To a degree I agree with you Edward and Kleermaker of the nature of the band being a nostalgia act already in 1981. But I think that is different kind of nostalgy than what has occurred since 1989. I try to explain my point. It will take some space...

I think The Stones hit very strongly for that little time 1981/82 because of their "archaic" or “retro” approach, and somehow their legendary past worked for them extremely well (as it does now). Very much reflected on Keith Richards who had just survived the heroin and the "next dying rock star" list. Keith started to be like the “hidden”, true hero of whole rock and roll generation. (I had a t-shirt in which was written “Keith Richards Lives” - a reference to other died rock stars - “Elvis Lives”, “John Lennon Lives” - Keith gave a new, very current, meaning what the term a living legend means.) The Stones and Keith sounded survivors and winners. That was the little moment, and I guess the guys actually were still quite sexy and all. TATTOO YOU was heralded as a great album, not just for being good, but for sounding so "ageless" and kind of stuff where The Stones are thought to be in their best (plus the b-side showing surprising signs of maturity). Nothing desperate trying to do cope with trends a'la EMOTIONAL RESCUE and even SOME GIRLS. "Start Me Up" was the purest Stones single heard for ages, in a pure "Brown Sugar" manner. That was all cool in 1981. Their shows were hoorayed every where. In their shows they had really started playing pre-Jumpin Jack Flash material constantly and with a proud mature approach, like finally accepting that the band did exist before that single. Matured nostalgia. The raw and pure ( a bit thin)guitar sounds in 1981/82 tour, and the band sound over-all, was cleaned from any gimmicks and tricks – like representing no bullshitting Keith Richards attitude. The athletic Jagger was, of course, a caricature of his old himself – but with such a strong self-esteem and cocky attitude that he was able to laugh to his own image and play with it. Even the huge stages somehow fitted to the picture: the biggest band needed the biggest surroundings. They just were so goddamn BIG. This all was cool in 1981/82 – just before the 'true' eighties happened.

But I think there actually was in the air a feeling that "this is the last our; this is the last time this band can really matter, end everyone involved – the band. audience, the critics – somehow knows it.". There is one book covering the US part which starts with the words "the last tour", or is it even called it by that name? It is not just the Stones but the whole 60's/70's rock generation – the BIG and real rock generation - somehow feeling it that this is about the end of the whole era. The Stones, the last of those huge names with The Beatles (who were long gone, and thanks to Lennon's just occurred tragedy, sealed to never reappear again) and Dylan (who had just screwed up his name and spokesman credibility in his religious phase), were somehow representing the originality in its best form but that for natural reasons is fated to die soon. Now it comes to end, the time to learn new games. Me, young boy from Finland, was sure that this is the last time it is possible to see the band, and I that I couldn't make the Gothenburg gig, pissed me really off, to say it mildly.

I admit there were similar feelings "in the air" in later in 1989 and 1994 and 1997 and 2002 and 2005 (and soon in 2011) but somehow it was still different as I can tell. I suppose what happened during the 80's - seven years was along time and taking all the changes in music trends, a big gap indeed - I think the basic feeling of 1989 was that of "come back". Something like a direct continuum to the past had died during that time, and it wasn't any longer the same band, and neither the same audience. I think the true nostalgia started to show his face then. Like I said, it was not just the Stones but the whole rock generation that had grown up with them and which somehow had been lost, or lost is peek and touch to cultural climate, during the 80's. The difference between 1981 was that it was not like knowing to enter the last phase or moment (“for being young and crazy” and all that) and heralding it but that of re-finding one's own youth, so to say, the things one once loved. From this base a new culture was born, and I a have special word to describe it, but I don't use it now. The Stones shows from 1989 have been like entering to a museum or to a time capsule to the times when the rock music as a whole really mattered. The Stones always have been more like symbols for other people’s ideas and wishes and hopes. The Stones give the soundtrack.

Now in retrospect, I think Jagger's doings during the 80's are somehow understandable. I think the Stones by 1981/82 had reached a level that it sounded very difficult to know what to do next. That is always the problem when one starts to play with nostalgia card and retro things. If you try afterward modernize your things it is hard to reach the level of convincing results. With UNDERCOVER Jagger tried to modernize the Stones but with no very good results. The buying audience started to vote with their feet. After three huge selling albums the sales of UNDERCOVER must have felt disappointing. Maybe then Mick calculated that – or even before that – that the only way to continue his career is to leave The Stones behind. Modernize himself without the nostalgic package that is too tightly connected to the past. Then, as we know, Mick put all his energy to his solo career. It could be the case that Mick was "right" in his way to read the signs or the trends but the problem was that his own image and name was so much dated that his ways to cope with the trends were doomed to fail. No matter how big he – once – was and how much tried.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-22 10:20 by Doxa.

I think you right, Doxa, in understanding that Mick going solo was the best way for everybody - for himself and for Stones. The problem is that he never tried enough and was afraid or too nostalgic to leave the Stones behind once and for all.

Quote
24FPS
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.

My perception is that I belong to the last big Stones generation - the one that, roughly came along in SOME GIRLS to UNDERCOVER period. Most of us are now fortysomethings. This is not to say that thee Stones haven't excited younger people from then on - of course they have - but in terms of large quantity teh haven't had such an impact to bigger younger masses. This can be very well reflected in their audience today in their traditional markets in US and Europe(some Argentina might be totally different case.) I think this is also the last time the Stones somehow were able to charm new big audiences with their new, current music.

But to an extent I think the early 80's fan base - including me - was already a bit retro-oriented. I think the generation is also the last of what one could really call a "rock and roll generation" - that somehow felt that there is more than just the music involved - rock and roll is a kind of medium of cultural change and attitude or to express implicit of feelings of genaration or whatever. Some kind of "authenticity" (how funny and corny now it sounds - but it felt real once upon time) I rate the punk phenomenon being the last big rock culture phenomenon. During the 80's rock culture transformed itself into something else. I don't know exactly what; pure show business, cliches and technicability (heavy rock) or kind of elistist genre-orientation ("indie music")? Remember the 80's term AOR (adult-oriented rock)? Now most of rock music is sort of AOR so the term has lost its meaning.

What I try to say that The Stones actually is an oldies act. For many reasons. And there is nothing wrong with that! It is funny to follow how the world changes around you!

- Doxa

Quote
proudmary
I think you right, Doxa, in understanding that Mick going solo was the best way for everybody - for himself and for Stones. The problem is that he never tried enough and was afraid or too nostalgic to leave the Stones behind once and for all.

Yeah, that is probably true. Jagger didn't have the guts to really let himself loose but kept always the Stones option available, like a security belt, which I think rightly irratated Keith and the rest. Being as rich he now is, he might think he did a right decision then. But I wonder if there is sometimes a little independent artist in Mick that might have seconds thoughts about it. Like I have argued elsewhere if Mick would have really pushed his solo career he would - being such an incredible performer and artist of his own right - have make it work sooner or later (when the people have have had come to terms with the fact that the Stones doesn't exist anyomore, and this is "all" we going to have from now on.)

- Doxa

He should have had the guts to tell the other band members that he was going solo, imo. Maybe we wouldn't have had any album or tour before 1989, but we'd avoid the fear of our favourite band being in jeopardy, at least.

Quote
Doxa
But to an extent I think the early 80's fan base - including me - was already a bit retro-oriented. I think the generation is also the last of what one could really call a "rock and roll generation" - that somehow felt that there is more than just the music involved - rock and roll is a kind of medium of cultural change and attitude or to express implicit of feelings of genaration or whatever. Some kind of "authenticity" (how funny and corny now it sounds - but it felt real once upon time) I rate the punk phenomenon being the last big rock culture phenomenon. During the 80's rock culture transformed itself into something else.

The punk movement was from the beginning to the end a commercial phenomenon, just like the hippie movement. The "kids" are of course unaware of this, they think it's real because their search for identity is real. Showbiz and capitalism enables different subultures to express themselves in music, fashion etc. against other subcultures. As long as people fell the need to emphasize their unicity or individuality against others, and we have free economy, these kinds of phenomena will crop up. Every counter culture is therefore a manifestation of the capitalistic system. Actually, counter culture IS capitalism at it's very best because it stimulates consumption better than anything else.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-22 12:10 by Bärs.

Absolutely, no doubt about it.

But I don't think he kept the Stones like security belt, I mean not only for that. Psychologically he just feels like part of it,Stones is his hole life and Mick is the one who never let's things slide through his hands. So he wanted his solo carer and Stones thing go simultaneously. And this was mistake

Wow, nearly hundred posts on that sloppy song Emotional Rescue..Where the boys go is hundred times better...

2 1 2 0

---



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-22 12:10 by Bärs.

Quote
Bärs

The punk movement was from the beginning to the end a commercial phenomenon, just like the hippie movement. The "kids" are of course unaware of this, they think it's real because their search for identity is real. Showbiz and capitalism enables different subultures to express themselves in music, fashion etc. against other subcultures. As long as people fell the need to emphasize their unicity or individuality against others, and we have free economy, these kinds of phenomena will crop up. Every counter culture is therefore a manifestation of the capitalistic system. Actually, counter culture IS capitalism at it's very best because it stimulates consumption better than anything else.

Interesting Marxist view, though not totally true. I agree that both the hippie and the punk movement can be seen as new markets, and record companies, clothing industry etc. also saw them like that and used them as new markets. I also agree that counter culture as such is a product of societal circumstances, and since we live in a capitalist society for a very long time one can say that counter culture is a product of capitalism. But it goes too far to say that counter culture IS capitalism. That's not true. It's not capitalism itself, it's a product of capitalism. So in all relativity counter culture has its own non capitalist merits.

I think you make some good points, Doxa. For me the most telling aspect of the 89 tour and beyond, was Jagger's need to try to recreate the sound of the original studio recordings, with regards to the arrangements etc. The Stones existing as a creative live entity, which they were in 81, when a degree of spontaneity was still the order of the day, by their return in 89, was very much gone. If the Stones were trading on nostalgia in 81, there was still a level of ingenuity to the way they performed on stage, by 89, it was over, and the dawn of a new era had very much started.

The problem with Jagger's solo career in the mid eighties, is there was something so very calculating about it. True, Jagger was pretty much there with regards to his presence at the recording sessions, and yet to a degree he's pandering rather too much with regards to him finding favour with a more contemporary audience. For me, his mid eighties output is incredibly unconvincing because somewhere along the line he lost touch with actually inhabiting the songs in a convincing way, and his increasingly more mannered vocals, and lack of sensitivity, lead me to believe his initial attempts to become popular as a separate entity to the Stones, is pretty much all relating to one massive ego trip. Yes, it was pretty much the thing to do with many veteran artists to try to incorporate modern technology, yet i think Jagger is one of the few who embraced it with the notion of it giving him a whole new career, a completely new start, so to speak. I think by the mid eighties Dylan was feeling pretty lost, and his confidence had hit an all time low. My view is his involvement in the Travelling Wilbury's gave him a new lease of life, and changed his perspective a little to making music in concentating on it being an enjoyable experience. I always get the feeling his much later albums 'Love And Theft', 'Modern Times' etc. share to a degree that happy go lucky rock 'n' roll/rockabilly feel, which was such a major part of the Wilbury's sound. Although Dylan's mid - late eighties trilogy of albums 'Empire Burlesque', 'Knocked Out Loaded', and 'Down In The Groove' found him at an all time low point, both of his albums either side, 'Infidels' and 'Oh Mercy' still contain songs of a calibre to stand alongside his classics without a great fear of intimidation. 'Jokerman', 'Ring Them Bells' etc. may not be earth shattering like much of his sixties output, yet they do display a quality, which the Stones, either as a group, or in terms of solo projects, have failed to come close to since 1981. Dylan, who although perhaps at times his individual albums showed little promise of a revival of his muse, in terms of timelime he really didn't go an inordinate length of time between (relative) peaks. There was only six years between 'Infidels' and 'Oh Mercy', not forgetting his Wilbury material, although admittedly during the time he was in his deepest rut, it seemed like an eternity. It has never been a 30 year stretch, like the Stones.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-22 20:07 by Edward Twining.

not sure to what extent the wilbury experience rejuventated bob, but he definitely cites his involvement with the dead in '87 having had a major impact on his perspective and vitality as a live performer.

dylan's muse has been sporadic for the past 30 years; the stones' has been all but non-existent. really shocking considering how alive and well it was the prior 20 years....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-22 20:08 by StonesTod.

Quote
Edward Twining
I think you make some good points, Doxa. For me the most telling aspect of the 89 tour and beyond, was Jagger's need to try to recreate the sound of the original studio recordings, with regards to the arrangements etc. The Stones existing as a creative live entity, which they were in 81, when a degree of spontaneity was still the order of the day, by their return in 89, was very much gone. If the Stones were trading on nostalgia in 81, there was still a level of ingenuity to the way they performed on stage, by 89, it was over, and the dawn of a new era had very much started.

The problem with Jagger's solo career in the mid eighties, is there was something so very calculating about it. True, Jagger was pretty much there with regards to his presence at the recording sessions, and yet to a degree he's pandering rather too much with regards to him finding favour with a more contemporary audience. For me, his mid eighties output is incredibly unconvincing because somewhere along the line he lost touch with actually inhabiting the songs in a convincing way, and his increasingly more mannered vocals, and lack of sensitivity, lead me to believe his initial attempts to become popular as a separate entity to the Stones, is pretty much all relating to one massive ego trip. Yes, it was pretty much the thing to do with many veteran artists to try to incorporate modern technology, yet i think Jagger is one of the few who embraced it with the notion of it giving him a whole new career, a completely new start, so to speak. I think by the mid eighties Dylan was feeling pretty lost, and his confidence had hit an all time low. My view is his involvement in the Travelling Wilbury's gave him a new lease of life, and changed his perspective a little to making music in concentating on it being an enjoyable experience. I always get the feeling his much later albums 'Love And Theft', 'Modern Times' etc. share to a degree that happy go lucky rock 'n' roll/rockabilly feel, which was such a major part of the Wilbury's sound. Although Dylan's mid - late eighties trilogy of albums 'Empire Burlesque', 'Knocked Out Loaded', and 'Down In The Groove' found him at an all time low point, both of his albums either side, 'Infidels' and 'Oh Mercy' still contain songs of a calibre to stand alongside his classics without a great fear of intimidation. 'Jokerman', 'Ring Them Bells' etc. may not be earth shattering like much of his sixties output, yet they do display a quality, which the Stones, either as a group, or in terms of solo projects, have failed to come close to since 1981. Dylan, who although perhaps at times his individual albums showed little promise of a revival of his muse, in terms of timelime he really didn't go an inordinate length of time between (relative) peaks. There was only six years between 'Infidels' and 'Oh Mercy', not forgetting his Wilbury material, although admittedly during the time he was in his deepest rut, it seemed like an eternity. It has never been a 30 year stretch, like the Stones.

I agree with all you say, just comment on two things.

The way you describe the past-89 arrangement ideas - to recreate the original versions - is to me one of the most unpleasing features of Vegas yaers. I guess it could be somehow reasonable to explain that "well, what about listen the original versions carefully again and see how they really went, and let us practice them well again" than just to go on by heart and by intuition how they had done more or less from 1969 to 1982. But very much the excitement in Stones live incarnations from 1969 to 1982 was the naturally evolving nature of their sound and arrangements; it just sounding like shaping itself as the years go by and the guys changed. Even when they decided to play an oddity from the past. I think the way did "Under My Thumb", "Let's Spend The Nigh Together" and "Time Is ON my Side" in STILL LIFE is absolutely majestic - you can hear the Stones 1982 Anno Domini doing a piece from their far past, and it sounding authentic - adding something crucial and different to the originals. That kind of vitality, roughness and wilderness - and guitar-driveness - was mostly gone by 1989, and has not really reappeared again (only in that sense that certain players are not any longer playing like they once did their parts). Call me nostalgic but that was quite a lot of the charm The Rolling Stones had for me. I think the precise, original arrangements sounded actually refreshing in 1989 but I think as the years and tours went by, it started to sound very stabile. The band couldn't start to evolve its sound from tour to tour as they did from 1969 on until 1981. That is the base of my old jargon that "the same old song, the same old gig again and again" in my criticism concerning the last two decades.

Then, something of Dylan - as you said, but I think after the great OH MERCY it would take another eight years in finding the real muse again. To an extent those years between it and TIME OUT OF MIND are interesting - going back to acoustic folk again, etc. - but I think the guy was really doing heavy introspect with not much worthwhile or memorable (by Dylanist criteria) results. Now it sounds like it all made sense, it was the needed period to "reflect" and "go back to roots", but honestly, hard times for a Dylan fan...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-22 20:55 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
I agree with all you say, just comment on two things.

The way you describe the past-89 arrangement ideas - to recreate the original versions - is to me one of the most unpleasing features of Vegas yaers. I guess it could be somehow reasonable to explain that "well, what about listen the original versions carefully again and see how they really went, and let us practice them well again" than just to go on by heart and by intuition how they had done more or less from 1969 to 1982. But very much the excitement in Stones live incarnations from 1969 to 1982 was the naturally evolving nature of their sound and arrangements; it just sounding like shaping itself as the years go by and the guys changed. Even when they decided to play an oddity from the past. I think the way did "Under My Thumb", "Let's Spend The Nigh Together" and "Time Is ON my Side" in STILL LIFE is absolutely majestic - you can hear the Stones 1982 Anno Domini doing a piece from their far past, and it sounding authentic - adding something crucial and different to the originals. That kind of vitality, roughness and wilderness - and guitar-driveness - was mostly gone by 1989, and has not really reappeared again (only in that sense that certain players are not any longer playing like they once did their parts). Call me nostalgic but that was quite a lot of the charm The Rolling Stones had for me. I think the precise, original arrangements sounded actually refreshing in 1989 but I think as the years and tours went by, it started to sound very stabile. The band couldn't start to evolve its sound from tour to tour as they did from 1969 on until 1981. That is the base of my old jargon that "the same old song, the same old gig again and again" in my criticism concerning the last two decades.

- Doxa

Doxa, I think we agree for a great deal, 'only' the 1975-81/82 period will always be a matter of disagreement between us. So let's say I'm standing on the utter left, then at my right side we see Edward and then we see you at Edward's right side, if you know what I mean. But well, the agreement on the main issue is prevalent imo.

I wish Mick would've gotten together with Prince in the 80s...Mick would've sounded good with the Minneapolis sound backing him up. That was a missed opportunity, IMO.

***********************************************************
"What I'm doing is a sexual thing. I dance and all dancing is a replacement for sex". - Mick Jagger

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Bärs

The punk movement was from the beginning to the end a commercial phenomenon, just like the hippie movement. The "kids" are of course unaware of this, they think it's real because their search for identity is real. Showbiz and capitalism enables different subultures to express themselves in music, fashion etc. against other subcultures. As long as people fell the need to emphasize their unicity or individuality against others, and we have free economy, these kinds of phenomena will crop up. Every counter culture is therefore a manifestation of the capitalistic system. Actually, counter culture IS capitalism at it's very best because it stimulates consumption better than anything else.

Interesting Marxist view, though not totally true. I agree that both the hippie and the punk movement can be seen as new markets, and record companies, clothing industry etc. also saw them like that and used them as new markets. I also agree that counter culture as such is a product of societal circumstances, and since we live in a capitalist society for a very long time one can say that counter culture is a product of capitalism. But it goes too far to say that counter culture IS capitalism. That's not true. It's not capitalism itself, it's a product of capitalism. So in all relativity counter culture has its own non capitalist merits.

I'm not sure that I wrote that counter culture is the same as capitalism - that would be a strange statement. I meant that counter culture perhaps the most striking manifestation of capitalism, which is quite amusing since counter culture usually understands itself as some sort of protest against capitalism. I don't think this anything marxist thinking either. I mean, just look how much exploitation the hippie myth can take - decade after decade. It's really a great "product".

Quote
Doxa
after the great OH MERCY it would take another eight years in finding the real muse again. To an extent those years between it and TIME OUT OF MIND are interesting - going back to acoustic folk again, etc. - but I think the guy was really doing heavy introspect with not much worthwhile or memorable (by Dylanist criteria) results. Now it sounds like it all made sense, it was the needed period to "reflect" and "go back to roots", but honestly, hard times for a Dylan fan...

- Doxa

Yes, i agree with you. It is amazing though with all Dylan's technical shortcomings vocally, he's still really able to connect emotionally to the songs he records, in a way Jagger hasn't managed for decades. Bob has been pretty inconsistent, for sure. Especially after recording a fine album like 'Oh Mercy', then completely losing it with 'Under The Red Sky', and then suffering from writer's block with his couple of covers albums. It almost seemed like he was having to re-discover his muse, before becoming more inspired again with 'Time Out Of Mind'. Keith's first solo effort 'Talk Is Cheap' was a good effort, and was much closer to my personal taste, than Jagger's more contemporary efforts - it somehow sounds a great deal more sincere. However, there is a sense that Keith's uptempo riffs seem rather cliched, and some of the songs lack a little of the depth when compared with the Stones better work. However a song like 'Make No Mistake' works very well.

I think the 89 tour was all rather clinical sounding, when compared with the Stones earlier tours. There was certainly a certain novelty value in hearing those songs being performed in their original arrangements, and also the Stones occasional delivery of rarities like '2000 Light Years From Home'. However, i think after the novelty of hearing many of those songs for the first time, those versions wear very thin, pretty quickly. Jagger's voice is also less gruff at this point, but he is also perhaps becoming a little too clean, and professional in his vocal projection. He sometimes lacks a little in raw energy, and his voice begins to deepen a little too much to perform effectively some of those earlier Stones songs.

I think you are probably right in your observations, kleermaker.

Quote
Bärs

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Bärs

The punk movement was from the beginning to the end a commercial phenomenon, just like the hippie movement. The "kids" are of course unaware of this, they think it's real because their search for identity is real. Showbiz and capitalism enables different subultures to express themselves in music, fashion etc. against other subcultures. As long as people fell the need to emphasize their unicity or individuality against others, and we have free economy, these kinds of phenomena will crop up. Every counter culture is therefore a manifestation of the capitalistic system. Actually, counter culture IS capitalism at it's very best because it stimulates consumption better than anything else.

Interesting Marxist view, though not totally true. I agree that both the hippie and the punk movement can be seen as new markets, and record companies, clothing industry etc. also saw them like that and used them as new markets. I also agree that counter culture as such is a product of societal circumstances, and since we live in a capitalist society for a very long time one can say that counter culture is a product of capitalism. But it goes too far to say that counter culture IS capitalism. That's not true. It's not capitalism itself, it's a product of capitalism. So in all relativity counter culture has its own non capitalist merits.

I'm not sure that I wrote that counter culture is the same as capitalism - that would be a strange statement. I meant that counter culture perhaps the most striking manifestation of capitalism, which is quite amusing since counter culture usually understands itself as some sort of protest against capitalism. I don't think this anything marxist thinking either. I mean, just look how much exploitation the hippie myth can take - decade after decade. It's really a great "product".

You said literally (read it up here to check it): "Actually, counter culture IS capitalism at it's very best because it stimulates consumption better than anything else." But okay ...

Quote
Doxa

Quote
24FPS
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.

My perception is that I belong to the last big Stones generation - the one that, roughly came along in SOME GIRLS to UNDERCOVER period. Most of us are now fortysomethings. This is not to say that thee Stones haven't excited younger people from then on - of course they have - but in terms of large quantity teh haven't had such an impact to bigger younger masses. This can be very well reflected in their audience today in their traditional markets in US and Europe(some Argentina might be totally different case.) I think this is also the last time the Stones somehow were able to charm new big audiences with their new, current music.

But to an extent I think the early 80's fan base - including me - was already a bit retro-oriented. I think the generation is also the last of what one could really call a "rock and roll generation" - that somehow felt that there is more than just the music involved - rock and roll is a kind of medium of cultural change and attitude or to express implicit of feelings of genaration or whatever. Some kind of "authenticity" (how funny and corny now it sounds - but it felt real once upon time) I rate the punk phenomenon being the last big rock culture phenomenon. During the 80's rock culture transformed itself into something else. I don't know exactly what; pure show business, cliches and technicability (heavy rock) or kind of elistist genre-orientation ("indie music")? Remember the 80's term AOR (adult-oriented rock)? Now most of rock music is sort of AOR so the term has lost its meaning.

What I try to say that The Stones actually is an oldies act. For many reasons. And there is nothing wrong with that! It is funny to follow how the world changes around you!

- Doxa

Excellent, both Doxa and Edward!
You've summed the 80s music climate and culture perfectly. I think the 80s, for many of the Some Girls-era converts, that was the time we came of age. I can only speak for myself, but even I, as a kid in high school and beyond, felt disconnected from the 80s....I had been so entrenched in the Stones history and in the musicians of the 50s, 60s and 70s, that the 80s were a major dissapointment. I loved the Clash, early U2, Prince - there were things I loved, but still, there was something so lacking in that period. ANd the Stones just didn't fit. THey were no different from their peers, Dylan, Young etc....but the Stones had always been able to be part of the cultural zietgist and for the first time, starting with Tattoo, they were out of time. It was a very dissolusioning time for alot of people.

Quote
kleermaker

Doxa, I think we agree for a great deal, 'only' the 1975-81/82 period will always be a matter of disagreement between us. So let's say I'm standing on the utter left, then at my right side we see Edward and then we see you at Edward's right side, if you know what I mean. But well, the agreement on the main issue is prevalent imo.

kleermaker, in a sense though, the period from 'Beggars Banquet' to 'Exile On Main Street' was pretty much the exception, and not the rule, where clearly defined and consistent albums are concerned. It would be interesting to read your views on the pre 68 album output, and how it compares with what the Stones released between 75 and 81. In a sense the Stones pretty much went back to the slightly inconsistent and uneven standard to be found on albums like 'Out Of Our Heads' and 'Between The Buttons', although it is perhaps true that the singles were very much the vital element to the Stones in the sixties, and albums, and even those as great as 'Aftermath', still appear a little as an afterthought, besides some truly great tracks. Of course, also the sixties was pretty much the Stones time, in terms of their relevance to youth culture/counterculture, so to speak, and certainly by the turn of the seventies, their importance in reflecting the ideals of the young, was fastly fading. There is also the issue that musically the Stones were no longer leading the way in the latter part of the seventies (i actually really missed the Stones sixties youthful naivety), and their ways of handling that was by being influenced by the sounds that had grown up around them from a younger generation. However, even in the sixties the Stones were not being exclusively influenced by the blues and rock 'n' roll, and psychedelia, although they perservered with it for a while, it was never genuinely their thing. However, much of what they delivered in the sixties was genuinely interesting. I think that is true to a point in the mid seventies - early eighties also, although perhaps less so. The Stones were very much standing on the outside, and not the inside, in terms of their importance and musical status. However, there may be a level of inconsistencies to be found in that 75-81 period within their output, and at times it doesn't especially wash with me particuarly well, but there were also still a few diamonds to be found, unlike pretty much all of the Stones post 'Tattoo You' output.

kleermaker, my view is the period you haven't mentioned - 1974 - and 'It's Only Rock 'N' Roll' (single and album) was the moment that the Stones sounded at their most unconvincing, at least until the eighties.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-23 09:27 by Edward Twining.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Bärs

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Bärs

The punk movement was from the beginning to the end a commercial phenomenon, just like the hippie movement. The "kids" are of course unaware of this, they think it's real because their search for identity is real. Showbiz and capitalism enables different subultures to express themselves in music, fashion etc. against other subcultures. As long as people fell the need to emphasize their unicity or individuality against others, and we have free economy, these kinds of phenomena will crop up. Every counter culture is therefore a manifestation of the capitalistic system. Actually, counter culture IS capitalism at it's very best because it stimulates consumption better than anything else.

Interesting Marxist view, though not totally true. I agree that both the hippie and the punk movement can be seen as new markets, and record companies, clothing industry etc. also saw them like that and used them as new markets. I also agree that counter culture as such is a product of societal circumstances, and since we live in a capitalist society for a very long time one can say that counter culture is a product of capitalism. But it goes too far to say that counter culture IS capitalism. That's not true. It's not capitalism itself, it's a product of capitalism. So in all relativity counter culture has its own non capitalist merits.

I'm not sure that I wrote that counter culture is the same as capitalism - that would be a strange statement. I meant that counter culture perhaps the most striking manifestation of capitalism, which is quite amusing since counter culture usually understands itself as some sort of protest against capitalism. I don't think this anything marxist thinking either. I mean, just look how much exploitation the hippie myth can take - decade after decade. It's really a great "product".

You said literally (read it up here to check it): "Actually, counter culture IS capitalism at it's very best because it stimulates consumption better than anything else." But okay ...

I think that the part "at it's very best" is crucial for the intended meaning.

But the greatest strength of the Stones has been to bounce back. 1968. 1981. 1989. 1999. 2005. Sure, they have a boatload of hits they have to weave into their show, but depth is there. Dylan doesn't carry the burden of being a Top 40 pop band with incredibly popular songs that millions of people want to hear. They are not an oldies band. They do not go through the motions. They are not caricatures of some past incarnation. They are wringing the last there is to get out of a feeling that goes back to the Ealing Club. I'll bet they're itching to prove every body wrong all over again. Pull out the wheel chair jokes. "Only cockroaches and Keith Richards will be left after a nuclear war." Hilarious, mate. Yes, the fans in Buenos Aires are different; they simply love the group for what they are.

Quote
Bärs

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Bärs

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Bärs

The punk movement was from the beginning to the end a commercial phenomenon, just like the hippie movement. The "kids" are of course unaware of this, they think it's real because their search for identity is real. Showbiz and capitalism enables different subultures to express themselves in music, fashion etc. against other subcultures. As long as people fell the need to emphasize their unicity or individuality against others, and we have free economy, these kinds of phenomena will crop up. Every counter culture is therefore a manifestation of the capitalistic system. Actually, counter culture IS capitalism at it's very best because it stimulates consumption better than anything else.

Interesting Marxist view, though not totally true. I agree that both the hippie and the punk movement can be seen as new markets, and record companies, clothing industry etc. also saw them like that and used them as new markets. I also agree that counter culture as such is a product of societal circumstances, and since we live in a capitalist society for a very long time one can say that counter culture is a product of capitalism. But it goes too far to say that counter culture IS capitalism. That's not true. It's not capitalism itself, it's a product of capitalism. So in all relativity counter culture has its own non capitalist merits.

I'm not sure that I wrote that counter culture is the same as capitalism - that would be a strange statement. I meant that counter culture perhaps the most striking manifestation of capitalism, which is quite amusing since counter culture usually understands itself as some sort of protest against capitalism. I don't think this anything marxist thinking either. I mean, just look how much exploitation the hippie myth can take - decade after decade. It's really a great "product".

You said literally (read it up here to check it): "Actually, counter culture IS capitalism at it's very best because it stimulates consumption better than anything else." But okay ...

I think that the part "at it's very best" is crucial for the intended meaning.

Ach so ....

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Edward Twining
I think you make some good points, Doxa. For me the most telling aspect of the 89 tour and beyond, was Jagger's need to try to recreate the sound of the original studio recordings, with regards to the arrangements etc. The Stones existing as a creative live entity, which they were in 81, when a degree of spontaneity was still the order of the day, by their return in 89, was very much gone. If the Stones were trading on nostalgia in 81, there was still a level of ingenuity to the way they performed on stage, by 89, it was over, and the dawn of a new era had very much started.

The problem with Jagger's solo career in the mid eighties, is there was something so very calculating about it. True, Jagger was pretty much there with regards to his presence at the recording sessions, and yet to a degree he's pandering rather too much with regards to him finding favour with a more contemporary audience. For me, his mid eighties output is incredibly unconvincing because somewhere along the line he lost touch with actually inhabiting the songs in a convincing way, and his increasingly more mannered vocals, and lack of sensitivity, lead me to believe his initial attempts to become popular as a separate entity to the Stones, is pretty much all relating to one massive ego trip. Yes, it was pretty much the thing to do with many veteran artists to try to incorporate modern technology, yet i think Jagger is one of the few who embraced it with the notion of it giving him a whole new career, a completely new start, so to speak. I think by the mid eighties Dylan was feeling pretty lost, and his confidence had hit an all time low. My view is his involvement in the Travelling Wilbury's gave him a new lease of life, and changed his perspective a little to making music in concentating on it being an enjoyable experience. I always get the feeling his much later albums 'Love And Theft', 'Modern Times' etc. share to a degree that happy go lucky rock 'n' roll/rockabilly feel, which was such a major part of the Wilbury's sound. Although Dylan's mid - late eighties trilogy of albums 'Empire Burlesque', 'Knocked Out Loaded', and 'Down In The Groove' found him at an all time low point, both of his albums either side, 'Infidels' and 'Oh Mercy' still contain songs of a calibre to stand alongside his classics without a great fear of intimidation. 'Jokerman', 'Ring Them Bells' etc. may not be earth shattering like much of his sixties output, yet they do display a quality, which the Stones, either as a group, or in terms of solo projects, have failed to come close to since 1981. Dylan, who although perhaps at times his individual albums showed little promise of a revival of his muse, in terms of timelime he really didn't go an inordinate length of time between (relative) peaks. There was only six years between 'Infidels' and 'Oh Mercy', not forgetting his Wilbury material, although admittedly during the time he was in his deepest rut, it seemed like an eternity. It has never been a 30 year stretch, like the Stones.

I agree with all you say, just comment on two things.

The way you describe the past-89 arrangement ideas - to recreate the original versions - is to me one of the most unpleasing features of Vegas yaers. I guess it could be somehow reasonable to explain that "well, what about listen the original versions carefully again and see how they really went, and let us practice them well again" than just to go on by heart and by intuition how they had done more or less from 1969 to 1982. But very much the excitement in Stones live incarnations from 1969 to 1982 was the naturally evolving nature of their sound and arrangements; it just sounding like shaping itself as the years go by and the guys changed. Even when they decided to play an oddity from the past. I think the way did "Under My Thumb", "Let's Spend The Nigh Together" and "Time Is ON my Side" in STILL LIFE is absolutely majestic - you can hear the Stones 1982 Anno Domini doing a piece from their far past, and it sounding authentic - adding something crucial and different to the originals. That kind of vitality, roughness and wilderness - and guitar-driveness - was mostly gone by 1989, and has not really reappeared again (only in that sense that certain players are not any longer playing like they once did their parts). Call me nostalgic but that was quite a lot of the charm The Rolling Stones had for me. I think the precise, original arrangements sounded actually refreshing in 1989 but I think as the years and tours went by, it started to sound very stabile. The band couldn't start to evolve its sound from tour to tour as they did from 1969 on until 1981. That is the base of my old jargon that "the same old song, the same old gig again and again" in my criticism concerning the last two decades.

Then, something of Dylan - as you said, but I think after the great OH MERCY it would take another eight years in finding the real muse again. To an extent those years between it and TIME OUT OF MIND are interesting - going back to acoustic folk again, etc. - but I think the guy was really doing heavy introspect with not much worthwhile or memorable (by Dylanist criteria) results. Now it sounds like it all made sense, it was the needed period to "reflect" and "go back to roots", but honestly, hard times for a Dylan fan...

- Doxa

Even though I wasn't paying much attention during the years you speak of I seemed to remember some discussions amongst some friends of mine that were avid Stones fans that centered around how good bands like the Grateful Dead (and I think Pink Floyd) were at recreating the sound they had achieved in the studio on stage during their live performances and how the Stones live versions of their studio recordings never quite sounded exactly like what was on the recorded versions. I distinctly remember this being viewed as a negative at the time, in fact, to this day, they still grumble that the songs never sound quite enough like the studio versions they fell in love with. (Personally, I like the raw live versions much better than the original recorded versions). I guess what I am driving at here is do you think that within the context of what was going on back then with other bands that Mick may have felt pressured to try and clean up some of the rawness that made the Stones so unique?

Quote
Come On
Wow, nearly hundred posts on that sloppy song Emotional Rescue..Where the boys go is hundred times better...

Yes, Where The Boys Go charted really high dinnit.

Quote
stonescrow
Even though I wasn't paying much attention during the years you speak of I seemed to remember some discussions amongst some friends of mine that were avid Stones fans that centered around how good bands like the Grateful Dead (and I think Pink Floyd) were at recreating the sound they had achieved in the studio on stage during their live performances and how the Stones live versions of their studio recordings never quite sounded exactly like what was on the recorded versions. I distinctly remember this being viewed as a negative at the time, in fact, to this day, they still grumble that the songs never sound quite enough like the studio versions they fell in love with. (Personally, I like the raw live versions much better than the original recorded versions). I guess what I am driving at here is do you think that within the context of what was going on back then with other bands that Mick may have felt pressured to try and clean up some of the rawness that made the Stones so unique?

Indeed. That might be very well the reason why Jagger wanted to re-create the original versions as perfectly as possible. And that perfecly co-incided with controlling the sound of the band as much as possible, which is to say, (a) much of the command of the music was put to the shoulders of their back up musicians, and (b) the band was not any longer led by the always unreliable guitarist duo, and their current condition. Keih got his "second frontman" status by this, and he had a role enough to shine (as he did especially in 1989/90) but I think Ronnie Wood has been the real "victim" of this new rearrangement. As far as I see, it doesn't suit at all to his free-feeling, instinctive rock and roll guitar philosophy and I think probably for this reason, he almost died artistically as a contributive Rolling Stone member. Funny though, he got a official memebership around the time when he didn't have any longer true contribution to the sound of the band.

Of course, one can always find some great moments of the "ancient art of weaving" policy and the whole band lead by that idea since 1989, but those are like that: nice rare passing moments. But that was not an expection to a rule but a rule itself according to which the Stones altogether sounded in "true Ronnie era", that is from 1978 to 1982.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-24 17:46 by Doxa.

Are you guys writing a book?

Quote
skipstone
Are you guys writing a book?

Well, it makes a pleasant change from the let's-all-hate-each-other in some of the other threads at the moment. People actually discussing Stones music intelligently and with passion, without anybody showing anybody else the blade - whatever next? Can this really be IORR in 2010?

By the way, I added this thread to the Tracking Cookie index some time ago....

Quote
skipstone
Are you guys writing a book?

Just applying the principles of the ancient art of weaving to sew up some truth!

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
skipstone
Are you guys writing a book?

Just applying the principles of the ancient art of weaving to sew up some truth!

Brilliant! The IORRian application of the "ancient art of weaving" - yeah, that's what we do!

- Doxa