Tell Me :
Talk
Exactly! A real joy to read.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-18 01:55 by Doxa.
Ahhhh. Got it. It is odd to realise that Let It Bleed didn't have a single.
I disagree. I think Emotional Rescue is one awesome song and I absolutely hate all of Prince's music with a passion.
Not really. In those days, single were their own artistic statement, not just songs to promote albums, and it was even considered for a long time kind of a rip off to have to buy the same track again on an album (particularly in Britain). So - JJF and HTW were meant to be stand alone singles, as were Hey Jude and lots of other Beatles cuts. Nowadays of course, they wouldn't dream of leaving mega-hits like these off albums.
Stupidguy2, 'Wandering Spirit' finds Jagger coming closest to the essence of his classic Rolling Stones sound - sort of the embodiment of the strutting vintage early seventies Rolling Stones rock 'n' roll sound. I think the album works to a large degree, and although on some tracks Jagger's more mannered vocals do slightly mar the songs contents, by and large the album works, and sounds far less artificial than Jagger's earlier solo albums 'She's The Boss', and 'Primitive Cool'. However, it is on hearing Jagger record with another band, and sort of attempting to approximate more obviously the Rolling Stones sound, that you realise just how vital the Stones were to those original recordings. His band on 'Wandering Spirit' play very precise, but it is all very clean and clinical, and all rather too slick. The subtelty, and the sway (and the haziness) of the Stones is completely lost, to make way for a rather sterile approximation. It is a perfect example of technically accomplised players verses musicians who have that innate sense of genuinely feeling the music. I have never been convinced by 'Sweet Thing' either, in fact Jagger's vocals sound rather excrutiating, like attempting to use a hammer to crack a walnut, and it seems another attempt to market Jagger in a way that makes him appear trendy.
What surprised me most about Keith's book is how much his perceptions of Jagger, actually did tie in with my own. Those eighties recollections about Jagger's increased ego, and how Keith found him unbearable socially ring true, because Jagger started to become musically unbearable too, around that time. Bianca's comments around 82 when she was quoted as saying 'now, he's got up in his own myth...' seems another example of Jagger no longer appearing quite so amiable to his friends and acquaintances. I think Keith's comments do ring very true, although as has been pointed out before, i'm quite sure from the perspective of those who know Keith, Keith hasn't always been the easiest person to have around, either at times.
The turn of the eighties was so much different, though, even on the more mediocre 'Emotional Rescue' album. Some of those songs do lack in terms of appearing convincing on occasions, and are frequently a little 'slight', yet the album is still so utterly charming. Even the fact that the Stones were not quite so finely tuned where many of the songs effectiveness were concerned, didn't stop the overall presentation from having many virtues too, obviously relating to the freshness of the band's playing, and the delight of Jagger's singing. Somewhere along the line, and after the release of 'Tattoo You', all that began to appear lost. Sometimes, there days the inverse is true, where all the elements may have a degree of promise, but are stifled by a mannered execution. This is especially applicable to the 'Exile On Main Street' outtakes.
I agree though, stupidguy2, no one comes close to Jagger in his element. He was the ultimate rock 'n' roll star. The 81 american tour was possibly the first since the well documented tours starting in 69, when the actual live shows failed to live up the effectiveness of the accompanying album they were promoting. Something was lost between Jagger's work on touching up those studio outtakes in the earlier part of 81, and the autumn tour.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-18 10:05 by Edward Twining.
Yeah. Plus there was something like five-six months time gap between the singles and the albums (an eternity in Sixties terms, I think). Both "Jumpin' Jack Flash" and "Honky Tonk Women" were sort of "summer hits", and the albums were something for Xmas market. So by the release of the albums, the singles were - as funny it might sound - 'old news'. But I think the idea of including "Country Honk" to LET IT BLEED was a nice idea at the time to remind the existence of the big single. Of course, now thinking the album would have been much stronger - any album would be! - to have included the 'real' "Honky Tonk Women" instead of the country joke of it. (Of course, B-side "You Can' Always Get What You Want" is included, with the long choir intro in it, perhaps, just to make it different version, and thereby "justified"). Anyway, I think "Honky Tonk Women" could have been easily included to LET IT BLEED because there exists its 'natural' place already, but I can't think how to put "Jumpin'Jack Flash" (or "Child of the Moon") into BEGGARS BANQUET. The album sounds so coherent and perfect by its own that having the big single in it might destroy the artistic wholeness and balance.
Actually, the single "We Love You/Dandelion" and SATANIC MAJESTIES enjoys a similar function that came a kind of standard for the late 60's: a single for the summer, and album for the Xmas. (Even it was probably more like a sum of co-incidences than a careful business plan I guess).
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-18 10:12 by Doxa.
I couldn't agree with you more, Doxa. 'Beggars Banquet' is so well sequenced, with a perfect balance in terms of styles, and tempos etc. It is possibly the most complete and coherent album of the Stones career. 'Let It Bleed' would perhaps have benefitted from 'Honky Tonk Women' in the place of 'Country Honk', and most definitely 'We Love You' and 'Dandelion' would have proved 'Their Satanic Majesties Request' more palatable, with a few more conventionally good songs, but i do rather like the sixties method of having singles stand on their own aside from album releases. Music wasn't anywhere near as corporate as it is today. There was still a degree of naivety, and innocence.
nope.
"Strawberry Fields" and "Penny Lane" were the first things recorded for "Sgt. Pepper" but left off the eventual album because they needed a single. Can you imagine that album with those two tracks on it? Amazing they were confident enough to leave those off the album and leave "Hey Jude" off the White Album, etc. I have always maintained that "Satanic Majesties" would have been much improved with the inclusion of "We Love You" and "Dandelion", and they might have left off the horrid "See What Happens" to make room. Totally different album.
Definitely, but See What Happens was some kind of statement that was well suited in that time. It's reminiscent of the swedish progg-music in the late 60's, in which band excelled in making noise instead of music.
Very well put, and unfortunately I agree with you.
I wonder how much of it was because Mick turned 40 that year. Turning 40, as I discovered, is no picnic. And when you think you're Peter Pan, when you've based your career on exuding teenage energy and lust, it's gotta be even more difficult.
Drew
I think might nail something there, Drew. And being as frantic the 80's was it was a really hard one for the old iconic 60's stars. Having gone through the 70's as semi-gods they somehow started to sound mortals, old or somehow lost or not finding a natural role any longer by the day's standards. Bob Dylan was somehow "lost" most of the 80's (even though he did some great sonsg and albums like INFIDELS and OH MERCY). Jagger tried cope with the trends but failed big time. The crucial thing happend around 1983/4 when the 'deep' 80's really happened. Both INFIDELS and UNDERCOVER were somehow alright albums by Dylan/Stones standards, but compare them to EMPIRE BURLESQUE and SHE'S THE BOSS two yaers later - both Mick and Bob in deep 80's shit. Neither of them didn't sound natural or convincing in that context. I still remember listening those two album against each other and thinking "incredible voices but in a ridiculous or a least in a wrong context". That could be heard very easily even back then, and now they are partly below the listening experience. What both heroes did in LIVE AID didn't help neither of them either....
I symptahize with Keith's criticism even I am not sure if he had any better goods to offer instead. Keith's star shined so brightly because he didn't do anything... well, he did DIRTY WORK, and still sounds angry for Mick not willing to tour behind that "incredible" album (well, what Keith says in LIFE is that he was not angry for himself but for Charlie. Unreal claim!). I believe Mick when he says that if they have had a tour then that would have finished the band for good... Most of the members of the band in bad condition, a relatively bad album (yes it was), the main guys fighting all time, and the rest of the world probably giving a shit about it. A nostalgy was not a hot thing at all in the "modern" climaes of the mid-80's so I think The Stones would have had true difficulties to gather the usual excitement. It was strange times indeed. I still remember the mid-80's having such a strange, even hostile climate for the Stones and it took over quite rapidly '83-'85 (and for Dylan as well). I sensed it so well because I did love them so much. The Stones were most definitively 'in' in 1981/82 but not a couple of years later.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-21 17:11 by Doxa.
The Stones are basically a band of the early sixties until the first half of the seventies (and some 'extra time' until at last 1982). They really are a product of their time (the sixties, going on in the seventies for at least some years). During 'their' years their music (studio and live) is very relevant and meaningful. Every album and tour has its 'point'. But from 1975 on (the album title 'It's Only Rock & Roll' says it all) both their albums and their tours became more and more pointless, until they finally became a caricature of themselves. It's the hand of fate (time in this case). I can understand very well why Richards pays so much attention to the sixties and seventies and relatively so few to the last decades in his book.
That's true and it is almost funny how equally it weights the same times and things (over other times and things) than any typical Stones biography or documentary that tries to capture the band's total career. There seems to be quite clear consensus of the true musical legacy of the Stones and the times they really mattered. It's been a hell long of "extra time" now...
- Doxa
Very interesting! I wrote some days ago that The Stones could be viewed as caricatures already in the 60's if you view them as caricatures today. Nice to hear that the those words actually were used back then. (I don't think that they've ever been caricatures, but that's beside the point.)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-21 21:26 by Bärs.
You're dead right, Doxa. By the mid eighties popular music didn't embrace more traditional sounds, like the influences of the sixties and seventies music. Whatever may have been an initial influence very much had to be diluted so to speak, to conform to an eighties 'sound'. A synthetic delivery, with plenty of overproduction was the order of the day. Musical subtelty was not the nature of the day. Singer-songwriters were also pretty much passe to a large degree. True, Tracy Chapman was making a splash by the latter part of the eighties, but she was very much an exception and not the rule. Albums like 'Undercover' and Bob's 'Infidels' were dabbling their toes just a little in a more modern sound, but by the mid eighties, Jagger and Dylan, had very much gone the whole hog. The Arthur Baker produced 'Empire Burlesque' was not a good idea, although i think Dylan had pretty much lost all inspiration at this point, for whatever reason, and was never really into any of the modern sounds, but couldn't think of anything else to do. Lou Reed was also going through a similar phase with 'New Sensations' and 'Mistrial', although i think there were times when those modern sounds actually complimented Reed's music to a much greater degree than either Jagger or Dylan. Reed's flirting with modern technology wasn't a complete waste in my opinion. The title track 'New Sensations' being a prime example. Reaching 40 i'm less sure had so much to do with it, than an enormous change generally in the musical landscape, and those veteran artists having to look to find a place where they could fit in.
Doxa, i agree with kleermaker, though. In a sense the Stones by 81 were already a nostalgia act, and if anything, almost as much as today, and certainly in the UK. There was an enormous deal made of the group reaching their 20th aniversary, and whether it was possible to maintain a career in your forties, which seems quite a ludicrous attitude these days. The Stones never really seemed like they belonged in the eighties, in terms of them appearing particularly contemporary, or relevant, they were very much seen as a relic from a bygone era. 'Tattoo You' was never really discussed in a more critical light, in actually being hailed as a seriously impressive piece of work. Maybe perspectives may be different depending on where you live. The US always seem more willing to embrace their veteran artists, whereas the UK tend to be more demanding for change. Well, certainly it appeared that way in the early eighties.
I always preferred the Michael Lindsay Hogg directed performance styled Stones videos also, more than the more glossy efforts as the eighties progressed, which again started to reflect the essence of the eighties, where everything was all a little too blatant, in a very flash kind of way. Creativity and subtelty were very much on the backburner at this point, to make way for those with a very limited attention span. Really, and despite a greater acceptance of more varied genres in music in more recent years, the eighties have very much left a indelible legacy. Popular music has become extremely corporate, where individuality and creativity have very much suffered. Popular music is very bloated and clinical, in a way that the more raw and subtle sixties and seventies, never were. You don't have to use much imagination to understand where popular music is at these days. It is by and large, all very explicit, and bare, and totally money orientated.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-22 09:25 by Edward Twining.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Emotional Rescue - a unique and brilliant Stones track
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: November 18, 2010 01:47
How did I post the same post three times..? I tried to delete but to no avail....
Re: Emotional Rescue - a unique and brilliant Stones track
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 18, 2010 01:53
Quote
JustinQuote
stupidguy2Quote
Edward TwiningQuote
stupidguy2
I agree on all points. I must have misunderstood you somewhere previously because I completely agree that Jagger lost that edge, conviction after 83.....with a few exceptions.
To me, ER is the last time Jagger sounded sincerely vulnerable and effortlessly sexy....as opposed to crotch-rock cartoonish......(Sparks Will Fly etc..)
stupidguy2, the point i was trying to make earlier on the other thread was really relating more to Keith's book, and his own interpretations of Jagger. Jagger, to a sense, is now a caricature, of the young Jagger. He hasn't been able to move on in an authentic way, and really connect sincerely within the music he has been recording since, at least 'She's The Boss', and 'Dirty Work'. It is all very shallow and facile to a large degree. Maybe artists like Bob Dylan, reflect a maturity within their musical style, and lyrics, which are much more easy to relate to, as they go beyond the superficiality of simply role playing being a rock star. Listening to Bob Dylan, and to a large degree, even Tom Jones on his latest album, 'Praise And Blame', and there are timeless themes which relate to all ages. The fact that both of these artists have pretty much returned to their musical roots, is also pretty telling. The blues feature largely in so much of their recently recorded output. If Tom Jones, for example, was asked to sing in a similar vein to how he did in his youth, the results may not be too favourable perhaps, but those blues and gospel songs perfectly reflect who he is now, and what he is capable of now. He and Bob, aren't simply attempting to replay appearing to be an eternal teenager. The problem with Jagger, i fear, is his business brain is about all he has left, and he's forever resigning himself to playing purely the nostalgia circuit, without much of a hint of a contemporary credibility. He's trying to impress in appearing the peter pan of rock, sometimes i feel as much for vanity's sake than anything, but he's appearing more and more shallow with every passing year, and has done since the early eighties.
Again, I must have missed your main point before because I competely agree and you put it perfectly.
Jagger lost his passion somewhere along the line and it has shown in most of his latter-day material. I will argue that there are exceptions, where he seems to be writing with authenticity - I can list several songs post-83 that moved me or had me hoping for more:
Sad, Sad, Sad,
Most of Wandering Spirit (Sweet Thing is an example of Jagger trying to sound sexy, but failing)
Don't Call Me Up
Too Far Gone (both from Goddess)
and an absolute gem from the Alfie soundtrack: Blind Leading the Blind
I can honestly say that I believe Plundered My Soul is Jagger at his best: the lyrics, performance - its all there. WHen you listen to it, its like 'Wow, that sounds like Mick Jagger....'
However, Following the River is done in that weird, thin, whining cat delievery that just kills Nicky Hopkins beautiful piano... and just screams "I'm faking it..'
But these songs are fleeting and stretched out over the last two decades.
Its interesting: we're clocking the moment Jagger "lost it" at around 83 and that is the period where Keith is most critical of Mick. I
I can remember the day before She's the Boss was released and Mick Jagger was still an artist. The day it was released, Mick Jagger was MIA and to this day, I don't know what happened - the transformation was so drastic, the fall from grace so sudden, literally night and day....it was hard to take him seriously.
Younger fans who were not Stones fans when SHe's the Boss was released (Jan, Feb 84)may not be able to relate to what you're saying because they probably see the Stones as one long journey, or one big epic, but we've watched these different stages and it was pretty damn hard to be a Stones fan in the 80s...
I know exactly what you're saying in terms of growth, maturity in reference to artists like Dylan and I would add Neil Young - these artists reflect in their latter-day work themes that come from evolution...whereas, Mick seemed to stop evolving, either personally or artistically, in the early 80s (with the exceptions I listed above providing glimpses of a grownup Jagger) I say personally because the work relflects a certain shallowness, as you put it. The themes in Jagger's later work relies so heavily on sexuality and romantic cliches, but in a forced, cartoonish way.....like there was no inner life beyond teenage lust, fantasies and desires...
Yes, Edward, this is shallow.
On another thread, I mentioned that in 82, I read an article on Bianca and she stated, rather regretfully, that she had always admired Mick's intelligence, talent etc....but that 'now, he's got up in his own myth...'
I assumed it was ex-wife bitterness, but a few years later, both Keith and even Charlie implied the same thing. Keith did more than imply, but there seems to be some truth to those comments.
I love Mick and I will always defend his artistic integrity and as far as Im concerned, no one comes close to Jagger in his element as an artist, performer etc....
But we agree 100% on Jagger's latter-day enigma.
Some great posts there, stupidguy2 and Edward Twining!
Exactly! A real joy to read.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-18 01:55 by Doxa.
Re: Emotional Rescue - a unique and brilliant Stones track
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: November 18, 2010 04:49
Quote
ab
I was addressing first singles from albums. Mixed Emotions was the first single from Steel Wheels. I agree completely about the utter lameness of Rock and a Hard Place.
But Anybody Seen My Baby is unredeemable dreck. That Biz Markie rap section in the middle is one of the most pathetic passages to appear on a Stones album.
Starting from when their albums were the same around the world, the first singles are...
Satanic Majesties - She's A Rainbow
Beggars Banquet - Street Fighting Man
Let It Bleed didn't really have one because of Honky Tonk Women
Sticky Fingers - Brown Sugar
Exile - Tumbling Dice
Goat's Head Soup - Angie
IORR - IORR
Black and Blue - Fool to Cry
Some Girls - Miss You
ER - Emotional Rescue
Tattoo You - Start Me Up
Undercover - Undercover of the Night
Dirty Work - Harlem Shuffle
Steel Wheels - Mixed Emotions
Voodoo Lounge - Love is Strong
Bridges - Anybody Seen My Baby
Bigger Bang - Streets of Love
Ahhhh. Got it. It is odd to realise that Let It Bleed didn't have a single.
Re: Emotional Rescue - a unique and brilliant Stones track
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: November 18, 2010 06:21
'It is odd to realise that Let It Bleed didn't have a single.' - Skipstone
It does seem silly to leave Jumpin' Jack Flash off Beggars Banquet, and Honky Tonk Women off Let it Bleed.
It does seem silly to leave Jumpin' Jack Flash off Beggars Banquet, and Honky Tonk Women off Let it Bleed.
Re: Emotional Rescue - a unique and brilliant Stones track
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: November 18, 2010 06:27
It does. It's funny to say it now but to think that those albums would have sold a lot more copies with the big singles on them. But back then that's how they did it. Which, considering the cost, made sense in a way - but I'd still prefer the song on the album(s). They are on the versions of the albums I've made. In fact, Beggars Banquet Version 2 starts off with JJF and also includes Child Of The Moon (without the RMK ha ha) as well as whatever it is from Metamorphosis that was done for Beggars.
Same with Let It Bleed and Honky Tonk Women, Jiving Sister Fanny, I Don't Know Why...
Same with Let It Bleed and Honky Tonk Women, Jiving Sister Fanny, I Don't Know Why...
Re: Emotional Rescue - a unique and brilliant Stones track
Posted by:
stateofshock
()
Date: November 18, 2010 06:27
I love that song. It sounds like Prince.
***********************************************************
"What I'm doing is a sexual thing. I dance and all dancing is a replacement for sex". - Mick Jagger
***********************************************************
"What I'm doing is a sexual thing. I dance and all dancing is a replacement for sex". - Mick Jagger
Re: Emotional Rescue - a unique and brilliant Stones track
Posted by:
akgameboy
()
Date: November 18, 2010 06:30
Quote
stateofshock
I love that song. It sounds like Prince.
I disagree. I think Emotional Rescue is one awesome song and I absolutely hate all of Prince's music with a passion.
Re: Emotional Rescue - a unique and brilliant Stones track
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: November 18, 2010 08:14
Quote
24FPS
'It is odd to realise that Let It Bleed didn't have a single.' - Skipstone
It does seem silly to leave Jumpin' Jack Flash off Beggars Banquet, and Honky Tonk Women off Let it Bleed.
Not really. In those days, single were their own artistic statement, not just songs to promote albums, and it was even considered for a long time kind of a rip off to have to buy the same track again on an album (particularly in Britain). So - JJF and HTW were meant to be stand alone singles, as were Hey Jude and lots of other Beatles cuts. Nowadays of course, they wouldn't dream of leaving mega-hits like these off albums.
Re: Emotional Rescue - a unique and brilliant Stones track
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: November 18, 2010 08:37
Yeah, I agree with the poster who said it sounds like Curtis Mayfield. Superfly! Freddy's Dead, same kind of vibe.
Re: Emotional Rescue - a unique and brilliant Stones track
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: November 18, 2010 09:48
Quote
stupidguy2
I can list several songs post-83 that moved me or had me hoping for more:
Most of Wandering Spirit (Sweet Thing is an example of Jagger trying to sound sexy, but failing)
On another thread, I mentioned that in 82, I read an article on Bianca and she stated, rather regretfully, that she had always admired Mick's intelligence, talent etc....but that 'now, he's got up in his own myth...'
I assumed it was ex-wife bitterness, but a few years later, both Keith and even Charlie implied the same thing. Keith did more than imply, but there seems to be some truth to those comments.
I love Mick and I will always defend his artistic integrity and as far as Im concerned, no one comes close to Jagger in his element as an artist, performer etc....
But we agree 100% on Jagger's latter-day enigma.
Stupidguy2, 'Wandering Spirit' finds Jagger coming closest to the essence of his classic Rolling Stones sound - sort of the embodiment of the strutting vintage early seventies Rolling Stones rock 'n' roll sound. I think the album works to a large degree, and although on some tracks Jagger's more mannered vocals do slightly mar the songs contents, by and large the album works, and sounds far less artificial than Jagger's earlier solo albums 'She's The Boss', and 'Primitive Cool'. However, it is on hearing Jagger record with another band, and sort of attempting to approximate more obviously the Rolling Stones sound, that you realise just how vital the Stones were to those original recordings. His band on 'Wandering Spirit' play very precise, but it is all very clean and clinical, and all rather too slick. The subtelty, and the sway (and the haziness) of the Stones is completely lost, to make way for a rather sterile approximation. It is a perfect example of technically accomplised players verses musicians who have that innate sense of genuinely feeling the music. I have never been convinced by 'Sweet Thing' either, in fact Jagger's vocals sound rather excrutiating, like attempting to use a hammer to crack a walnut, and it seems another attempt to market Jagger in a way that makes him appear trendy.
What surprised me most about Keith's book is how much his perceptions of Jagger, actually did tie in with my own. Those eighties recollections about Jagger's increased ego, and how Keith found him unbearable socially ring true, because Jagger started to become musically unbearable too, around that time. Bianca's comments around 82 when she was quoted as saying 'now, he's got up in his own myth...' seems another example of Jagger no longer appearing quite so amiable to his friends and acquaintances. I think Keith's comments do ring very true, although as has been pointed out before, i'm quite sure from the perspective of those who know Keith, Keith hasn't always been the easiest person to have around, either at times.
The turn of the eighties was so much different, though, even on the more mediocre 'Emotional Rescue' album. Some of those songs do lack in terms of appearing convincing on occasions, and are frequently a little 'slight', yet the album is still so utterly charming. Even the fact that the Stones were not quite so finely tuned where many of the songs effectiveness were concerned, didn't stop the overall presentation from having many virtues too, obviously relating to the freshness of the band's playing, and the delight of Jagger's singing. Somewhere along the line, and after the release of 'Tattoo You', all that began to appear lost. Sometimes, there days the inverse is true, where all the elements may have a degree of promise, but are stifled by a mannered execution. This is especially applicable to the 'Exile On Main Street' outtakes.
I agree though, stupidguy2, no one comes close to Jagger in his element. He was the ultimate rock 'n' roll star. The 81 american tour was possibly the first since the well documented tours starting in 69, when the actual live shows failed to live up the effectiveness of the accompanying album they were promoting. Something was lost between Jagger's work on touching up those studio outtakes in the earlier part of 81, and the autumn tour.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-18 10:05 by Edward Twining.
Re: Emotional Rescue - a unique and brilliant Stones track
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 18, 2010 10:05
Quote
71TeleQuote
24FPS
'It is odd to realise that Let It Bleed didn't have a single.' - Skipstone
It does seem silly to leave Jumpin' Jack Flash off Beggars Banquet, and Honky Tonk Women off Let it Bleed.
Not really. In those days, single were their own artistic statement, not just songs to promote albums, and it was even considered for a long time kind of a rip off to have to buy the same track again on an album (particularly in Britain). So - JJF and HTW were meant to be stand alone singles, as were Hey Jude and lots of other Beatles cuts. Nowadays of course, they wouldn't dream of leaving mega-hits like these off albums.
Yeah. Plus there was something like five-six months time gap between the singles and the albums (an eternity in Sixties terms, I think). Both "Jumpin' Jack Flash" and "Honky Tonk Women" were sort of "summer hits", and the albums were something for Xmas market. So by the release of the albums, the singles were - as funny it might sound - 'old news'. But I think the idea of including "Country Honk" to LET IT BLEED was a nice idea at the time to remind the existence of the big single. Of course, now thinking the album would have been much stronger - any album would be! - to have included the 'real' "Honky Tonk Women" instead of the country joke of it. (Of course, B-side "You Can' Always Get What You Want" is included, with the long choir intro in it, perhaps, just to make it different version, and thereby "justified"). Anyway, I think "Honky Tonk Women" could have been easily included to LET IT BLEED because there exists its 'natural' place already, but I can't think how to put "Jumpin'Jack Flash" (or "Child of the Moon") into BEGGARS BANQUET. The album sounds so coherent and perfect by its own that having the big single in it might destroy the artistic wholeness and balance.
Actually, the single "We Love You/Dandelion" and SATANIC MAJESTIES enjoys a similar function that came a kind of standard for the late 60's: a single for the summer, and album for the Xmas. (Even it was probably more like a sum of co-incidences than a careful business plan I guess).
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-18 10:12 by Doxa.
Re: Emotional Rescue - a unique and brilliant Stones track
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: November 18, 2010 19:50
Quote
Doxa
I can't think how to put "Jumpin'Jack Flash" (or "Child of the Moon") into BEGGARS BANQUET. The album sounds so coherent and perfect by its own that having the big single in it might destroy the artistic wholeness and balance.
- Doxa
I couldn't agree with you more, Doxa. 'Beggars Banquet' is so well sequenced, with a perfect balance in terms of styles, and tempos etc. It is possibly the most complete and coherent album of the Stones career. 'Let It Bleed' would perhaps have benefitted from 'Honky Tonk Women' in the place of 'Country Honk', and most definitely 'We Love You' and 'Dandelion' would have proved 'Their Satanic Majesties Request' more palatable, with a few more conventionally good songs, but i do rather like the sixties method of having singles stand on their own aside from album releases. Music wasn't anywhere near as corporate as it is today. There was still a degree of naivety, and innocence.
Re: Emotional Rescue - a unique and brilliant Stones track
Posted by:
mark01942
()
Date: November 18, 2010 20:24
I LIKE ER and Miss You-it WAS the 70's people, give em a break, Have a look at what else was in the charts in this period. Top marks to the Stones for following (then)modern trends in music and still recording a GREAT song. hindsight is a wonderful thing!
*PART of the Stones appeal (to me anyway,) is their overall "campness" (especially Mick)-He don't care how others perceive him and RIGHTLY SO! Good for him, -good for THEM!!
*PART of the Stones appeal (to me anyway,) is their overall "campness" (especially Mick)-He don't care how others perceive him and RIGHTLY SO! Good for him, -good for THEM!!
Re: Emotional Rescue - a unique and brilliant Stones track
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: November 18, 2010 20:52
Not having the mega-single on albums seems more of a UK way of doing things. US albums have almost always been propelled by a big hit single. Many of the early rock albums led with the hit single, followed by a load of crap. And maybe JJF, and especially Child of the Moon, would have altered Beggars Banquet drastically. There's almost an acoustical delicacy (Parachute Woman, Stray Cat Blues excluded) to Beggars. Child of the Moon sounds more like a Satanic Majesties cut.
And the inclusion of Honky Tonk Women on Let It Bleed might have overwhelmed the brilliance of the studio version of Midnight Rambler. All good arguments.
But, and here I agree with Doxa, Satanic Majesties could have used Dandelion and We Love You to make it a more palatable album.
And the inclusion of Honky Tonk Women on Let It Bleed might have overwhelmed the brilliance of the studio version of Midnight Rambler. All good arguments.
But, and here I agree with Doxa, Satanic Majesties could have used Dandelion and We Love You to make it a more palatable album.
Re: Emotional Rescue - a unique and brilliant Stones track
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: November 19, 2010 00:02
Quote
Edward Twining
What surprised me most about Keith's book is how much his perceptions of Jagger, actually did tie in with my own.Quote
I agree. I think Keith is, in many respects, unfair in his assessmensts of Mick for the reasons you mentioned: that Keith has not always been the most reliable and amiable or productive at any given time....
But his perceptions about Mick during this period are astute, as any good friend would recognize when someone is not there.
I mentioned this on the ER thread, in regard to your own adjectives describing the album: "mediocre", "lacking" etc...I think ER is the fallout from several things: Keith's drug issues, the end of the Anita and Bianca era, really the end of the salad days. They were getting older - and all coinciding with the dawn of a new decade and new trends, a new generation of artists setting the tone etc....
This album does indeed sound defeated - because perhaps that's what was going on at the time. The Stones were still tearing up the rockers, still experimenting with different genres, but they sound tired at the same time. The album seems like a moment in their lives......
Later albums didn't have that sense of 'in the moment' - yes, it is uneven, but perhaps their lives were uneven.
You can't define Voodoo Lounge or Bridges to Babylon like that. In other words, ER was a product of 1979: a ramshackle, stumbling fallout from a decade they owned and in particular the chaos of 1977, 78 and Some Girls. ER makes sense in that sense - it's tied to that time, that moment, like the best Stones albums: Let It Bleed, Beggars, Exile etc.....which gives it weight and context and depth.
Post Tattoo You, albums like Dirty Work, Voodoo, Bridges et al.. seem to exist in something not as tangible.
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-19 06:29 by stupidguy2.
Re: Emotional Rescue - a unique and brilliant Stones track
Posted by:
Sighunt
()
Date: November 19, 2010 05:56
I don't know if this question has been answered before (if it has, sorry....), but has Emotional Rescue ever been performed live?
Re: Emotional Rescue - a unique and brilliant Stones track
Posted by:
cc
()
Date: November 19, 2010 06:22
Quote
Sighunt
I don't know if this question has been answered before (if it has, sorry....), but has Emotional Rescue ever been performed live?
nope.
Re: Emotional Rescue - a unique and brilliant Stones track
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: November 19, 2010 08:07
Quote
DoxaQuote
71TeleQuote
24FPS
'It is odd to realise that Let It Bleed didn't have a single.' - Skipstone
It does seem silly to leave Jumpin' Jack Flash off Beggars Banquet, and Honky Tonk Women off Let it Bleed.
Not really. In those days, single were their own artistic statement, not just songs to promote albums, and it was even considered for a long time kind of a rip off to have to buy the same track again on an album (particularly in Britain). So - JJF and HTW were meant to be stand alone singles, as were Hey Jude and lots of other Beatles cuts. Nowadays of course, they wouldn't dream of leaving mega-hits like these off albums.
Yeah. Plus there was something like five-six months time gap between the singles and the albums (an eternity in Sixties terms, I think). Both "Jumpin' Jack Flash" and "Honky Tonk Women" were sort of "summer hits", and the albums were something for Xmas market. So by the release of the albums, the singles were - as funny it might sound - 'old news'. But I think the idea of including "Country Honk" to LET IT BLEED was a nice idea at the time to remind the existence of the big single. Of course, now thinking the album would have been much stronger - any album would be! - to have included the 'real' "Honky Tonk Women" instead of the country joke of it. (Of course, B-side "You Can' Always Get What You Want" is included, with the long choir intro in it, perhaps, just to make it different version, and thereby "justified"). Anyway, I think "Honky Tonk Women" could have been easily included to LET IT BLEED because there exists its 'natural' place already, but I can't think how to put "Jumpin'Jack Flash" (or "Child of the Moon") into BEGGARS BANQUET. The album sounds so coherent and perfect by its own that having the big single in it might destroy the artistic wholeness and balance.
Actually, the single "We Love You/Dandelion" and SATANIC MAJESTIES enjoys a similar function that came a kind of standard for the late 60's: a single for the summer, and album for the Xmas. (Even it was probably more like a sum of co-incidences than a careful business plan I guess).
- Doxa
"Strawberry Fields" and "Penny Lane" were the first things recorded for "Sgt. Pepper" but left off the eventual album because they needed a single. Can you imagine that album with those two tracks on it? Amazing they were confident enough to leave those off the album and leave "Hey Jude" off the White Album, etc. I have always maintained that "Satanic Majesties" would have been much improved with the inclusion of "We Love You" and "Dandelion", and they might have left off the horrid "See What Happens" to make room. Totally different album.
Re: Emotional Rescue - a unique and brilliant Stones track
Posted by:
Bärs
()
Date: November 19, 2010 12:23
Quote
71TeleQuote
DoxaQuote
71TeleQuote
24FPS
'It is odd to realise that Let It Bleed didn't have a single.' - Skipstone
It does seem silly to leave Jumpin' Jack Flash off Beggars Banquet, and Honky Tonk Women off Let it Bleed.
Not really. In those days, single were their own artistic statement, not just songs to promote albums, and it was even considered for a long time kind of a rip off to have to buy the same track again on an album (particularly in Britain). So - JJF and HTW were meant to be stand alone singles, as were Hey Jude and lots of other Beatles cuts. Nowadays of course, they wouldn't dream of leaving mega-hits like these off albums.
Yeah. Plus there was something like five-six months time gap between the singles and the albums (an eternity in Sixties terms, I think). Both "Jumpin' Jack Flash" and "Honky Tonk Women" were sort of "summer hits", and the albums were something for Xmas market. So by the release of the albums, the singles were - as funny it might sound - 'old news'. But I think the idea of including "Country Honk" to LET IT BLEED was a nice idea at the time to remind the existence of the big single. Of course, now thinking the album would have been much stronger - any album would be! - to have included the 'real' "Honky Tonk Women" instead of the country joke of it. (Of course, B-side "You Can' Always Get What You Want" is included, with the long choir intro in it, perhaps, just to make it different version, and thereby "justified"). Anyway, I think "Honky Tonk Women" could have been easily included to LET IT BLEED because there exists its 'natural' place already, but I can't think how to put "Jumpin'Jack Flash" (or "Child of the Moon") into BEGGARS BANQUET. The album sounds so coherent and perfect by its own that having the big single in it might destroy the artistic wholeness and balance.
Actually, the single "We Love You/Dandelion" and SATANIC MAJESTIES enjoys a similar function that came a kind of standard for the late 60's: a single for the summer, and album for the Xmas. (Even it was probably more like a sum of co-incidences than a careful business plan I guess).
- Doxa
I have always maintained that "Satanic Majesties" would have been much improved with the inclusion of "We Love You" and "Dandelion", and they might have left off the horrid "See What Happens" to make room. Totally different album.
Definitely, but See What Happens was some kind of statement that was well suited in that time. It's reminiscent of the swedish progg-music in the late 60's, in which band excelled in making noise instead of music.
Re: Emotional Rescue - a unique and brilliant Stones track
Posted by:
drewmaster
()
Date: November 21, 2010 15:56
Quote
stupidguy2
Its interesting: we're clocking the moment Jagger "lost it" at around 83 and that is the period where Keith is most critical of Mick. I I can remember the day before She's the Boss was released and Mick Jagger was still an artist. The day it was released, Mick Jagger was MIA and to this day, I don't know what happened - the transformation was so drastic, the fall from grace so sudden, literally night and day....it was hard to take him seriously.
Very well put, and unfortunately I agree with you.
I wonder how much of it was because Mick turned 40 that year. Turning 40, as I discovered, is no picnic. And when you think you're Peter Pan, when you've based your career on exuding teenage energy and lust, it's gotta be even more difficult.
Drew
Re: Emotional Rescue - a unique and brilliant Stones track
Posted by:
runrudolph
()
Date: November 21, 2010 16:19
very irritating song
jeroen
jeroen
Re: Emotional Rescue - a unique and brilliant Stones track
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 21, 2010 16:46
Quote
drewmasterQuote
stupidguy2
Its interesting: we're clocking the moment Jagger "lost it" at around 83 and that is the period where Keith is most critical of Mick. I I can remember the day before She's the Boss was released and Mick Jagger was still an artist. The day it was released, Mick Jagger was MIA and to this day, I don't know what happened - the transformation was so drastic, the fall from grace so sudden, literally night and day....it was hard to take him seriously.
Very well put, and unfortunately I agree with you.
I wonder how much of it was because Mick turned 40 that year. Turning 40, as I discovered, is no picnic. And when you think you're Peter Pan, when you've based your career on exuding teenage energy and lust, it's gotta be even more difficult.
Drew
I think might nail something there, Drew. And being as frantic the 80's was it was a really hard one for the old iconic 60's stars. Having gone through the 70's as semi-gods they somehow started to sound mortals, old or somehow lost or not finding a natural role any longer by the day's standards. Bob Dylan was somehow "lost" most of the 80's (even though he did some great sonsg and albums like INFIDELS and OH MERCY). Jagger tried cope with the trends but failed big time. The crucial thing happend around 1983/4 when the 'deep' 80's really happened. Both INFIDELS and UNDERCOVER were somehow alright albums by Dylan/Stones standards, but compare them to EMPIRE BURLESQUE and SHE'S THE BOSS two yaers later - both Mick and Bob in deep 80's shit. Neither of them didn't sound natural or convincing in that context. I still remember listening those two album against each other and thinking "incredible voices but in a ridiculous or a least in a wrong context". That could be heard very easily even back then, and now they are partly below the listening experience. What both heroes did in LIVE AID didn't help neither of them either....
I symptahize with Keith's criticism even I am not sure if he had any better goods to offer instead. Keith's star shined so brightly because he didn't do anything... well, he did DIRTY WORK, and still sounds angry for Mick not willing to tour behind that "incredible" album (well, what Keith says in LIFE is that he was not angry for himself but for Charlie. Unreal claim!). I believe Mick when he says that if they have had a tour then that would have finished the band for good... Most of the members of the band in bad condition, a relatively bad album (yes it was), the main guys fighting all time, and the rest of the world probably giving a shit about it. A nostalgy was not a hot thing at all in the "modern" climaes of the mid-80's so I think The Stones would have had true difficulties to gather the usual excitement. It was strange times indeed. I still remember the mid-80's having such a strange, even hostile climate for the Stones and it took over quite rapidly '83-'85 (and for Dylan as well). I sensed it so well because I did love them so much. The Stones were most definitively 'in' in 1981/82 but not a couple of years later.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-21 17:11 by Doxa.
Re: Emotional Rescue - a unique and brilliant Stones track
Posted by:
Zack
()
Date: November 21, 2010 17:57
Doesn't just sound like Prince. Blatant, obvious imitation, with unintentionally hilarious results.
Re: Emotional Rescue - a unique and brilliant Stones track
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: November 21, 2010 18:13
Quote
DoxaQuote
drewmasterQuote
stupidguy2
Its interesting: we're clocking the moment Jagger "lost it" at around 83 and that is the period where Keith is most critical of Mick. I I can remember the day before She's the Boss was released and Mick Jagger was still an artist. The day it was released, Mick Jagger was MIA and to this day, I don't know what happened - the transformation was so drastic, the fall from grace so sudden, literally night and day....it was hard to take him seriously.
Very well put, and unfortunately I agree with you.
I wonder how much of it was because Mick turned 40 that year. Turning 40, as I discovered, is no picnic. And when you think you're Peter Pan, when you've based your career on exuding teenage energy and lust, it's gotta be even more difficult.
Drew
I think might nail something there, Drew. And being as frantic the 80's was it was a really hard one for the old iconic 60's stars. Having gone through the 70's as semi-gods they somehow started to sound mortals, old or somehow lost or not finding a natural role any longer by the day's standards. Bob Dylan was somehow "lost" most of the 80's (even though he did some great sonsg and albums like INFIDELS and OH MERCY). Jagger tried cope with the trends but failed big time. The crucial thing happend around 1983/4 when the 'deep' 80's really happened. Both INFIDELS and UNDERCOVER were somehow alright albums by Dylan/Stones standards, but compare them to EMPIRE BURLESQUE and SHE'S THE BOSS two yaers later - both Mick and Bob in deep 80's shit. Neither of them didn't sound natural or convincing in that context. I still remember listening those two album against each other and thinking "incredible voices but in a ridiculous or a least in a wrong context". That could be heard very easily even back then, and now they are partly below the listening experience. What both heroes did in LIVE AID didn't help neither of them either....
I symptahize with Keith's criticism even I am not sure if he had any better goods to offer instead. Keith's star shined so brightly because he didn't do anything... well, he did DIRTY WORK, and still sounds angry for Mick not willing to tour behind that "incredible" album (well, what Keith says in LIFE is that he was not angry for himself but for Charlie. Unreal claim!). I believe Mick when he says that if they have had a tour then that would have finished the band for good... Most of the members of the band in bad condition, a relatively bad album (yes it was), the main guys fighting all time, and the rest of the world probably giving a shit about it. A nostalgy was not a hot thing at all in the "modern" climaes of the mid-80's so I think The Stones would have had true difficulties to gather the usual excitement. It was strange times indeed. I still remember the mid-80's having such a strange, even hostile climate for the Stones and it took over quite rapidly '83-'85 (and for Dylan as well). I sensed it so well because I did love them so much. The Stones were most definitively 'in' in 1981/82 but not a couple of years later.
- Doxa
The Stones are basically a band of the early sixties until the first half of the seventies (and some 'extra time' until at last 1982). They really are a product of their time (the sixties, going on in the seventies for at least some years). During 'their' years their music (studio and live) is very relevant and meaningful. Every album and tour has its 'point'. But from 1975 on (the album title 'It's Only Rock & Roll' says it all) both their albums and their tours became more and more pointless, until they finally became a caricature of themselves. It's the hand of fate (time in this case). I can understand very well why Richards pays so much attention to the sixties and seventies and relatively so few to the last decades in his book.
Re: Emotional Rescue - a unique and brilliant Stones track
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: November 21, 2010 18:36
Wasn't Dandelion recorded for Between The Buttons? It doesn't sound like it - sonically or how the band performed.
It's interesting in a way but the Stones have not released many title tracks as singles. IORR and ER are the only two that come to mind. It helps that most of their LPs are not a song name.
It's interesting in a way but the Stones have not released many title tracks as singles. IORR and ER are the only two that come to mind. It helps that most of their LPs are not a song name.
Re: Emotional Rescue - a unique and brilliant Stones track
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 21, 2010 19:12
Quote
kleermaker
I can understand very well why Richards pays so much attention to the sixties and seventies and relatively so few to the last decades in his book.
That's true and it is almost funny how equally it weights the same times and things (over other times and things) than any typical Stones biography or documentary that tries to capture the band's total career. There seems to be quite clear consensus of the true musical legacy of the Stones and the times they really mattered. It's been a hell long of "extra time" now...
- Doxa
Re: Emotional Rescue - a unique and brilliant Stones track
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: November 21, 2010 20:23
'...until they finally became a caricature of themselves.' - kleermaker
I've always gotten a kick out of the Stones being called caricatures of themselves. The first time I remember a critic writing that was around 1969; which irritated me because I was just getting into the group and I felt somehow I was hearing and seeing some fakes. It was ludicrous then, and it's ludicrous now. When they performed 'Back of My Hand' at the Hollywood Bowl in 2005 they sounded entirely authentic. They have gone through enough that their blues now oozes with the reality of their experiences; the deaths, the drugs, the wives, and most importantly, keeping a style of music alive that no one else did. And the day is coming where we won't have them anymore. All their competitors have fallen away. They are the true bluesmen now.
Maybe the core of what's left is not a strong recording unit any longer, and they're incapable of infusing their sound with new talent. You don't lose Brian Jones, Mick Taylor, and Bill Wyman without some cost. The gang that accompanies the core group on tour has grown tiresome, including Chuck Leavell. But I'll bet when they hit the stage sometime in the next year or so, conviction, not caricature is the word that will come to mind. If there's anything left in the tank, they'll give it.
I'll be your savior, steadfast and true............
I've always gotten a kick out of the Stones being called caricatures of themselves. The first time I remember a critic writing that was around 1969; which irritated me because I was just getting into the group and I felt somehow I was hearing and seeing some fakes. It was ludicrous then, and it's ludicrous now. When they performed 'Back of My Hand' at the Hollywood Bowl in 2005 they sounded entirely authentic. They have gone through enough that their blues now oozes with the reality of their experiences; the deaths, the drugs, the wives, and most importantly, keeping a style of music alive that no one else did. And the day is coming where we won't have them anymore. All their competitors have fallen away. They are the true bluesmen now.
Maybe the core of what's left is not a strong recording unit any longer, and they're incapable of infusing their sound with new talent. You don't lose Brian Jones, Mick Taylor, and Bill Wyman without some cost. The gang that accompanies the core group on tour has grown tiresome, including Chuck Leavell. But I'll bet when they hit the stage sometime in the next year or so, conviction, not caricature is the word that will come to mind. If there's anything left in the tank, they'll give it.
I'll be your savior, steadfast and true............
Re: Emotional Rescue - a unique and brilliant Stones track
Posted by:
Bärs
()
Date: November 21, 2010 21:15
Quote
24FPS
'...until they finally became a caricature of themselves.' - kleermaker
I've always gotten a kick out of the Stones being called caricatures of themselves. The first time I remember a critic writing that was around 1969...
Very interesting! I wrote some days ago that The Stones could be viewed as caricatures already in the 60's if you view them as caricatures today. Nice to hear that the those words actually were used back then. (I don't think that they've ever been caricatures, but that's beside the point.)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-21 21:26 by Bärs.
Re: Emotional Rescue - a unique and brilliant Stones track
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: November 22, 2010 08:36
Quote
Doxa
Bob Dylan was somehow "lost" most of the 80's (even though he did some great sonsg and albums like INFIDELS and OH MERCY). Jagger tried cope with the trends but failed big time. The crucial thing happend around 1983/4 when the 'deep' 80's really happened. Both INFIDELS and UNDERCOVER were somehow alright albums by Dylan/Stones standards, but compare them to EMPIRE BURLESQUE and SHE'S THE BOSS two yaers later - both Mick and Bob in deep 80's shit. Neither of them didn't sound natural or convincing in that context. I still remember listening those two album against each other and thinking "incredible voices but in a ridiculous or a least in a wrong context". That could be heard very easily even back then, and now they are partly below the listening experience. What both heroes did in LIVE AID didn't help neither of them either....
I symptahize with Keith's criticism even I am not sure if he had any better goods to offer instead. Keith's star shined so brightly because he didn't do anything... well, he did DIRTY WORK, and still sounds angry for Mick not willing to tour behind that "incredible" album (well, what Keith says in LIFE is that he was not angry for himself but for Charlie. Unreal claim!). A nostalgy was not a hot thing at all in the "modern" climaes of the mid-80's so I think The Stones would have had true difficulties to gather the usual excitement. It was strange times indeed. I still remember the mid-80's having such a strange, even hostile climate for the Stones and it took over quite rapidly '83-'85 (and for Dylan as well). I sensed it so well because I did love them so much. The Stones were most definitively 'in' in 1981/82 but not a couple of years later.
- Doxa
You're dead right, Doxa. By the mid eighties popular music didn't embrace more traditional sounds, like the influences of the sixties and seventies music. Whatever may have been an initial influence very much had to be diluted so to speak, to conform to an eighties 'sound'. A synthetic delivery, with plenty of overproduction was the order of the day. Musical subtelty was not the nature of the day. Singer-songwriters were also pretty much passe to a large degree. True, Tracy Chapman was making a splash by the latter part of the eighties, but she was very much an exception and not the rule. Albums like 'Undercover' and Bob's 'Infidels' were dabbling their toes just a little in a more modern sound, but by the mid eighties, Jagger and Dylan, had very much gone the whole hog. The Arthur Baker produced 'Empire Burlesque' was not a good idea, although i think Dylan had pretty much lost all inspiration at this point, for whatever reason, and was never really into any of the modern sounds, but couldn't think of anything else to do. Lou Reed was also going through a similar phase with 'New Sensations' and 'Mistrial', although i think there were times when those modern sounds actually complimented Reed's music to a much greater degree than either Jagger or Dylan. Reed's flirting with modern technology wasn't a complete waste in my opinion. The title track 'New Sensations' being a prime example. Reaching 40 i'm less sure had so much to do with it, than an enormous change generally in the musical landscape, and those veteran artists having to look to find a place where they could fit in.
Doxa, i agree with kleermaker, though. In a sense the Stones by 81 were already a nostalgia act, and if anything, almost as much as today, and certainly in the UK. There was an enormous deal made of the group reaching their 20th aniversary, and whether it was possible to maintain a career in your forties, which seems quite a ludicrous attitude these days. The Stones never really seemed like they belonged in the eighties, in terms of them appearing particularly contemporary, or relevant, they were very much seen as a relic from a bygone era. 'Tattoo You' was never really discussed in a more critical light, in actually being hailed as a seriously impressive piece of work. Maybe perspectives may be different depending on where you live. The US always seem more willing to embrace their veteran artists, whereas the UK tend to be more demanding for change. Well, certainly it appeared that way in the early eighties.
I always preferred the Michael Lindsay Hogg directed performance styled Stones videos also, more than the more glossy efforts as the eighties progressed, which again started to reflect the essence of the eighties, where everything was all a little too blatant, in a very flash kind of way. Creativity and subtelty were very much on the backburner at this point, to make way for those with a very limited attention span. Really, and despite a greater acceptance of more varied genres in music in more recent years, the eighties have very much left a indelible legacy. Popular music has become extremely corporate, where individuality and creativity have very much suffered. Popular music is very bloated and clinical, in a way that the more raw and subtle sixties and seventies, never were. You don't have to use much imagination to understand where popular music is at these days. It is by and large, all very explicit, and bare, and totally money orientated.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-22 09:25 by Edward Twining.
Re: Emotional Rescue - a unique and brilliant Stones track
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: November 22, 2010 09:32
From some of the posts here it's obvious by the time of Emotional Rescue, the early 80s, the band was picking up a new generation. We took a friend's daughter, 15, to see the band at Dodger Stadium in 2006 and she loved it. I think they picked up a whole new, younger audience with the Some Girls LP. I remember thinking at the '78 show I attended that it was the old warhorses that sounded a little strained and out of place. I think the absence of good rock bands has kept the Stones popular with younger audiences, who seek out their old hits because they have no musical artists of that caliber in their lives. Bowie is another one they seem to attach to. If Bowie toured again it would be huge, with pent up demand from younger fans who never got to see him.
I think the Stones did a lot of re-invention in the 80s that paid off for them among younger fans, although it might have lost them some old ones. I've never seen an audience in the wide age range like you see at a Stones show. The spectacle of the show awes the younger ones, too, along with the supreme catalogue to songs the band has to play from. U2 is the closest thing for them, but there simply won't be another rock band at the level of the Stones.
I think the Stones did a lot of re-invention in the 80s that paid off for them among younger fans, although it might have lost them some old ones. I've never seen an audience in the wide age range like you see at a Stones show. The spectacle of the show awes the younger ones, too, along with the supreme catalogue to songs the band has to play from. U2 is the closest thing for them, but there simply won't be another rock band at the level of the Stones.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
goingmad , JackM , littlevillage , matatu , mgmiller , Purplevienna1 , rcfoxy , rebelhipi , Redstone5 , spunky , stargroover , Stilllife09 , tumblingdice , TW2019
Guests:
1538
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10