For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
winter
Seems like he is using the word 'contribution' to mean "moving the music forward" sonically, stylistically, technology-wise. Beggar's, though brilliant, might be seen by him as retro (mostly trad style, acoustic, not cutting edge), the same way some might feel about Let It Be after all the cutting edge Beatles records? I can't think what else he might be trying to say there with that word. Remember that at the time, the posibilities of the recording studio were exploding and Stones' songs like MLH, LSTNT, HYSYMBSITS, 2000LYFH, PIB, WLY, SARainbow, 19th NB were all 'weird' and 'new' types of songs/sounds for the time, and that's what a producer like him might have been looking at.
Quote
Turd On The Run
For Spector to have claimed in 1969 that Beggar's Banquet is no longer a contribution is, in my opinion, willful amentia...BB had sonic qualities that were revolutionary (Street Fighting Man's incredible acoustic/electric dissonance), lyrical touches that were stunningly avant-garde in one song (Sympathy) and then suddenly switched to the blackest and most traditionally spiritual Blues (Prodigal Son), and a musical cohesion that set it apart from most of what was going down at that period (and certainly far more cogent as an album than anything they had ever released to that point)...this was a new way for the Stones to express themselves...it was an album, in every sense of the word...not a collection of songs with the hopes of a few becoming 'hits'...it worked as a whole and introduced their peak era of greatness...it was a truly giant step forward for the Stones artistically, and one of their greatest contributions ever to their musical genre.
I couldn't disagree more with Spector...oh, and Beggars Banquet was also a big commercial success...Top 3 in every Western country...
In answer to the question in the title of the thread: the Stones never sucked...though their greatness has seen lots of ebb and flow.
Quote
Doxa
I think the golden period was actually the 70's.
Quote
CousinC
But Satanic Majesties wasn't a big hit at all!
BB may not have been No. 1 everywhere or selling millions. But it was a very well accepted album - both by critics and young audience.
Together with the big pre-hitsingle JJFlash and outstanding album numbers like Sympathy for the devil it was a great step forward for the Stones.
All the cool people really liked it! Don't care about the rest . .lol
Quote
lsbzQuote
Doxa
I think the golden period was actually the 70's.
I don't think so; mid seventies was already over the top. The peak was around 1967.
Quote
Doxa
The another one is, of course, THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES...
Quote
lsbzQuote
Doxa
The another one is, of course, THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES...
I never bought Beggar's Banquet, but I have three copies of Their Satanic Majesties. The album, the original CD and the SACD (which sounds great). In my opinion it is better than Sgt. Pepper, although I'm not a Beatles fan and don't like Sgt. Pepper much, so that does not say much.
Quote
Doxa
I am always fascinated to I hear different, and someties even radically different - like yours! - perspectives into the Stones' output. There is so many ways to dig this band!
Quote
Title5Take1
I think BEGGAR'S BANQUET is a great album. I posted Spector's comments to show that if an artist has done more than one album/book/movie, someone is going to think the new stuff sucks compared to the old stuff. I get sick of fans pining for Mick Taylor and knocking Woody, for instance. (The only reason I bought LOVE YOU LIVE is a fell in love with Ronnie's solo on YOU CAN'T ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT when I heard it on the radio. To some Stones fans it's practically sacrilegious to even tolerate Ronnie's playing, much less admire it.)
Quote
winter
Seems like he is using the word 'contribution' to mean "moving the music forward" sonically, stylistically, technology-wise. Beggar's, though brilliant, might be seen by him as retro (mostly trad style, acoustic, not cutting edge), the same way some might feel about Let It Be after all the cutting edge Beatles records? I can't think what else he might be trying to say there with that word. Remember that at the time, the posibilities of the recording studio were exploding and Stones' songs like MLH, LSTNT, HYSYMBSITS, 2000LYFH, PIB, WLY, SARainbow, 19th NB were all 'weird' and 'new' types of songs/sounds for the time, and that's what a producer like him might have been looking at.
Quote
DoxaQuote
lsbzQuote
Doxa
I think the golden period was actually the 70's.
I don't think so; mid seventies was already over the top. The peak was around 1967.
That is true. During the sixties Jagger really looked at what the critics have to say. There are two albums that got relaively bad - or even horrible - reviews, and after both of them, the Stones changed dramatically their style. Cause and effect?
The first was OUT OF OUR HEADS that according to some major criticism was "repitive" and "non-authentic" or "non-original"", like The Stones losing their touch to the hectic times. That surely had an impact to the fact that AFTERMATH turned out to be so different in almost any sense to OUT OF OUR HEADS. I can only guess what surprise the nature of the album was to many ears when it was released. The Stones have had never such a huge stylistic gap between two album as between OUT OF OUR HEADS - or DECEMBER'S CHILDREN in US - and AFTERMATH. Almost like totally a new band. I think there is something in AFTERMATH that almost underlines the fact that how "original" compositionwise, and different to their previous albums, they now are. They are challenged and they wanted to prove that their critics are wrong.
The another one is, of course, THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES...
- Doxa
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000Quote
DoxaQuote
lsbzQuote
Doxa
I think the golden period was actually the 70's.
I don't think so; mid seventies was already over the top. The peak was around 1967.
That is true. During the sixties Jagger really looked at what the critics have to say. There are two albums that got relaively bad - or even horrible - reviews, and after both of them, the Stones changed dramatically their style. Cause and effect?
The first was OUT OF OUR HEADS that according to some major criticism was "repitive" and "non-authentic" or "non-original"", like The Stones losing their touch to the hectic times. That surely had an impact to the fact that AFTERMATH turned out to be so different in almost any sense to OUT OF OUR HEADS. I can only guess what surprise the nature of the album was to many ears when it was released. The Stones have had never such a huge stylistic gap between two album as between OUT OF OUR HEADS - or DECEMBER'S CHILDREN in US - and AFTERMATH. Almost like totally a new band. I think there is something in AFTERMATH that almost underlines the fact that how "original" compositionwise, and different to their previous albums, they now are. They are challenged and they wanted to prove that their critics are wrong.
The another one is, of course, THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES...
- Doxa
I don't see the critics making as much an impact on the young Stones, as the fact that popmusic was radically changing. The albums that had just come out were "Highway 61" and "Rubber Soul". This was a massive change from the album as a potpourri of last 2 singles, soul covers, and bad original Bsides, and maybe a live cut. It was like the ante had been upped, and I think the Stones saw that if they wanted to contend they had to learn how to write an sequence a proper album.
I think it is obvious that with "Out of our Heads" a first chapter was closed.
Quote
Doxa
It is interesting to read some reviews of what we now call a "golden period". The band relies so much to their past songs (JJF, HTW, BEGGARS & BLEED material: 2-3 years old songs!), and doesn't play enough their new songs.
Quote
behroez
Some time ago i was reading a press coverage of the Stones US 69 tour from that period, and in it it was written (i'm serious) that occassionally there were rare moments that they were able to hit the raw energy of their previous years. It might be hard to believe now, but in the so called "golden years" the Stones were in fact considered allready old hat. It is funny how that perception has changed over the decennia.
Quote
Doxa
That is true. During the sixties Jagger really looked at what the critics have to say. There are two albums that got relaively bad - or even horrible - reviews, and after both of them, the Stones changed dramatically their style. Cause and effect?
- Doxa
Quote
Edward Twining
lsbz is right though, to a degree, the golden period for the Stones was the sixties.
Quote
lsbzQuote
Edward Twining
lsbz is right though, to a degree, the golden period for the Stones was the sixties.
I wrote that in my opinion the peak of rock music was around 1967, but I don't really like the concept of a golden period. I also wrote that I think that it is the song material that makes good and bad records. If you have good song material you can make good records in any time period, as I think Tattoo You shows.
Another thing is that while the Stones may have been influenced by the Beatles, the Beatles were probably more influenced by the Beach Boys. In my opinion Brian Wilson was way more musically innovative than the Beatles were.
Quote
Edward TwiningQuote
Doxa
That is true. During the sixties Jagger really looked at what the critics have to say. There are two albums that got relaively bad - or even horrible - reviews, and after both of them, the Stones changed dramatically their style. Cause and effect?
- Doxa
THE BEATLES.
Doxa, i think you are missing the obvious here. Because you don't especially like the Beatles, you are conveniently overlooking their importance, but it is undeniable. Same with Bob Dylan to a degree, but perhaps more so with the Beatles, with them also being a group, and coming from England, and being the Stones biggest rivals. The Beatles set the template pretty much for the other groups to follow. The Stones, and especially Andrew Loog Oldham, were clever in the fact that they knew to a degree that the Stones couldn't beat the Beatles at their own game, so they pretty much became the anti Beatles, in the eyes of the public, sort of the opposites to the Beatles in terms of their clean image. However, simmering beneath the surface was a lot of admiration for them, which may have actually cut both ways, from the Beatles perspective too. Would 'Their Satanic Majesties Request', have ever been recorded without the influence of the Beatles 'Sgt Pepper'. Aesthetically too, just look at the 'Satanic Majesties' album cover. What about the similar album titles 'Let It Be' and Let It Bleed' from the same period, not forgetting the plain white album covers for The Beatles (White Album) and the original 'Beggars Banquet' album from 68. Also, 'All You Need Is Love' and 'We Love You', 'Magical Mystery Tour' - 'Rock And Roll Circus', 'Apple Records' - 'Rolling Stones Records'. Are all these things merely co-incidence? The Beatles and The Stones rivalry was amongst the biggest within the history of popular music. Lennon is right to a degree, the Stones for a good period were playing catch up, although ultimately, the Stones were very unique in a purely musical and visual sense which actually was in a very different sphere to what the Beatles were embracing. lsbz is right though, to a degree, the golden period for the Stones was the sixties. Once the simmering rivalry between the Beatles ebbed away, the Stones did very much emerge as the perhaps arguably the greatest act once the Beatles were no more, yet after 'Exile On Main Street', they began to flounder somewhat. One can put that down to many things, but one aspect of their decline could be perhaps the Stones had lost their biggest rivals, and an excuse for really ensuring they continued firing on all cylinders, which they undoubtedly were at the turn of the seventies. That is, i admit, perhaps too broad a generalisation, but the climate did very much change at the turn of the seventies, and i do believe as the seventies progressed, perhaps the Stones lost a context in which to exist, a point of reference, so to speak, and a younger generation began growing up around them. Of course, moving away from England, and being spread all over the world didn't help matters.