I have been giving the matter a great deal of thought and have come to the conclusion that the Stones are now in the past as a recording/performing entity and that the 21st century will have to manage without them. This is not a knee jerk comment, more the end result of 4 years observation of the band since I saw them perform what looks like their last ever show at the 02 in Aug 2007. The profusion of solo projects, the lack of any cohesive enthusiasm for group work and all of the negative mood music that has played since the publication of Life all points in that direction. I know they were at war in the 80s - but it's a lot easier to wage war when you are in your 40s. They are now on the cusp of 70. If they were so inclined to work together now they would be chomping at the bit to get it done.

But the great news is that they leave us a massive legacy. A collection of recordings that will never be matched in terms of diversity, longevity and quality. A pile of DVDs that will stand as a lasting testimony to a great live band. Also, a story that is the stuff of legends - they will forever stand as the ultimate rock and roll outlaws despite latter day pretenders to that throne. And who knows they may even treat us to archive products that will only enhance the legend.

Bring it on.

Exactly right. And if they cared as much about that legacy they would be working together now to preserve it and disseminate it in the form of well-produced archival recordings, as other artists of their stature have done.

Seeing that it's eleven years into the 21st century you're probably right.

I agree

Marv Peck

Y'all remember that rubber legged boy

Bingo.

Quote
71Tele
Exactly right. And if they cared as much about that legacy they would be working together now to preserve it and disseminate it in the form of well-produced archival recordings, as other artists of their stature have done.

Yup, that about sums it up ...

They COULD of course surprise the living crap out of us all by pulling off a 2012 show somewhere or other, the idea of them doing Hyde Park for example has been put out. Personally, I'll believe it when I see it .... meanwhile I'm just glad I was there at the O2 on 26/08/2007. If that was IT, I can live with it.

[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-18 09:43 by paulywaul.

Quote
71Tele
Exactly right. And if they cared as much about that legacy they would be working together now to preserve it and disseminate it in the form of well-produced archival recordings, as other artists of their stature have done.

Only one of them(Mick) takes care of this legacy, so working together with someone who cares only about his personal agenda(Keith) can be quite problematic

Quote
Baxter Thwaites
I have been giving the matter a great deal of thought and have come to the conclusion that the Stones are now in the past as a recording/performing entity and that the 21st century will have to manage without them. This is not a knee jerk comment, more the end result of 4 years observation of the band since I saw them perform what looks like their last ever show at the 02 in Aug 2007. The profusion of solo projects, the lack of any cohesive enthusiasm for group work and all of the negative mood music that has played since the publication of Life all points in that direction. I know they were at war in the 80s - but it's a lot easier to wage war when you are in your 40s. They are now on the cusp of 70. If they were so inclined to work together now they would be chomping at the bit to get it done.

But the great news is that they leave us a massive legacy. A collection of recordings that will never be matched in terms of diversity, longevity and quality. A pile of DVDs that will stand as a lasting testimony to a great live band. Also, a story that is the stuff of legends - they will forever stand as the ultimate rock and roll outlaws despite latter day pretenders to that throne. And who knows they may even treat us to archive products that will only enhance the legend.

Bring it on.

Very sensible observation and assessment yet I think there is still a decent chance that we have not seen the last of them.

Quote
proudmary

Quote
71Tele
Exactly right. And if they cared as much about that legacy they would be working together now to preserve it and disseminate it in the form of well-produced archival recordings, as other artists of their stature have done.

Only one of them(Mick) takes care of this legacy, so working together with someone who cares only about his personal agenda(Keith) can be quite problematic

Yet that same person has no interest in the past (or so he always says) so there we are. Stuck.

Personally, I'd feel humiliated if all anyone valued from me were my discarded rejects of 40+ years ago, in favour of my current work. I'd be disinclined to serve them up.

I have no idea why the Stones are so creatively bankrupt, particularly Mick. One's ability as a writer should increase over time, but his latest output includes gems like 'awful bad/awful sad', which, when you compare it to his earlier lyrics, it is risible.

B2B had some good material, but it was written 14 long years ago. If it were me, I would forgo all other projects and spend every waking hour crafting a new, final piece of work. I wouldn't stop til I had created a masterpiece. And that would be my last hurrah, the jewel in the crown of my legacy.

Quote
Bliss
Personally, I'd feel humiliated if all anyone valued from me were my discarded rejects of 40+ years ago, in favour of my current work. I'd be disinclined to serve them up.

I have no idea why the Stones are so creatively bankrupt, particularly Mick. One's ability as a writer should increase over time, but his latest output includes gems like 'awful bad/awful sad', which, when you compare it to his earlier lyrics, it is risible.

B2B had some good material, but it was written 14 long years ago. If it were me, I would forgo all other projects and spend every waking hour crafting a new, final piece of work. I wouldn't stop til I had created a masterpiece. And that would be my last hurrah, the jewel in the crown of my legacy.

That's assuming they have a masterpiece in them to craft. They don't. What's more humiliating than serving up "discarded rejects"? Trotting out another album of half-baked rubbish that's forgotten in five minutes in an effort to be "current".

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Bliss
Personally, I'd feel humiliated if all anyone valued from me were my discarded rejects of 40+ years ago, in favour of my current work. I'd be disinclined to serve them up.

I have no idea why the Stones are so creatively bankrupt, particularly Mick. One's ability as a writer should increase over time, but his latest output includes gems like 'awful bad/awful sad', which, when you compare it to his earlier lyrics, it is risible.

B2B had some good material, but it was written 14 long years ago. If it were me, I would forgo all other projects and spend every waking hour crafting a new, final piece of work. I wouldn't stop til I had created a masterpiece. And that would be my last hurrah, the jewel in the crown of my legacy.

That's assuming they have a masterpiece in them to craft. They don't. What's more humiliating than serving up "discarded rejects"? Trotting out another album of half-baked rubbish that's forgotten in five minutes in an effort to be "current".

Yes, I am making that assumption. Rock music and rock lyrics are not rocket science, and unless one is in late stage dementia, one's composition abilities do not decline. As a writer, and also having such great familiarity with Mick's earlier work, I can see that the lyrics of ABB involved little or no craft or time invested. There's more in him, if he chooses to share it.

Quote
Bliss

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Bliss
Personally, I'd feel humiliated if all anyone valued from me were my discarded rejects of 40+ years ago, in favour of my current work. I'd be disinclined to serve them up.

I have no idea why the Stones are so creatively bankrupt, particularly Mick. One's ability as a writer should increase over time, but his latest output includes gems like 'awful bad/awful sad', which, when you compare it to his earlier lyrics, it is risible.

B2B had some good material, but it was written 14 long years ago. If it were me, I would forgo all other projects and spend every waking hour crafting a new, final piece of work. I wouldn't stop til I had created a masterpiece. And that would be my last hurrah, the jewel in the crown of my legacy.

That's assuming they have a masterpiece in them to craft. They don't. What's more humiliating than serving up "discarded rejects"? Trotting out another album of half-baked rubbish that's forgotten in five minutes in an effort to be "current".

Yes, I am making that assumption. Rock music and rock lyrics are not rocket science, and unless one is in late stage dementia, one's composition abilities do not decline. As a writer, and also having such great familiarity with Mick's earlier work, I can see that the lyrics of ABB involved little or no craft or time invested. There's more in him, if he chooses to share it.

OK...I counter with the fact that all the great rockers wrote their best material in their 20s and deteriorated to one degree or another as they aged. Dylan, Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Townshend, Jagger, Richards, Costello, Davies, Young. It's a young man's game. Why? Because the experiences and background that are fertile territory for this kind of music are best found at young adulthood. Passion, romance, sexuality, a certain kind of confidence and swagger one has in one's 20s. These are subjects and experiences that make a good foundation for compelling rock & roll songs. One's compostional skills do not decline? Really? I offer as evidence in the Stones' case their last five studio albums. Make that eight studio albums if I'm really being honest. We may indeed get some more enjoyable music from these guys, but there will not be any more masterpieces.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-18 08:24 by 71Tele.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Bliss

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Bliss
Personally, I'd feel humiliated if all anyone valued from me were my discarded rejects of 40+ years ago, in favour of my current work. I'd be disinclined to serve them up.

I have no idea why the Stones are so creatively bankrupt, particularly Mick. One's ability as a writer should increase over time, but his latest output includes gems like 'awful bad/awful sad', which, when you compare it to his earlier lyrics, it is risible.

B2B had some good material, but it was written 14 long years ago. If it were me, I would forgo all other projects and spend every waking hour crafting a new, final piece of work. I wouldn't stop til I had created a masterpiece. And that would be my last hurrah, the jewel in the crown of my legacy.

That's assuming they have a masterpiece in them to craft. They don't. What's more humiliating than serving up "discarded rejects"? Trotting out another album of half-baked rubbish that's forgotten in five minutes in an effort to be "current".

Yes, I am making that assumption. Rock music and rock lyrics are not rocket science, and unless one is in late stage dementia, one's composition abilities do not decline. As a writer, and also having such great familiarity with Mick's earlier work, I can see that the lyrics of ABB involved little or no craft or time invested. There's more in him, if he chooses to share it.

OK...I counter with the fact that all the great rockers wrote their best material in their 20s and deteriorated to one degree or another as they aged. Dylan, Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Townshend, Jagger, Richards, Costello, Davies, Young. It's a young man's game. Why? Because the experiences and background that are fertile territory for this kind of music are best found at young adulthood. Passion, romance, sexuality, a certain kind of confidence and swagger one has in one's 20s. These are subjects and experiences that make a good foundation for compelling rock & roll songs. One's compostional skills do not decline? Really? I offer as evidence in the Stones' case their last five studio albums. Make that eight studio albums if I'm really being honest. We may indeed get some more enjoyable music from these guys, but there will not be any more masterpieces.

Perhaps it would be fairer to say that one's compositional abilities do not *necessarily* decline as one ages. And of course, the rock idiom is a young man's game, by it's very nature. It's ridiculous to hear a man pushing 70 singing about teenaged lust and rebellion, the stock topics of rock lyrics. But some of the Stones best work has been political/philosophical (SFTD, GS, Time Waits for No One) and they could certainly continue in that vein. But I do not agree that the entire content of their last 8 albums is inferior to their earlier work. I find much to love in all except ABB, including Mick and Keith's solo work.

I'll still bet $10 that they will record and perform again with any naysayer that wants to take the action.

Quote
KeefintheNight82
I'll still bet $10 that they will record and perform again with any naysayer that wants to take the action.

Weeeeeeell.... ALL RIGHT!!!! X2 againX2

Quote
KeefintheNight82
Since there is a lot of naysayers here in this thread, my offer still holds.

I'll lay even money that the Stones are not done. Will record again and will perform again together. I got ten bucks that say I'm right. Any of you know-it- alls wanna put your money where your mouth is?

YOU ARE MY KIND OF STONES FANS!!!
I offer the same bet (not to take your action) but I agree... WHOLEFKNHEARTEDLY

Quote
71Tele
OK...I counter with the fact that all the great rockers wrote their best material in their 20s and deteriorated to one degree or another as they aged. Dylan, Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Townshend, Jagger, Richards, Costello, Davies, Young. It's a young man's game. Why? Because the experiences and background that are fertile territory for this kind of music are best found at young adulthood. Passion, romance, sexuality, a certain kind of confidence and swagger one has in one's 20s. These are subjects and experiences that make a good foundation for compelling rock & roll songs. One's compostional skills do not decline? Really? I offer as evidence in the Stones' case their last five studio albums. Make that eight studio albums if I'm really being honest. We may indeed get some more enjoyable music from these guys, but there will not be any more masterpieces.

Chuck Berry wrote all his Chess classics from the age of 29 to 39.

"You and your lady are the king and the queen,
of the rock and roll circus, that's the best I've ever seen
All your leather jackets and your faded jeans
All you have left of your rock and roll dreams
Whoa, put your leather jacket on
though it's time to be movin' on"

Quote
stevecardi
"You and your lady are the king and the queen,
of the rock and roll circus, that's the best I've ever seen
All your leather jackets and your faded jeans
All you have left of your rock and roll dreams
Whoa, put your leather jacket on
though it's time to be movin' on"

Great Mick Taylor song. It always makes me think of Keith and Anita at Nellcote, when I listen to the lyrics.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-18 15:52 by brownsugar86.

Quote
brownsugar86

Quote
stevecardi
"You and your lady are the king and the queen,
of the rock and roll circus, that's the best I've ever seen
All your leather jackets and your faded jeans
All you have left of your rock and roll dreams
Whoa, put your leather jacket on
though it's time to be movin' on"

Great Mick Taylor song. It always makes me think of Keith and Anita at Nellcote, when I listen to the lyrics.

Yeah, me too. Years ago on the old Mick Taylor website, someone asked if the line "you never keep your fortune that you made in the south of France" was a dig at Keith the way "How Do You Sleep" was Lennon's dig at McCartney. I think it's Mick Taylor reflecting on his own career choices and life's direction after leaving the Stones. Question is, is he happy, nervous or sad about it?

Quote
Sleepy City

Quote
71Tele
OK...I counter with the fact that all the great rockers wrote their best material in their 20s and deteriorated to one degree or another as they aged. Dylan, Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Townshend, Jagger, Richards, Costello, Davies, Young. It's a young man's game. Why? Because the experiences and background that are fertile territory for this kind of music are best found at young adulthood. Passion, romance, sexuality, a certain kind of confidence and swagger one has in one's 20s. These are subjects and experiences that make a good foundation for compelling rock & roll songs. One's compostional skills do not decline? Really? I offer as evidence in the Stones' case their last five studio albums. Make that eight studio albums if I'm really being honest. We may indeed get some more enjoyable music from these guys, but there will not be any more masterpieces.

Chuck Berry wrote all his Chess classics from the age of 29 to 39.

And how many classics did he write after that? And no, you can't include "My Ding A Ling"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-18 17:53 by 71Tele.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Sleepy City

Quote
71Tele
OK...I counter with the fact that all the great rockers wrote their best material in their 20s and deteriorated to one degree or another as they aged. Dylan, Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Townshend, Jagger, Richards, Costello, Davies, Young. It's a young man's game. Why? Because the experiences and background that are fertile territory for this kind of music are best found at young adulthood. Passion, romance, sexuality, a certain kind of confidence and swagger one has in one's 20s. These are subjects and experiences that make a good foundation for compelling rock & roll songs. One's compostional skills do not decline? Really? I offer as evidence in the Stones' case their last five studio albums. Make that eight studio albums if I'm really being honest. We may indeed get some more enjoyable music from these guys, but there will not be any more masterpieces.

Chuck Berry wrote all his Chess classics from the age of 29 to 39.

And how many classics did he write after that? And no, you can't include "My Ding A Ling"

Not many (& he hasn't released a new studio album since 1979), but my point is that he wasn't in his 20s...though if he'd started writing in 1946 when he was 20 perhaps we'd have had even greater songs!

He didn't even write My-Ding-A-Ling. [en.wikipedia.org]

Every band has an expiry date. The Rolling Stones expiry date was really in the late 70s. Their true vital period, when they excelled, was between 1968-72. I said it before, the Rolling Stones is basically a late (-mid) 60s band who managed to hang on till the late 70s. They are stuck in that format and haven't evolved since then. The post´89 Stones is a revival act, and a very succesful revival act. At least economically speaking. Every album since "Tattoo You" is obsolete, simply out of touch or irrelevant.

Quote
Stoneage
I said it before, the Rolling Stones is basically a late (-mid) 60s band who managed to hang on till the late 70s.

No, they're an early 60s band from the Beat Group explosion / British invasion.

Quote
Sleepy City

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Sleepy City

Quote
71Tele
OK...I counter with the fact that all the great rockers wrote their best material in their 20s and deteriorated to one degree or another as they aged. Dylan, Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Townshend, Jagger, Richards, Costello, Davies, Young. It's a young man's game. Why? Because the experiences and background that are fertile territory for this kind of music are best found at young adulthood. Passion, romance, sexuality, a certain kind of confidence and swagger one has in one's 20s. These are subjects and experiences that make a good foundation for compelling rock & roll songs. One's compostional skills do not decline? Really? I offer as evidence in the Stones' case their last five studio albums. Make that eight studio albums if I'm really being honest. We may indeed get some more enjoyable music from these guys, but there will not be any more masterpieces.

Chuck Berry wrote all his Chess classics from the age of 29 to 39.

And how many classics did he write after that? And no, you can't include "My Ding A Ling"

Not many (& he hasn't released a new studio album since 1979), but my point is that he wasn't in his 20s...though if he'd started writing in 1946 when he was 20 perhaps we'd have had even greater songs!

He didn't even write My-Ding-A-Ling. [en.wikipedia.org]

He was still a young man when he wrote that stuff and wrote nothing of importance after his amazing string of great songs.

Yes, Sleepy City. But they had their breakthrough in the mid-sixties. And for me Beggar's Banquet was a quantum leap for the band. Before that I considered them as a bit of bluesepigons.

Quote
Stoneage
Yes, Sleepy City. But they had their breakthrough in the mid-sixties. And for me Beggar's Banquet was a quantum leap for the band. Before that I considered them as a bit of bluesepigons.

I think they lost half of their fan base when they released Beggar's Banquet.................

__________________________

Personally, I'm not that keen on Stones albums before BB. I consider BB their first "modern" album. But that's just my humble opinion. I know they had many hit-singles before that though. Satisfaction, for example was made in 1965.

I think they are going to make another album. One can hope. It'll have Emmylou Harris on it too, I bet.