what is this stuff about ppl not realizing how lucky they are? wtf is that all about?

Rock Critics....frustrated artists who didn't break out....this is documentary is a clear example of this old adage.

the shoot 'em dead, brainbell jangler!

Perhaps the more you knew and loved the "real" snotty and rebel Rolling Stones, - the harder it is to accept them these days.

People have this obsession. They want you to be like you were in 1969. They want you to, because otherwise their youth goes with you. It's very selfish, but it's understandable. - Mick Jagger

Quote
saulsurvivor
People have this obsession. They want you to be like you were in 1969. They want you to, because otherwise their youth goes with you. It's very selfish, but it's understandable. - Mick Jagger

Philosophically still trying ...

Quote
saulsurvivor
People have this obsession. They want you to be like you were in 1969. They want you to, because otherwise their youth goes with you. It's very selfish, but it's understandable.

what a load of bull....

Quote
NorthShoreBlues2
swaystones; this is from your post; 1st and 2nd part of the documentary

NorthShoreBlues,may be we should ask bv to stick this thread to the other one or vice versa .
[www.iorr.org]

I don't know on which one to answer because they are similar
Although the title of your thread is more clear .



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

I'm not usually bothered by what critics say, but I'm not too pleased at seeing that. The Stones have the last laugh though, I severely doubt they care about what the critics say, and look at the success they've had since with several world tours.

Does anyone know where that Start Me Up is from? Its a great version, love the audience clapping straight away. Its a pity its only a few seconds long.

Hilarious. Even more dated than the Stones 1990 tour outfits.

Of these talking heads:

Hanif Kureishi, once an edgy writer (The Buddha of Suburbia and My Beautiful Laundrette) is now a menopausal bore with absolutely nothing to say; he's probably waiting on a call from Ben Elton to turn one of his crap recent books into a musical.

Nick Kent, once an edgy music writer, is now a nobody, living in France, churning out occasional pieces on The Arctic Monkeys. He looks terrible too - chinless, turkey necked and hiding his baldness under a kind of backwards sock.

Philip Norman wrote a great biography of The Beatles, and a spiteful, inessential one about The Stones (which essentially stopped in 1972).

Robert Sandall went to work for Virgin and was - ha ha ha! - The Stones press officer while they were on the label.

Sean O'Hagan still writes about music.

The Stones may not technically have made a decent album since Steel Wheels, but they're still going, still generating headlines and interest ...

This documentary could have been made any time after 1973, when critics have regularly written the, off as irrelevant, a nostalgia act etc etc. The point is, who cares?

Quote
Nikolai
Hilarious. Even more dated than the Stones 1990 tour outfits.

Of these talking heads:

Hanif Kureishi, once an edgy writer (The Buddha of Suburbia and My Beautiful Laundrette) is now a menopausal bore with absolutely nothing to say; he's probably waiting on a call from Ben Elton to turn one of his crap recent books into a musical.

Nick Kent, once an edgy music writer, is now a nobody, living in France, churning out occasional pieces on The Arctic Monkeys. He looks terrible too - chinless, turkey necked and hiding his baldness under a kind of backwards sock.

Philip Norman wrote a great biography of The Beatles, and a spiteful, inessential one about The Stones (which essentially stopped in 1972).

Robert Sandall went to work for Virgin and was - ha ha ha! - The Stones press officer while they were on the label.

Sean O'Hagan still writes about music.

The Stones may not technically have made a decent album since Steel Wheels, but they're still going, still generating headlines and interest ...

This documentary could have been made any time after 1973, when critics have regularly written the, off as irrelevant, a nostalgia act etc etc. The point is, who cares?

This proves whats been mentioned a lot on this board, the critics that say bad things about the Stones become unknown while the Stones have carried on.

Where is the rest of this? I disagree about Some Girls, I would and do listen to it in its entirity.

THANKYOU THANKYOU THANKYOU THANKYOU

I've been after this show since seeing it when it was originally broadcast, but have never managed to track it down since.

Great stuff.

Tankyou my man!!

Girls will come and go, critics will come and go, the Stones remain.

these are not very good films imo.

Jeez, what a load of wank!

From 89-99 there were many magical moments, I think that all albums since Steel Wheels were decent, in the nineties the Stones played better concerts than any other band, so these critics do not touch me, even if I am critical towards the Stones at times.

Haha!!

Loved it.

Old gods striding the globe, raping, pillaging and plundering you of your loot.

Rock n roll Pirates alright

L O V E I T!

Keep on rockin' keep on rollin'

The Rolling Stones have never pretended to be "rebels","flagbearers of a generation" or whatever those rock critics believe the Stones were at one point. The Stones have lived their lifes and recorded music their own way. A lot has been written on them, they have inspired rock journalists to come up with idealistic views. The writers have filled up pages(their jobs$$$) with emotional, responses after catching shows and listening to their records. I have read and enjoyed lot of it. Now or in 1990 the rock critics are older, fed up, uninspired, grown out of love with the stones and they decide that the stones suck. Those rock critics sound tired, bored and quite stupid. Nick Kent you are officially a douche bag!
Rock and Roll,
Mops

Quote
colonial
Im pretty sure The Stones have got a few more tricks up their sleeve yet.

No. They don't.

KeithNacho is right. While they may still produce something you like, they've made their masterpieces. There will be no more of those.

Dude lost me when he dissed Dancing With Mr. D.

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
boogie1969

Quote
colonial
Im pretty sure The Stones have got a few more tricks up their sleeve yet.

No. They don't.

KeithNacho is right. While they may still produce something you like, they've made their masterpieces. There will be no more of those.

Agree. Why should people in their late 60s once more shake a world which has changed so much? It is rather ridiculous to expect 'rock gods' at their age.
In 1967 a song like Let's spend the night together was revolutionary. Today, a teenager has to be very conservative if he does not yawn while listening to it: Nice tune really, but what's the message?

Quote
rollmops
The Rolling Stones have never pretended to be "rebels","flagbearers of a generation" or whatever those rock critics believe the Stones were at one point. The Stones have lived their lifes and recorded music their own way. A lot has been written on them, they have inspired rock journalists to come up with idealistic views. The writers have filled up pages(their jobs$$$) with emotional, responses after catching shows and listening to their records. I have read and enjoyed lot of it. Now or in 1990 the rock critics are older, fed up, uninspired, grown out of love with the stones and they decide that the stones suck. Those rock critics sound tired, bored and quite stupid. Nick Kent you are officially a douche bag!
Rock and Roll,
Mops

Exactly.

I know ther will be no more EOMS, but i will enjoy any new BTB or ABB, because i love how this people make music.
I enjoy PMS, and i don´t mind if MT has recorded it now or 30 yearrs ago, i don't care if jagger's part is new or if it is old....... I like the tune and i hope there will be more nice tunes like this.
Obviously this tune is not wild horses.................. but i like it

boogie69 + saltoftheearth..I was just been silly..didnt ya get it.. you know ha ha

Quote
KeithNacho
I know ther will be no more EOMS, but i will enjoy any new BTB or ABB, because i love how this people make music.
I enjoy PMS, and i don´t mind if MT has recorded it now or 30 yearrs ago, i don't care if jagger's part is new or if it is old....... I like the tune and i hope there will be more nice tunes like this.
Obviously this tune is not wild horses.................. but i like it

Do you? really? Sorry,just a bad taste joke...

Quote
georgeV
Where is the rest of this? I disagree about Some Girls, I would and do listen to it in its entirity.

Some Girls was the first Stones album I ever bought. I know it's not quite their best, but it's still my favourite, and I never get tired of hearing it.

Quote
rollmops
The Rolling Stones have never pretended to be "rebels","flagbearers of a generation" or whatever those rock critics believe the Stones were at one point. The Stones have lived their lifes and recorded music their own way. A lot has been written on them, they have inspired rock journalists to come up with idealistic views. The writers have filled up pages(their jobs$$$) with emotional, responses after catching shows and listening to their records. I have read and enjoyed lot of it. Now or in 1990 the rock critics are older, fed up, uninspired, grown out of love with the stones and they decide that the stones suck. Those rock critics sound tired, bored and quite stupid. Nick Kent you are officially a douche bag!
Rock and Roll,
Mops

Nick Kent really is a bit of a sad and bitter old git these days. His piece on The Stones in The Dark Stuff is, however, brilliant, if a little free and loose with the truth (especially the part about Keith punching Ronnie at Wembley in 1982 - I was at both dates, three or four rows from the stage and IT DID NOT HAPPEN).

But back to Mr Kent. He's that most cliched of rock scribes, the failed musician. He almost fronted the Sex Pistols (pre-Lydon), and his Television-smitten band, The Subterraneans, released one single which went nowhere. He lost his writing edge to smack, and Chrissie Hynde broke his heart. She later went on to be a VERY successful musician (boy, that must have hurt). So he's been bitter ever since.

The Stones have never apologised about making the money they make.

So the only bitch is really from the fans who want better set lists, which is a pretty normal thing I would think, and better albums, which is pretty normal. As much as I enjoyed Steel Wheels when it came out, it hasn't aged very well. Voodoo smacked Steel Wheels down where it belongs.

And quite frankly, Bridges To Babylon smashed Steel Wheels (and even made Voodoo sound old already). Yet neither of those albums had the hype surrounding them Steel Wheels did.

So what, right? Exactly. So what.

totally agree - so what. next album should be called that.

I still love Steel Wheels, but Voodoo Lounge is just as great. Bridges to Babylon was slightly worse, and A Bigger Bang was a lot worse. If anything, it's Bridges to Babylon that didn't age well, with its distinct nineties sound in some (thankfully not all) of the songs.