment T1 is almost great in T2. There is clear tendency in there, which I find interesting. The comparisons of, say, the 70's albums to each other is not a point in itself, just to see them over-all after the decades - and each of the albums is valued in terms of its own (or whatever kind of terms - it doesn't matter). So, to repeat the point, I didn't tried to find "objective" criteria according to which to judge the quality of the Stones albums or doings, but just emphasized the relativity of the criterion.

Of the "comparative approach" over-all... nothing rocket science there: just to point out the differences and similarities of A and B. One way to talk about a certain song or album is to find these kind relations to others. In fact, trying to talk a song ar an album wihout reference to the musical world outside of it, might be even impossible.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-09 23:24 by Doxa.

Interesting thread.
I think that maybe why the notion even exists that Jagger and Richards have run out of ideas is because they chose to keep this mighty giant called the Rolling Stones going. It is so big and so out of hand that even they can not control it anymore. Jagger comes the closest but he takes the angle of padding it with so many cushions and insurance policies to make sure it stays successful and palatable and commercial, that it has becomes a sterile affair.
The truth IMO though is that they did not run out of ideas. As much as I want to always have a Rolling Stones in my life, I think musically speaking - as in good music from Jagger or Richards - they should have pursued the solo careers. Look at what Keith did with the Winos: it is not only the excellent songs he put on those two albums, but how he changed and evolved as a performer, as a band leader, as a musician. He did the one thing that held a challenge for him; I still think that the Winos might be the second best Rockband ever. He really worked the medium and the vehicle. Reggae, Soul, Blues were fused deeper and more pure than with the Stones.
I agree that the Stones took their "thing" about as far as they can. But rocksongs with 2 guitars can still amaze. I have hardly been amazed by any Stones material post-89, but definitely by post 89 Keith or Jagger output.
Jagger on the other hand had it within grasp; "Wandering Spirit" is his best, and IMO a stepping stone towards what he had in him. The writing might be better on Goddess, but the overall album is better on WS. Rick Rubin WOULD and COULD have been the courageous choice of direction. In retrospect he chose Rubin because he was hot, and not because it was a artistic challenge. That is most probably why he stayed away afterwards: because it was unsure, a dare, a risk; ultimately made for better music, art, but not a 'Jagger' kind of move.
So Jagger on his own is an artistic coward. Yes, he gave us a life of the cusp, but this was with Keith, with the Stones, with Miller, with the courage of youth.
So it might almost be impossible to still write anything that truly touches others within an edifice so huge and vast. You have to get down and dirty, and humble to amaze with songs. How can you stay human when your tongue has become an empire?

Doxa, thanks for the t's & x's

First off, I didn't read any objectivity/finality into your first post - just a good old-fashioned opinion
[I tend to skip posters with those kind of declaration tendencies]

Whether there's a trend of 'lowering of standards' in general is a serious claim,
which I have no basis for objecting to or agreeing with - so I won't go there
However for me personally, I would say there's a 'ongoing change in standards'
reflecting my music preferences at a given time. Which I find quite natural,
but that's not a lowering

Evalueating the quality of a song or record in terms of comparing may be a way to start,
but for a deeper analysis I find that angle uninteresting. Obviously
if you want to view things in a wider context, I think you are quite right in your argument
It's just for 'personal use' the historical insignificance of say the Emotional Rescue lp, doesn't make me
like it less. In fact it's a criteria I find irrelevant in this context

Well , long time I have not posted a message on IORR but I really find Doxa 's thread interesting.
I have also been wondering how to look at "recent"albums like ABB , B2B, VL and even older ones post 70's.
There are good songs in these albums.To name a few : She's so hot ,love is strong/out of tears,Saint of me, out of control, let me down slow, laugh I nearly died.
These songs could have been written in the 70's.They are not ground breaking.
Until Some girls , the Stones were a creative force on its own paving the way for decades of rock music but they were also able to successfully absorb new forms of music: Brian Jones years with all sorts of non rock instruments,Funk with B&B, Punk in SG, Disco in SG and ER.They were heavily criticized at that time for not sticking to their trademark rock songwriting but I tend to believe that this ability to blend new genres into their music was a major boost in their creativity.
Post 70's this ability ( or interest) to venture into new musics was lost and since then the Stones are repeating themselves over and over.They are good songwriters so , overall, their albums are decent but they can't compete with the old ones.
This is not something proper to the Stones.There are few exceptions ( Mile Davis comes to my mind) but , in general, aging artists ( like any human being) become less daring, less adventurers.They turn "bourgeois" ( this is not a critic just a fact)and tend to stick to what they know best. Painters, writers,musicians even filmmakers tend to break ground early in their career and keep on recycling themselves afterwards.

So, back to the topic, all these albums from Undercover onwards are only recycling the music that we all got hooked on ages ago.The Stones have brought rock music to new highs from 1963 to 1981 and passed it on to new generations for further explorations.
Just my two cents!

Doxa, I find this to be one of the most interesting threads in a long time. Let's all face reality and own up to the fact that we are all in a kind of nervous, waiting and seeing type mode with the inevitable results to be disappointing at best, and heartbreaking at worst. This is life.

One of the many fascinations I've had is how they reflect many of the realities of life from within their totally unrealistic bubble. I too watch Voodoo vids (specifically the Halloween show), and am blown away by their precision, energy and vitality. Also, the Four Flicks material seems almost miraculous now.

But, as has been the case among any knowledgeable fan with even a hint of passion, it has been almost a point of pride to say how terrible they are,(compared to 72 or 69 or whenever YOUR big period was) knowing that that's not really true. But it was always said with tongue in cheek, knowing that if they concentrated, they could still do it.

This all went out the window with the ABB tour. REAL fear set in. It wasn't that sick feeling that only came for a 30 second stay during a Ronnie Wood "solo", that was accompanied by a bit of snickering. Nobody was laughing anymore.

I have no great conclusion, except to say that I'm thankful for the ride I have had with them, and if it's all over, it's been joyous to taste the excellence they've provided.

Shawnriffhard

I guess it's our younger friends that booms albums that were released at the same time they were born. There are no such as masterwork-albums from Stones released later than 'Let it bleed' in my very humble world, but 10 to 20 great songs there are between 1970 - 2005...and times certainly goes by... and young Beatle-drummer Ringo is soon 70 years old...