Tell Me :
Talk
Oh well, we're all entitled to our opinions and taste is subjective. For me, ABB is their best album since Some Girls and I enjoy the hell out of it.
Thanks very much for your positive input stonesdan. I really appreciate posts like this. But I've come to accept the fact that there are many who think the Stones haven't made a great album since Exile On Main Street, or Some Girls, etc. and I've come to accept the fact that I absolutely don't give a flying fock about what they think
And believe me ... it works. Enjoy the Stones the way you want to. You don't need other people's opinions to like what you like. Never ever allow anybody to spoil your fun.
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Sorry, but that seems like an intellectual excercise designed to rationalize comparatively weak work...My test is simple: Does it move me like the best music I've heard moves me (Stones or otherwise)? Exile, Some Girls, Sticky, LIB, Aftermath, etc: Yes! ABB, BtoB, Voodoo et al: No. These records are contrived, formulaic, and even gimmicky at times.
I agree. Well said.
if someone's opinion that differs from your own spoils your fun, then you really didn't have much conviction in the first place and deserve to have your fun spoiled.
Oh believe me, I really don't give a hoot what the "Stones died after Exile" crowd thinks. I respectfully disagree with them and I unabashedly enjoy what I enjoy. I just like to defend my favorite band now and then. I'm not really looking to argue with anyone. It's only rock and roll...
cool. and i just like to bash my favorite band several times a week. cheers.
its not just an intellectual exercise, its the only legitimate way to
judge an artist, against their contemporaries.
this is not to say you shouldnt enjoy whatever it is you enjoy. charlie watts
for instance still most treasures classic jazz and swing, and doesnt think
anything else afterwards compares...
but if its one of the best things put out in a certain year, it is definitely
not "crap". if a bunch of people got off on it when it was issued, and still
get off on it, it is not "crap"
and personally i got WAY WAY off on every single one of those latter day
stones albums, except steel wheels, which i came to appreciate only later.
sadly there are many many people who can only get off on the music of their
youth. mick calls it "ossification". he's right.
As I said before: You don't need other people's opinions to like what you like
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
what's sad about it? if they know what they like and don't like and stick with what they like, i think that's cool....
Exactly. There was a time when I had to believe every new Stones release was brilliant - because for many years they all were. At a certain point I let it go and moved on to more compelling music, while never losing my love for the Stones. We can all say what we want to about the latter day albums, but in the end the songwriting just stopped being compelling. At times it seemed albums were released because the band was contractually obligated, rather than because they had anything interesting to say. Bridges to Babylon in particular sounds like two solo albums forced onto the same CD. Hardly even a Stones album.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-09 18:45 by 71Tele.
True words. Don't get that either. Just look at for instance the recent Hampton 1981 threads - with all these posts going something like "you're spoiling the fun - quit whining! - Rolling Stones own you nothing!". Their appreciation doesn't sound convincing
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-09 18:45 by Erik_Snow.
None of those posts were mine
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
So take up the challenge. Name something from the same year as a Stones album
you think is crap that you think is more "compelling". that was commercially
successful. just name it. i'm always looking for compelling music.
It is perfectly reasonable to compare the Stones to the Stones. They themselves set such a high standard. Perhaps it is unrealistic to think they could have kept it up, but other artists (Tom Waits for example) have. The Stones (or rather Mick & Keith) simply stopped writing compelling songs. Without great songs yes, you still have a band that can rock and swing, but to what purpose? Onstage you basically have a nostalgia act (ok, if you don't like "nostalgia" it's a band riding on its legacy). Plus, I think Bill leaving really wounded them musically. They lost an indefinable something in their sound. Indefinable but vital.
i think its cool too. until they start calling other people's music "crap".
then it is not cool at all.
especially if they have NO music from that year they think is cool. then you
know they've gotten stuck in time.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-09 18:52 by superrevvy.
I know, Hansie. And if they were, I wouldn't be using them as an example either, as it would've been rude. I can't remember who made such posts, so it's not an attack on anyone, just a general observation
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-09 18:51 by Erik_Snow.
You see, but I don't give a crap if something I think is compelling was "commercially successful". That's your criteria, not mine.
bingo. their collective muse effectively died after the '77 sessions, imo. that ended an amazing run, too. since then it's all felt very forced and contrived...and almost all of their songs since then have owed to or borrowed heavily from something they recorded in the 70's...the idea wellspring dried up....
i got no problem widdit....why is expressing an opinion about music uncool?
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
stonesdan60
()
Date: February 9, 2012 18:12
I've come to accept the fact that there are many who think the Stones haven't made a great album since Exile On Main Street, or Some Girls, etc. but also know there are some of us who don't see it that way. I just came across a great review of A Bigger Bang, which I couldn't agree with more. For the hell of it, here it is:
[www.timeisonourside.com]
Eight years separate 2005's A Bigger Bang, the Rolling Stones' 24th album of original material, from its 1997 predecessor, Bridges to Babylon, the longest stretch of time between Stones albums in history, but unlike the three-year gap between 1986's Dirty Work and 1989's Steel Wheels, the band never really went away. They toured steadily, not just behind Bridges but behind the career-spanning 2002 compilation Forty Licks... (A) bigger surprise is that A Bigger Bang finds that reinvigorated band carrying its latter-day renaissance into the studio, turning in a sinewy, confident, satisfying album that's the band's best in years... (T)here is a big difference between this album and 1994's Voodoo Lounge. That album was deliberately classicist, touching on all of the signatures of classic mid-period, late-'60s/early-'70s Stones - reviving the folk, country, and straight blues that balanced their trademark rockers - and while it was often successful, it very much sounded like the Stones trying to be the Stones. What distinguishes A Bigger Bang is that it captures the Stones simply being the Stones, playing without guest stars, not trying to have a hit, not trying to adopt the production style of the day, not doing anything but lying back and playing. Far from sounding like a lazy affair, the album rocks really hard, tearing out of the gate with Rough Justice, the toughest, sleaziest, and flat-out best song Jagger and Richards have come up with in years. It's not a red herring, either - She Saw Me Coming, Look What the Cat Dragged In, and the terrific Oh No Not You Again, which finds Mick spitting out lyrics with venom and zeal, are equally as hard and exciting... A Bigger Bang doesn't succeed simply because the Stones are great musicians, it also works because this is a strong set of Jagger-Richards originals - naturally, the songs don't rival their standards from the '60s and '70s, but the best songs here more than hold their own with the best of their post-Exile work, and there are more good songs here than on any Stones album since Some Girls.
This may not be a startling comeback along the lines of Bob Dylan's Love and Theft, but that's fine, because over the last three decades the Stones haven't been about surprises: they've been about reliability. The problem is, they haven't always lived up to their promises, or when they did deliver the goods, it was sporadic and unpredictable. And that's what's unexpected about A Bigger Bang: they finally hold up their end of the bargain, delivering a strong, engaging, cohesive Rolling Stones album that finds everybody in prime form. Keith is loose and limber, Charlie is tight and controlled, Ronnie lays down some thrilling, greasy slide guitar, and Mick is having a grand time, making dirty jokes, baiting neo-cons, and sounding more committed to the Stones than he has in years. Best of all, this is a record where the band acknowledges its age and doesn't make a big deal about it: they're not in denial, trying to act like a younger band, they've simply accepted what they do best and go about doing it as if it's no big deal. But that's what makes A Bigger Bang a big deal: it's the Stones back in fighting form for the first time in years, and they have both the strength and the stamina to make the excellent latter-day effort everybody's been waiting for all these years. 4/5
- Stephen Thomas Erlewine, All Music Guide, September 2005
Let's just get this out of the way: A Bigger Bang isn't a good Rolling Stones album considering their age. It isn't a good Rolling Stones album compared to their recent work. No, A Bigger Bang is just a straight-up, damn fine Rolling Stones album, with no qualifiers or apologies necessary for the first time in a few decades... Whether fueled by their notorious competitive camaraderie or inspired by their oldest mate's brush with mortality, the results sound like a genuine band effort - loose, scrappy and alive. A Bigger Bang recalls the best things about rough, underrated Stones albums like Dirty Work or Emotional Rescue, though it's also impressively consistent. The key here comes from surrendering to the groove. Most of the tracks are built around the incomparable spark that's lit when Keith's guitar and Charlie's drums lock into a rhythm. There's never been another team that can drive a band quite like these two, but on their post-Seventies work that magic has usually been buried in the mix. On hard-charging songs like It Won't Take Long or the rave-up single Rough Justice, the Stones reassert themselves as the World's Greatest Rock & Roll Band, and not just as the Greatest Show on Earth.
Mick and Keith have always said they want to grow old like the bluesmen they idolize, and on Bang they finally figure out how: The album revels in the Chuck Berry boogie and classic R&B pulse that's always been their lifeblood. The latter-day Glimmer Twins have often felt the need to coat their songs with layers of winking irony or studio gloss. Here, the dance-floor strut Rain Fall Down and the soul ballad Laugh, I Nearly Died are powerful because they're played straight, never turning cartoonish or mannered. Jagger's voice throughout is a knockout, deeper and more forceful than seems possible after forty-plus years of rocking the mike. The subject matter on A Bigger Bang, though, is thankfully a bit less mature. The album mostly sticks to familiar, nasty Stones territory: being heartbroken and breaking hearts, the evils that women (and, sometimes, men) do... Of course a disc that clocks in at sixty-four minutes (just two minutes less than Exile on Main Street) is too long. In their defense, there isn't a single track that's a real lemon... A Bigger Bang may not be a perception-shattering comeback like Bob Dylan's Time Out of Mind/Love and Theft combo, but by returning to their roots and embracing their age, the Rolling Stones have come up with an album that's a worthy successor to their masterworks. Jagger and Richards are still standing - grumpy old men, full of piss and vinegar, spite and blues chords, and they wear it well. 4.5/5
- Alan Light, Rolling Stone, September 2005
[www.timeisonourside.com]
Eight years separate 2005's A Bigger Bang, the Rolling Stones' 24th album of original material, from its 1997 predecessor, Bridges to Babylon, the longest stretch of time between Stones albums in history, but unlike the three-year gap between 1986's Dirty Work and 1989's Steel Wheels, the band never really went away. They toured steadily, not just behind Bridges but behind the career-spanning 2002 compilation Forty Licks... (A) bigger surprise is that A Bigger Bang finds that reinvigorated band carrying its latter-day renaissance into the studio, turning in a sinewy, confident, satisfying album that's the band's best in years... (T)here is a big difference between this album and 1994's Voodoo Lounge. That album was deliberately classicist, touching on all of the signatures of classic mid-period, late-'60s/early-'70s Stones - reviving the folk, country, and straight blues that balanced their trademark rockers - and while it was often successful, it very much sounded like the Stones trying to be the Stones. What distinguishes A Bigger Bang is that it captures the Stones simply being the Stones, playing without guest stars, not trying to have a hit, not trying to adopt the production style of the day, not doing anything but lying back and playing. Far from sounding like a lazy affair, the album rocks really hard, tearing out of the gate with Rough Justice, the toughest, sleaziest, and flat-out best song Jagger and Richards have come up with in years. It's not a red herring, either - She Saw Me Coming, Look What the Cat Dragged In, and the terrific Oh No Not You Again, which finds Mick spitting out lyrics with venom and zeal, are equally as hard and exciting... A Bigger Bang doesn't succeed simply because the Stones are great musicians, it also works because this is a strong set of Jagger-Richards originals - naturally, the songs don't rival their standards from the '60s and '70s, but the best songs here more than hold their own with the best of their post-Exile work, and there are more good songs here than on any Stones album since Some Girls.
This may not be a startling comeback along the lines of Bob Dylan's Love and Theft, but that's fine, because over the last three decades the Stones haven't been about surprises: they've been about reliability. The problem is, they haven't always lived up to their promises, or when they did deliver the goods, it was sporadic and unpredictable. And that's what's unexpected about A Bigger Bang: they finally hold up their end of the bargain, delivering a strong, engaging, cohesive Rolling Stones album that finds everybody in prime form. Keith is loose and limber, Charlie is tight and controlled, Ronnie lays down some thrilling, greasy slide guitar, and Mick is having a grand time, making dirty jokes, baiting neo-cons, and sounding more committed to the Stones than he has in years. Best of all, this is a record where the band acknowledges its age and doesn't make a big deal about it: they're not in denial, trying to act like a younger band, they've simply accepted what they do best and go about doing it as if it's no big deal. But that's what makes A Bigger Bang a big deal: it's the Stones back in fighting form for the first time in years, and they have both the strength and the stamina to make the excellent latter-day effort everybody's been waiting for all these years. 4/5
- Stephen Thomas Erlewine, All Music Guide, September 2005
Let's just get this out of the way: A Bigger Bang isn't a good Rolling Stones album considering their age. It isn't a good Rolling Stones album compared to their recent work. No, A Bigger Bang is just a straight-up, damn fine Rolling Stones album, with no qualifiers or apologies necessary for the first time in a few decades... Whether fueled by their notorious competitive camaraderie or inspired by their oldest mate's brush with mortality, the results sound like a genuine band effort - loose, scrappy and alive. A Bigger Bang recalls the best things about rough, underrated Stones albums like Dirty Work or Emotional Rescue, though it's also impressively consistent. The key here comes from surrendering to the groove. Most of the tracks are built around the incomparable spark that's lit when Keith's guitar and Charlie's drums lock into a rhythm. There's never been another team that can drive a band quite like these two, but on their post-Seventies work that magic has usually been buried in the mix. On hard-charging songs like It Won't Take Long or the rave-up single Rough Justice, the Stones reassert themselves as the World's Greatest Rock & Roll Band, and not just as the Greatest Show on Earth.
Mick and Keith have always said they want to grow old like the bluesmen they idolize, and on Bang they finally figure out how: The album revels in the Chuck Berry boogie and classic R&B pulse that's always been their lifeblood. The latter-day Glimmer Twins have often felt the need to coat their songs with layers of winking irony or studio gloss. Here, the dance-floor strut Rain Fall Down and the soul ballad Laugh, I Nearly Died are powerful because they're played straight, never turning cartoonish or mannered. Jagger's voice throughout is a knockout, deeper and more forceful than seems possible after forty-plus years of rocking the mike. The subject matter on A Bigger Bang, though, is thankfully a bit less mature. The album mostly sticks to familiar, nasty Stones territory: being heartbroken and breaking hearts, the evils that women (and, sometimes, men) do... Of course a disc that clocks in at sixty-four minutes (just two minutes less than Exile on Main Street) is too long. In their defense, there isn't a single track that's a real lemon... A Bigger Bang may not be a perception-shattering comeback like Bob Dylan's Time Out of Mind/Love and Theft combo, but by returning to their roots and embracing their age, the Rolling Stones have come up with an album that's a worthy successor to their masterworks. Jagger and Richards are still standing - grumpy old men, full of piss and vinegar, spite and blues chords, and they wear it well. 4.5/5
- Alan Light, Rolling Stone, September 2005
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: February 9, 2012 18:19
Words is words. You can pile on a heap of 'em, but they won't make ABB a great album. The Stones have not made a decent album since Bill left, and even the couple before that were pretty spotty.
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
superrevvy
()
Date: February 9, 2012 18:22
unreadable the way you formatted it.
here's the best defense of post-golden-age stones.
i've made this challenge before and had zero takers.
take any stones album from goat's head to bang and compare it to any other
commercially successful album from the same year
i did it. i went to billboard's site and compared the top 100 albums of
any of those years against the stones album from the same year and i came
up with zero albums that at this time i rate higher or listen to
more.
while i'm sure there will be peeps on this board that have a few albums here
and there that they still rate higher than the stones release from the same year,
i doubt seriously that there's very many or very much consensus on what those
superior records might be.
the stones rule! right up to 2006.
here's the best defense of post-golden-age stones.
i've made this challenge before and had zero takers.
take any stones album from goat's head to bang and compare it to any other
commercially successful album from the same year
i did it. i went to billboard's site and compared the top 100 albums of
any of those years against the stones album from the same year and i came
up with zero albums that at this time i rate higher or listen to
more.
while i'm sure there will be peeps on this board that have a few albums here
and there that they still rate higher than the stones release from the same year,
i doubt seriously that there's very many or very much consensus on what those
superior records might be.
the stones rule! right up to 2006.
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
stonesdan60
()
Date: February 9, 2012 18:22
Quote
71Tele
Words is words. You can pile on a heap of 'em, but they won't make ABB a great album. The Stones have not made a decent album since Bill left, and even the couple before that were pretty spotty.
Oh well, we're all entitled to our opinions and taste is subjective. For me, ABB is their best album since Some Girls and I enjoy the hell out of it.
I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: February 9, 2012 18:24
Quote
stonesdan60
I've come to accept the fact that there are many who think the Stones haven't made a great album since Exile On Main Street, or Some Girls, etc.
Thanks very much for your positive input stonesdan. I really appreciate posts like this. But I've come to accept the fact that there are many who think the Stones haven't made a great album since Exile On Main Street, or Some Girls, etc. and I've come to accept the fact that I absolutely don't give a flying fock about what they think
And believe me ... it works. Enjoy the Stones the way you want to. You don't need other people's opinions to like what you like. Never ever allow anybody to spoil your fun.
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: February 9, 2012 18:25
Quote
superrevvy
unreadable the way you formatted it.
here's the best defense of post-golden-age stones.
i've made this challenge before and had zero takers.
take any stones album from goat's head to bang and compare it to any other
commercially successful album from the same year
i did it. i went to billboard's site and compared the top 100 albums of
any of those years against the stones album from the same year and i came
up with zero albums that at this time i rate higher or listen to
more.
while i'm sure there will be peeps on this board that have a few albums here
and there that they still rate higher than the stones release from the same year,
i doubt seriously that there's very many or very much consensus on what those
superior records might be.
the stones rule! right up to 2006.
Sorry, but that seems like an intellectual excercise designed to rationalize comparatively weak work...My test is simple: Does it move me like the best music I've heard moves me (Stones or otherwise)? Exile, Some Girls, Sticky, LIB, Aftermath, etc: Yes! ABB, BtoB, Voodoo et al: No. These records are contrived, formulaic, and even gimmicky at times.
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
IrelandCalling4
()
Date: February 9, 2012 18:26
I have to agree, I've always felt ABB was a damn fine piece of work,
For a band at the time 42 years into a recording career to still be able to make an album that, if not scaling the heights of their true materpieces, at least is very good in places, inspired in others, and yes, succumbing to some filler also.
Any album containing gems like 'Laugh I Nearly Died', Keef's sublime 'This Place Is Empty', the uber-cool 'Rain Fall down', the sizzling fretboard runs and pace of 'Look What the Cat Dragged In' & 'Let Me Down Slow' is something special indeed.
Love the bare bones production, the raw guitar sounds; except for a few duffers (Neo Con, Streets of Love, Infamy), the album cooks!
For a band at the time 42 years into a recording career to still be able to make an album that, if not scaling the heights of their true materpieces, at least is very good in places, inspired in others, and yes, succumbing to some filler also.
Any album containing gems like 'Laugh I Nearly Died', Keef's sublime 'This Place Is Empty', the uber-cool 'Rain Fall down', the sizzling fretboard runs and pace of 'Look What the Cat Dragged In' & 'Let Me Down Slow' is something special indeed.
Love the bare bones production, the raw guitar sounds; except for a few duffers (Neo Con, Streets of Love, Infamy), the album cooks!
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: February 9, 2012 18:26
Someone please point out the "Chuck Berry boogie" on A Bigger Bang.
Unless I missed it I didn't notice any excuse for Streets Of Love.
Unless I missed it I didn't notice any excuse for Streets Of Love.
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
Send It To me
()
Date: February 9, 2012 18:30
Bigger Bang, Steel Wheels & Undercover are all really, really good records (especially SW IMHO), and the tracks cut for 40 Licks are excellent. Highwire is an awesome song.
Voodoo Lounge, Bridges to Babylon, & Dirty Work have their moments.
Voodoo Lounge, Bridges to Babylon, & Dirty Work have their moments.
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
seitan
()
Date: February 9, 2012 18:32
Quote
IrelandCalling4
I have to agree, I've always felt ABB was a damn fine piece of work,
For a band at the time 42 years into a recording career to still be able to make an album that, if not scaling the heights of their true materpieces, at least is very good in places, inspired in others, and yes, succumbing to some filler also.
Any album containing gems like 'Laugh I Nearly Died', Keef's sublime 'This Place Is Empty', the uber-cool 'Rain Fall down', the sizzling fretboard runs and pace of 'Look What the Cat Dragged In' & 'Let Me Down Slow' is something special indeed.
Love the bare bones production, the raw guitar sounds; except for a few duffers (Neo Con, Streets of Love, Infamy), the album cooks!
I agree. Well said.
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: February 9, 2012 18:34
my hunch is that many fans, because they are big fans, want to like the latter-era albums and find themselves telling themselves they like them. i stopped doing that years ago and it's liberating...abb stinks...and it's ok to say that and still love the band. life's too short and there's too much music worth my attention to waste trying to like something that stinks.
Re: I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: February 9, 2012 18:35
Quote
Rolling Hansie
You don't need other people's opinions to like what you like. Never ever allow anybody to spoil your fun.
if someone's opinion that differs from your own spoils your fun, then you really didn't have much conviction in the first place and deserve to have your fun spoiled.
Re: I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by:
stonesdan60
()
Date: February 9, 2012 18:38
Quote
Rolling HansieQuote
stonesdan60
I've come to accept the fact that there are many who think the Stones haven't made a great album since Exile On Main Street, or Some Girls, etc.
Thanks very much for your positive input stonesdan. I really appreciate posts like this. But I've come to accept the fact that there are many who think the Stones haven't made a great album since Exile On Main Street, or Some Girls, etc. and I've come to accept the fact that I absolutely don't give a flying fock about what they think
And believe me ... it works. Enjoy the Stones the way you want to. You don't need other people's opinions to like what you like. Never ever allow anybody to spoil your fun.
Oh believe me, I really don't give a hoot what the "Stones died after Exile" crowd thinks. I respectfully disagree with them and I unabashedly enjoy what I enjoy. I just like to defend my favorite band now and then. I'm not really looking to argue with anyone. It's only rock and roll...
Re: I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: February 9, 2012 18:39
Quote
stonesdan60Quote
Rolling HansieQuote
stonesdan60
I've come to accept the fact that there are many who think the Stones haven't made a great album since Exile On Main Street, or Some Girls, etc.
Thanks very much for your positive input stonesdan. I really appreciate posts like this. But I've come to accept the fact that there are many who think the Stones haven't made a great album since Exile On Main Street, or Some Girls, etc. and I've come to accept the fact that I absolutely don't give a flying fock about what they think
And believe me ... it works. Enjoy the Stones the way you want to. You don't need other people's opinions to like what you like. Never ever allow anybody to spoil your fun.
Oh believe me, I really don't give a hoot what the "Stones died after Exile" crowd thinks. I respectfully disagree with them and I unabashedly enjoy what I enjoy. I just like to defend my favorite band now and then. I'm not really looking to argue with anyone. It's only rock and roll...
cool. and i just like to bash my favorite band several times a week. cheers.
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
stonesdan60
()
Date: February 9, 2012 18:39
Quote
IrelandCalling4
I have to agree, I've always felt ABB was a damn fine piece of work,
For a band at the time 42 years into a recording career to still be able to make an album that, if not scaling the heights of their true materpieces, at least is very good in places, inspired in others, and yes, succumbing to some filler also.
Any album containing gems like 'Laugh I Nearly Died', Keef's sublime 'This Place Is Empty', the uber-cool 'Rain Fall down', the sizzling fretboard runs and pace of 'Look What the Cat Dragged In' & 'Let Me Down Slow' is something special indeed.
Love the bare bones production, the raw guitar sounds; except for a few duffers (Neo Con, Streets of Love, Infamy), the album cooks!
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
superrevvy
()
Date: February 9, 2012 18:41
Quote
71Tele
Sorry, but that seems like an intellectual excercise designed to rationalize comparatively weak work...My test is simple: Does it move me like the best music I've heard moves me (Stones or otherwise)? Exile, Some Girls, Sticky, LIB, Aftermath, etc: Yes! ABB, BtoB, Voodoo et al: No. These records are contrived, formulaic, and even gimmicky at times.
its not just an intellectual exercise, its the only legitimate way to
judge an artist, against their contemporaries.
this is not to say you shouldnt enjoy whatever it is you enjoy. charlie watts
for instance still most treasures classic jazz and swing, and doesnt think
anything else afterwards compares...
but if its one of the best things put out in a certain year, it is definitely
not "crap". if a bunch of people got off on it when it was issued, and still
get off on it, it is not "crap"
and personally i got WAY WAY off on every single one of those latter day
stones albums, except steel wheels, which i came to appreciate only later.
sadly there are many many people who can only get off on the music of their
youth. mick calls it "ossification". he's right.
Re: I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: February 9, 2012 18:42
Quote
StonesTodQuote
Rolling Hansie
You don't need other people's opinions to like what you like. Never ever allow anybody to spoil your fun.
if someone's opinion that differs from your own spoils your fun, then you really didn't have much conviction in the first place and deserve to have your fun spoiled.
As I said before: You don't need other people's opinions to like what you like
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: February 9, 2012 18:42
Quote
superrevvy
sadly there are many many people who can only get off on the music of their
youth. mick calls it "ossification". he's right.
what's sad about it? if they know what they like and don't like and stick with what they like, i think that's cool....
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: February 9, 2012 18:43
Quote
StonesTod
my hunch is that many fans, because they are big fans, want to like the latter-era albums and find themselves telling themselves they like them. i stopped doing that years ago and it's liberating...abb stinks...and it's ok to say that and still love the band. life's too short and there's too much music worth my attention to waste trying to like something that stinks.
Exactly. There was a time when I had to believe every new Stones release was brilliant - because for many years they all were. At a certain point I let it go and moved on to more compelling music, while never losing my love for the Stones. We can all say what we want to about the latter day albums, but in the end the songwriting just stopped being compelling. At times it seemed albums were released because the band was contractually obligated, rather than because they had anything interesting to say. Bridges to Babylon in particular sounds like two solo albums forced onto the same CD. Hardly even a Stones album.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-09 18:45 by 71Tele.
Re: I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: February 9, 2012 18:44
Quote
StonesTodQuote
Rolling Hansie
You don't need other people's opinions to like what you like. Never ever allow anybody to spoil your fun.
if someone's opinion that differs from your own spoils your fun, then you really didn't have much conviction in the first place and deserve to have your fun spoiled.
True words. Don't get that either. Just look at for instance the recent Hampton 1981 threads - with all these posts going something like "you're spoiling the fun - quit whining! - Rolling Stones own you nothing!". Their appreciation doesn't sound convincing
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-09 18:45 by Erik_Snow.
Re: I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: February 9, 2012 18:47
Quote
Erik_Snow
Just look at for instance the recent Hampton 1981 threads - with all these posts going something like "you're spoiling the fun - quit whining! - Rolling Stones own you nothing!"
None of those posts were mine
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
superrevvy
()
Date: February 9, 2012 18:49
Quote
71Tele
There was a time when I had to believe every new Stones release was brilliant - because for many years they all were. At a certain point I let it go and moved on to more compelling music
So take up the challenge. Name something from the same year as a Stones album
you think is crap that you think is more "compelling". that was commercially
successful. just name it. i'm always looking for compelling music.
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: February 9, 2012 18:49
Quote
superrevvyQuote
71Tele
Sorry, but that seems like an intellectual excercise designed to rationalize comparatively weak work...My test is simple: Does it move me like the best music I've heard moves me (Stones or otherwise)? Exile, Some Girls, Sticky, LIB, Aftermath, etc: Yes! ABB, BtoB, Voodoo et al: No. These records are contrived, formulaic, and even gimmicky at times.
its not just an intellectual exercise, its the only legitimate way to
judge an artist, against their contemporaries.
this is not to say you shouldnt enjoy whatever it is you enjoy. charlie watts
for instance still most treasures classic jazz and swing, and doesnt think
anything else afterwards compares...
but if its one of the best things put out in a certain year, it is definitely
not "crap". if a bunch of people got off on it when it was issued, and still
get off on it, it is not "crap"
and personally i got WAY WAY off on every single one of those latter day
stones albums, except steel wheels, which i came to appreciate only later.
sadly there are many many people who can only get off on the music of their
youth. mick calls it "ossification". he's right.
It is perfectly reasonable to compare the Stones to the Stones. They themselves set such a high standard. Perhaps it is unrealistic to think they could have kept it up, but other artists (Tom Waits for example) have. The Stones (or rather Mick & Keith) simply stopped writing compelling songs. Without great songs yes, you still have a band that can rock and swing, but to what purpose? Onstage you basically have a nostalgia act (ok, if you don't like "nostalgia" it's a band riding on its legacy). Plus, I think Bill leaving really wounded them musically. They lost an indefinable something in their sound. Indefinable but vital.
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
superrevvy
()
Date: February 9, 2012 18:50
Quote
StonesTodQuote
superrevvy
sadly there are many many people who can only get off on the music of their
youth. mick calls it "ossification". he's right.
what's sad about it? if they know what they like and don't like and stick with what they like, i think that's cool....
i think its cool too. until they start calling other people's music "crap".
then it is not cool at all.
especially if they have NO music from that year they think is cool. then you
know they've gotten stuck in time.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-09 18:52 by superrevvy.
Re: I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: February 9, 2012 18:50
Quote
Rolling HansieQuote
Erik_Snow
Just look at for instance the recent Hampton 1981 threads - with all these posts going something like "you're spoiling the fun - quit whining! - Rolling Stones own you nothing!"
None of those posts were mine
I know, Hansie. And if they were, I wouldn't be using them as an example either, as it would've been rude. I can't remember who made such posts, so it's not an attack on anyone, just a general observation
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-09 18:51 by Erik_Snow.
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: February 9, 2012 18:51
There is a reason why every album since the early 80s have been unsuccessful: They have spent to little time together in the studio rehearsing or writing new songs. As a musician you must stay busy not to loose it - you cant take three years off and then spend two weeks together in a studio hoping for the best.
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: February 9, 2012 18:51
Quote
superrevvyQuote
71Tele
There was a time when I had to believe every new Stones release was brilliant - because for many years they all were. At a certain point I let it go and moved on to more compelling music
So take up the challenge. Name something from the same year as a Stones album
you think is crap that you think is more "compelling". that was commercially
successful. just name it. i'm always looking for compelling music.
You see, but I don't give a crap if something I think is compelling was "commercially successful". That's your criteria, not mine.
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: February 9, 2012 18:52
Quote
71TeleQuote
StonesTod
my hunch is that many fans, because they are big fans, want to like the latter-era albums and find themselves telling themselves they like them. i stopped doing that years ago and it's liberating...abb stinks...and it's ok to say that and still love the band. life's too short and there's too much music worth my attention to waste trying to like something that stinks.
Exactly. There was a time when I had to believe every new Stones release was brilliant - because for many years they all were. At a certain point I let it go and moved on to more compelling music, while never losing my love for the Stones. We can all say what we want to about the latter day albums, but in the end the songwriting just stopped being compelling. At times it seemed albums were released because the band was contractually obligated, rather than because they had anything interesting to say. Bridges to Babylon in particular sounds like two solo albums forced onto the same CD. Hardly even a Stones album.
bingo. their collective muse effectively died after the '77 sessions, imo. that ended an amazing run, too. since then it's all felt very forced and contrived...and almost all of their songs since then have owed to or borrowed heavily from something they recorded in the 70's...the idea wellspring dried up....
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: February 9, 2012 18:53
Quote
superrevvyQuote
StonesTodQuote
superrevvy
sadly there are many many people who can only get off on the music of their
youth. mick calls it "ossification". he's right.
what's sad about it? if they know what they like and don't like and stick with what they like, i think that's cool....
i think its cool too. until they start calling other people's "crap".
then it is not cool at all.
i got no problem widdit....why is expressing an opinion about music uncool?
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
superrevvy
()
Date: February 9, 2012 18:53
the stones didnt die in 1977. you did.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
1963luca0 , mariano , novica , retired_dog , Rik , RollingFreak , thetiger , Tubeman , werner67976 , wineaux
Guests:
2073
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10