Tell Me :
Talk
i do happen to think most of the songs are very subpar, as you prolly know from years of posting here. but that wasn't the point i was making here.
and, i don't generally use the word 'sucks' - and i think it sucks that so many people do.
yay. an instant exile, part deux.....
i know.
Rick Rubin is the only producer able to say: 'What is this shit?', as he did during the Wandering Sessions after listening to 'Charmed Life'. Don Was is the problem.
what are the different themes?
hard to argue with that...so i won't....
thanks--you've made me actually want to listen to the album again. (I've listened to She's the Boss more recently, I have to admit.)
Quite a fascinating perspective on A Biger Bang, Rocky. Diametrically opposed to my take - sort of defeats the purpose of paring it down to a tight, nasty little rock album like I did - but interesting nonetheless. Where I deconstructed it and edited it down to (IMO) the tough core, you decided to throw everything (but the kitchen sink) in...and came out with your version of A Bigger Bang as an Exile-like double album. Where I rejected the bloat in ABB you embraced it...and (also) came out the other end with a much more interesting album than the original.
You write:
"regarding thematic arrangement of the material, after the archetypal Stones opening number come all of the political songs (even if it is only a passing reference such as in "Look What the Cat Dragged In"winking smiley for Side One. Side Two is relegated for songs about aging that do not reflect the consequences of one's own indiscretions. Sides Three and Four (excluding the 1:30 hidden track, "Hurricane"winking smiley deal with the same theme - having an affair destroy your primary relationship and run the gamut of reactions from hurt to anger to acceptance to loneliness to regret. The album has a nearly unprecedented number of tracks on this theme. The only other time Jagger has dedicated so many songs on one theme was on SHE'S THE BOSS where the concept of a souring relationship coming to end and devoting one's energy to turning an extramarital affair into the new primary relationship only to find the same pitfalls (what Dashiell Hammett would have termed a Flitcraft) ran through the majority of the songs."
Though I'm not sure that you're not stretching the art of interpretation past the breaking point...this is an interesting take.
QUESTION: I wonder which one of our versions would have been more commercially successful? Which one would be more loved by the general public and the hard-core fans...!? Or are we both wrong and was the original release the best possible presentation for this material? Interesting discussion...
nonsense,the stones were rich by the mid-sixties.if they werent a working band what was the steel wheels tour,urban jungle,voodoo lounge,bridges to babylon etc? those were pretend live gigs with an imaginary audience?
truth is they've probably played more live dates since 1989 than they did before 1989 and they've done some damn good shows.i would bet most of the people on this board have only seen those "modern era" shows and they seem pretty happy.
as for the records-steel wheels,voodoo lounge,and bridges all sold multi-millions and like all stones records were unique from the ones that came before.
alot to be said for what the beatles did? what,getting your panties in a twist over an arguement and running home crying.for all their fighting at least mick and keith kept their band together.
Regarding the live dates comment:
I think they played their 2000th gig in 2007, and if I'm not mistaking Gazza, who runs a live date statistic on RocksOff, said that they reached their 1000th concert in the 60s. A Stones tour since 1989 consists of what? 120 concerts around the globe? Some a bit more and some a bit less. If the norm is about 120 concerts it'd only amount to around 600 concerts since 1989. That's not too shabby, but they did not play more concerts after 1989 than before 1989. It just seems that way. >
<
JumpingKentFlash
facts are facts (gazza can give you exact numbers) - but they were hardly rich in the sixties...why do you think they moved out of england? hello?
and as to dates played before 89 and since? ummm...pretty sure they played alot more shows before than after that particular year.
definitions of a working band are up for grabs...i would argue like many others here, that the stones stopped being a working band after the '81 tour. since then, they've become a corporation that unites for a common purpose every so often to refill the financial coffers. your definitions may vary, but they have clearly not executed along the same model they did during the sixties and seventies. it's not a complaint and my panties remain untwisted; it's just a reflection on reality.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-02 19:35 by StonesTod.
well-stated post and one i happen to agree with
i think i was one of those fans up until about bridges that listened with my heart rather than my ears....since then, i've given my ears the job....my ears tell me now what my heart was never willing to admit before....
haha. ok, well, if yer gonna knit-pick....
they didn't have the megabucks in '78 that they enjoy now. a matter of scale involved here.
you really think keith (for instance) "works" harder cos he's playing to 50,000 twice a week??? ummm....no, i would say playing for screaming girls nightly while traveling from one location to the next several times a week, all the while writing and recording new material is ALOT more work. THAT satisfies many of us as the definition of a "working band."
My dad feels like he's working harder than he ever has...he just accomplishes so much less.
yes. well, productivity and effort are two different things that are often confused for each other....
"they didnt have the megabucks in 78 they enjoy now"- now who's moving the goalposts?
and of course a modern era mega-tour is more work than one of the teeny-bopper era gigs.those shows were a joke.run onstage,play ten songs that nobody can hear and head out the back.so they travelled more back then,so what.my idea of a working band has to do with playing not driving around in a van.
how many gigs in 65 did it take to equal one night at wembley? which one brings more pressure to get it right,nail it in front of the world when you're not the hot new band but the guys everyone is waiting to fall on their faces so they can say"we told you so,they're washed up"
what band sounded better the"got live if you want it" stones or the voodoo lounge stones?
the mega-tours from 81-07 are the gold standard for big time rock and roll.thats no small accomplishment and not something you snap your fingers to make happen.
think of the beating keith took for his playing in 07,think that" working band" from 65 would've caught that kinda heat?no one would've even heard the bad notes.
we're really talking about two things here,the studio band and the live band.as for the studio stones-i concede the point,that ship has sailed.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: A Bigger Bang - What It Should Have Been
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: February 25, 2011 19:34
Quote
JumpingKentFlashQuote
StonesTod
i never actually said the material sucks - i was making an argument on the value-prop of a producer or technology.
But do you think the material sucks then?
i do happen to think most of the songs are very subpar, as you prolly know from years of posting here. but that wasn't the point i was making here.
and, i don't generally use the word 'sucks' - and i think it sucks that so many people do.
Re: A Bigger Bang - What It Should Have Been
Posted by:
Beauforde
()
Date: February 27, 2011 03:37
just burned turds ABB selection and listened to it. sounds great. fantastic job. totally different experience. material is not the best ever, but not sub-par either. the way the turd sequenced it it sounds whole, like a tight little rock album should. some great stuff on it imho. stones shoulda released this and it woulda been a very different story. sure that a lot of fans would hold this one in their hearts dear and near. thanks!
Re: A Bigger Bang - What It Should Have Been
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: February 27, 2011 06:01
After much consideration, I do have a suggestion for re-sequencing the album and making use of the three bonus tracks. The key was to sequence the album (ike Exile)in four 20 minute bursts of music. This allowed for thematic progression and better use of the recurring lyrical themes by treating each of the more sides as if they were conceptual albums. The Stones hardly lend themselves to suites, but this comes about as close as you can.
1. Oh No, Not You Again
2. Dangerous Beauty
3. Sweet Neo Con
4. Back of My Hand
5. Look What the Cat Dragged In
6. Under the Radar
7. Driving Too Fast
8. Don't Wanna Go Home
9. Infamy
10. Rain Fall Down
11. She Saw Me Coming
12. Let Me Down Slow
13. It Won't Take Long
14. Streets of Love
15. Biggest Mistake
16. This Place is Empty
17. Laugh I Nearly Died
18. Rough Justice
19. Hurricane
1. Oh No, Not You Again
2. Dangerous Beauty
3. Sweet Neo Con
4. Back of My Hand
5. Look What the Cat Dragged In
6. Under the Radar
7. Driving Too Fast
8. Don't Wanna Go Home
9. Infamy
10. Rain Fall Down
11. She Saw Me Coming
12. Let Me Down Slow
13. It Won't Take Long
14. Streets of Love
15. Biggest Mistake
16. This Place is Empty
17. Laugh I Nearly Died
18. Rough Justice
19. Hurricane
Re: A Bigger Bang - What It Should Have Been
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: February 27, 2011 15:18
Quote
Rocky Dijon
After much consideration, I do have a suggestion for re-sequencing the album and making use of the three bonus tracks. The key was to sequence the album (ike Exile)in four 20 minute bursts of music. This allowed for thematic progression and better use of the recurring lyrical themes by treating each of the more sides as if they were conceptual albums. The Stones hardly lend themselves to suites, but this comes about as close as you can.
1. Oh No, Not You Again
2. Dangerous Beauty
3. Sweet Neo Con
4. Back of My Hand
5. Look What the Cat Dragged In
6. Under the Radar
7. Driving Too Fast
8. Don't Wanna Go Home
9. Infamy
10. Rain Fall Down
11. She Saw Me Coming
12. Let Me Down Slow
13. It Won't Take Long
14. Streets of Love
15. Biggest Mistake
16. This Place is Empty
17. Laugh I Nearly Died
18. Rough Justice
19. Hurricane
yay. an instant exile, part deux.....
Re: A Bigger Bang - What It Should Have Been
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: February 27, 2011 17:00
Never compared the quality of the material, StonesTod. Just said I approached the sequencing using the same methodology. Like you, my relative disappointment with the album has been all over this board for the past 5 1/2 years.
Re: A Bigger Bang - What It Should Have Been
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: February 27, 2011 18:11
Quote
Rocky Dijon
Never compared the quality of the material, StonesTod. Just said I approached the sequencing using the same methodology. Like you, my relative disappointment with the album has been all over this board for the past 5 1/2 years.
i know.
Re: A Bigger Bang - What It Should Have Been
Posted by:
KRiffhard
()
Date: February 27, 2011 18:41
Quote
Turd On The Run
Doxa: there is no way to make even a decent album by Stones standards out of it.
StonesTod: you can blame producers or technology or whatever - it all boils down to subpar material, which no producer or technology is going to enhance.
Rocky Dijon: I really couldn't re-sequence the album and feel that it would somehow work better.
I respectfully disagree with these opinions. One must remember the context of the album's release. 2005. World tour coming. The Stones last release was eight (!) years prior, and that was the slick, multiple-personality-disorder product Bridges to Babylon - a chimerical creature that sounded like mashed-up bits of solo albums by Jagger and Richards and a few cuts done with the Stones as a unit, with different producers thrown into the mix. There were high points, and low points, but certainly no unifying principle or interconnected sound dynamic (like all their albums used to have). Since then there had been numerous victory lap tours, and a gratuitous greatest hits package with 4 meager new cuts that would rank at or near the bottom of any fan's ranking of Stones material. A serious re-energizing was necessary.
A Bigger Bang - as I present it in my reconstituted version - would have been the tough, pugnacious, jumpy release that would have worked as a late-career representation of the Stones as a tight, hard-boiled unit just smashing around the basement and producing something somewhat off-the-cuff, rough-edged and utterly lacking the calculated and conceptually overwrought dynamic of their previous recent work - and also avoiding the bloat that (in my opinion) also marred Voodoo Lounge. The rock and roll attitude is back. There is no attempt at a monster hit single, no epochal song that defines a generation - this ABB is just a tight 11 song collection of hard-bitten rockers that seem to fly off the speakers and have a freshness and immediacy that the Stones hadn't displayed in years. There are no GREAT cuts, to be sure (though in my estimation Dangerous Beauty and the set closer Laugh, I Nearly Died come close), but this ABB would have been the ultimate late-career feel album for the Stones...there was no knockout punch, but the effect of jagged rocker after jagged rocker would have been cumulative......that there is no 'greatest hit' is part of the charm...the feel of the album would have been slightly tossed-off and loud and FUN...the sound of a band rediscovering their sense of playfulness and not taking itself and its place in history so seriously. And what is wrong with that? A lot of the songs would lend themselves to being played live on stage and sprinkling 3 or 4 every night throughout their set would have added freshness and verve to the setlist. This is the Stones knocking out a fast one with a devil-may-care attitude and the wind at their back. This album would have felt just right (to me) at the time of its release.
The little Frankestein sounds great to me now. Best and most unifyied thing I've heard from them in a while. Much better than the flabby and bloated original release.
Lem Moltow (?) mentioned that the Stones need someone who is not a fanboy as producer. Bingo! They need someone who has the nuts to tell them where to cut the fat and where to add something more. Like Jimmy Miller used to. Where the hell is this next guy? If the Stones ever record again they will need him.
Rick Rubin is the only producer able to say: 'What is this shit?', as he did during the Wandering Sessions after listening to 'Charmed Life'. Don Was is the problem.
Re: A Bigger Bang - What It Should Have Been
Posted by:
cc
()
Date: February 27, 2011 19:17
Quote
Rocky Dijon
After much consideration, I do have a suggestion for re-sequencing the album and making use of the three bonus tracks. The key was to sequence the album (ike Exile)in four 20 minute bursts of music. This allowed for thematic progression and better use of the recurring lyrical themes by treating each of the more sides as if they were conceptual albums. The Stones hardly lend themselves to suites, but this comes about as close as you can.
1. Oh No, Not You Again
2. Dangerous Beauty
3. Sweet Neo Con
4. Back of My Hand
5. Look What the Cat Dragged In
6. Under the Radar
7. Driving Too Fast
8. Don't Wanna Go Home
9. Infamy
10. Rain Fall Down
11. She Saw Me Coming
12. Let Me Down Slow
13. It Won't Take Long
14. Streets of Love
15. Biggest Mistake
16. This Place is Empty
17. Laugh I Nearly Died
18. Rough Justice
19. Hurricane
what are the different themes?
Re: A Bigger Bang - What It Should Have Been
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: February 28, 2011 03:36
i can't stand these 4 tracks:
Dangerous Beauty, Rain Fall Down, Look What the Cat Dragged In, & Driving Too Fast (& mentioned far too many times my dislike for Streets of Love).
i am surprised how many think these are classic Stones tracks.
Also, is it just me or are songs like:
Under the Radar
Don't Wanna Go Home
Hurricane
rated much higher than they should be, simply because they weren't on the album? They are really just average Stones songs at best (except for Hurricane, which is simply horrible).
Dangerous Beauty, Rain Fall Down, Look What the Cat Dragged In, & Driving Too Fast (& mentioned far too many times my dislike for Streets of Love).
i am surprised how many think these are classic Stones tracks.
Also, is it just me or are songs like:
Under the Radar
Don't Wanna Go Home
Hurricane
rated much higher than they should be, simply because they weren't on the album? They are really just average Stones songs at best (except for Hurricane, which is simply horrible).
Re: A Bigger Bang - What It Should Have Been
Posted by:
bianca
()
Date: February 28, 2011 04:41
They stopped playing together as a band when they got rich. Bands gel when they play day in and day out. The Stones ceased being a working band in the mid to late 70s, and that is why there ain't any masterpices since then. Well polished efforts that almost sound like they sounded during the best years...yes. But nothing like before.
Alot to be said for what the Beatles did. As soon as they couldn't stand each other, they packed it in.
Alot to be said for what the Beatles did. As soon as they couldn't stand each other, they packed it in.
Re: A Bigger Bang - What It Should Have Been
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: February 28, 2011 05:47
As to the point about Rick Rubin, both he and Mick have said they clashed a great deal and eventually Mick won out. Mick does not want to be challenged. He has made it clear that he would never work with Rubin again. I agree WANDERING SPIRIT is an excellent album and credit Rubin for pushing Mick as far as he could, but it wasn't far enough for Rubin who believed Mick was still capable of reaching the heights he achieved in the late sixties and early seventies.
As for Mick, his ego makes it nearly impossible for someone to tell him to try harder and not be fired. I don't think it is wholly accurate to call Don Was a yes-man. He is certainly more diplomatic than Rick Rubin, but a yes-man would not have directed the band away from the more experimental African-influenced tracks like "Monsoon Ragoon" and "Middle of the Sea" and into what became VOODOO LOUNGE which is exactly what Mick complained that Don did.
At this stage in their career Don is much like the sidemen for tours. There is comfort with familiar faces and it makes it easier not to have to break someone in. I expect Don will produce whatever is left for The Rolling Stones to record.
To cc regarding thematic arrangement of the material, after the archetypal Stones opening number come all of the political songs (even if it is only a passing reference such as in "Look What the Cat Dragged In") for Side One. Side Two is relegated for songs about aging that do not reflect the consequences of one's own indiscretions. Sides Three and Four (excluding the 1:30 hidden track, "Hurricane") deal with the same theme - having an affair destroy your primary relationship and run the gamut of reactions from hurt to anger to acceptance to loneliness to regret. The album has a nearly unprecedented number of tracks on this theme. The only other time Jagger has dedicated so many songs on one theme was on SHE'S THE BOSS where the concept of a souring relationship coming to end and devoting one's energy to turning an extramarital affair into the new primary relationship only to find the same pitfalls (what Dashiell Hammett would have termed a Flitcraft) ran through the majority of the songs.
As for Mick, his ego makes it nearly impossible for someone to tell him to try harder and not be fired. I don't think it is wholly accurate to call Don Was a yes-man. He is certainly more diplomatic than Rick Rubin, but a yes-man would not have directed the band away from the more experimental African-influenced tracks like "Monsoon Ragoon" and "Middle of the Sea" and into what became VOODOO LOUNGE which is exactly what Mick complained that Don did.
At this stage in their career Don is much like the sidemen for tours. There is comfort with familiar faces and it makes it easier not to have to break someone in. I expect Don will produce whatever is left for The Rolling Stones to record.
To cc regarding thematic arrangement of the material, after the archetypal Stones opening number come all of the political songs (even if it is only a passing reference such as in "Look What the Cat Dragged In") for Side One. Side Two is relegated for songs about aging that do not reflect the consequences of one's own indiscretions. Sides Three and Four (excluding the 1:30 hidden track, "Hurricane") deal with the same theme - having an affair destroy your primary relationship and run the gamut of reactions from hurt to anger to acceptance to loneliness to regret. The album has a nearly unprecedented number of tracks on this theme. The only other time Jagger has dedicated so many songs on one theme was on SHE'S THE BOSS where the concept of a souring relationship coming to end and devoting one's energy to turning an extramarital affair into the new primary relationship only to find the same pitfalls (what Dashiell Hammett would have termed a Flitcraft) ran through the majority of the songs.
Re: A Bigger Bang - What It Should Have Been
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: February 28, 2011 22:28
JACK WHITE:
"i think that pro tools is highly inappropriate to record music...its too easy to correct mistakes.its too easy to fix things.we hear this sort of clean,plastic perfection thats been applied to all the tracks.thats not the kind of music we grew up loving and listening to and wanting to be a part of"
contrast this with an entire page of keith[you know,the raw ragged sound guy] talking about how smart he was to use this computer program.
it reminds me of going on wire image and seeing mr hardcore rocker with a big grin,arms around the boyband n'sync back in the 90's.the fact is people often assign qualities to the guy that just arent there.and please dont try to equate recording at home with a computer program with backing the mobile unit up to the door in the 70s-that just sad and reaching.
the fact is mick wanted to keep working,keith didn't.any producer worth a nickle would have known jagger was right and to keep pushing the band.laaazy...
"i think that pro tools is highly inappropriate to record music...its too easy to correct mistakes.its too easy to fix things.we hear this sort of clean,plastic perfection thats been applied to all the tracks.thats not the kind of music we grew up loving and listening to and wanting to be a part of"
contrast this with an entire page of keith[you know,the raw ragged sound guy] talking about how smart he was to use this computer program.
it reminds me of going on wire image and seeing mr hardcore rocker with a big grin,arms around the boyband n'sync back in the 90's.the fact is people often assign qualities to the guy that just arent there.and please dont try to equate recording at home with a computer program with backing the mobile unit up to the door in the 70s-that just sad and reaching.
the fact is mick wanted to keep working,keith didn't.any producer worth a nickle would have known jagger was right and to keep pushing the band.laaazy...
Re: A Bigger Bang - What It Should Have Been
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: February 28, 2011 22:43
Quote
bianca
They stopped playing together as a band when they got rich. Bands gel when they play day in and day out. The Stones ceased being a working band in the mid to late 70s, and that is why there ain't any masterpices since then. Well polished efforts that almost sound like they sounded during the best years...yes. But nothing like before.
Alot to be said for what the Beatles did. As soon as they couldn't stand each other, they packed it in.
hard to argue with that...so i won't....
Re: A Bigger Bang - What It Should Have Been
Posted by:
cc
()
Date: March 1, 2011 05:21
Quote
Rocky Dijon
To cc regarding thematic arrangement of the material, after the archetypal Stones opening number come all of the political songs (even if it is only a passing reference such as in "Look What the Cat Dragged In") for Side One. Side Two is relegated for songs about aging that do not reflect the consequences of one's own indiscretions. Sides Three and Four (excluding the 1:30 hidden track, "Hurricane") deal with the same theme - having an affair destroy your primary relationship and run the gamut of reactions from hurt to anger to acceptance to loneliness to regret. The album has a nearly unprecedented number of tracks on this theme. The only other time Jagger has dedicated so many songs on one theme was on SHE'S THE BOSS where the concept of a souring relationship coming to end and devoting one's energy to turning an extramarital affair into the new primary relationship only to find the same pitfalls (what Dashiell Hammett would have termed a Flitcraft) ran through the majority of the songs.
thanks--you've made me actually want to listen to the album again. (I've listened to She's the Boss more recently, I have to admit.)
Re: A Bigger Bang - What It Should Have Been
Posted by:
Turd On The Run
()
Date: March 2, 2011 18:41
Quote
Rocky Dijon
After much consideration, I do have a suggestion for re-sequencing the album and making use of the three bonus tracks. The key was to sequence the album (ike Exile)in four 20 minute bursts of music. This allowed for thematic progression and better use of the recurring lyrical themes by treating each of the more sides as if they were conceptual albums. The Stones hardly lend themselves to suites, but this comes about as close as you can.
1. Oh No, Not You Again
2. Dangerous Beauty
3. Sweet Neo Con
4. Back of My Hand
5. Look What the Cat Dragged In
6. Under the Radar
7. Driving Too Fast
8. Don't Wanna Go Home
9. Infamy
10. Rain Fall Down
11. She Saw Me Coming
12. Let Me Down Slow
13. It Won't Take Long
14. Streets of Love
15. Biggest Mistake
16. This Place is Empty
17. Laugh I Nearly Died
18. Rough Justice
19. Hurricane
Quite a fascinating perspective on A Biger Bang, Rocky. Diametrically opposed to my take - sort of defeats the purpose of paring it down to a tight, nasty little rock album like I did - but interesting nonetheless. Where I deconstructed it and edited it down to (IMO) the tough core, you decided to throw everything (but the kitchen sink) in...and came out with your version of A Bigger Bang as an Exile-like double album. Where I rejected the bloat in ABB you embraced it...and (also) came out the other end with a much more interesting album than the original.
You write:
"regarding thematic arrangement of the material, after the archetypal Stones opening number come all of the political songs (even if it is only a passing reference such as in "Look What the Cat Dragged In"winking smiley for Side One. Side Two is relegated for songs about aging that do not reflect the consequences of one's own indiscretions. Sides Three and Four (excluding the 1:30 hidden track, "Hurricane"winking smiley deal with the same theme - having an affair destroy your primary relationship and run the gamut of reactions from hurt to anger to acceptance to loneliness to regret. The album has a nearly unprecedented number of tracks on this theme. The only other time Jagger has dedicated so many songs on one theme was on SHE'S THE BOSS where the concept of a souring relationship coming to end and devoting one's energy to turning an extramarital affair into the new primary relationship only to find the same pitfalls (what Dashiell Hammett would have termed a Flitcraft) ran through the majority of the songs."
Though I'm not sure that you're not stretching the art of interpretation past the breaking point...this is an interesting take.
QUESTION: I wonder which one of our versions would have been more commercially successful? Which one would be more loved by the general public and the hard-core fans...!? Or are we both wrong and was the original release the best possible presentation for this material? Interesting discussion...
Re: A Bigger Bang - What It Should Have Been
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: March 2, 2011 18:58
Quote
StonesTodQuote
bianca
They stopped playing together as a band when they got rich. Bands gel when they play day in and day out. The Stones ceased being a working band in the mid to late 70s, and that is why there ain't any masterpices since then. Well polished efforts that almost sound like they sounded during the best years...yes. But nothing like before.
Alot to be said for what the Beatles did. As soon as they couldn't stand each other, they packed it in.
hard to argue with that...so i won't....
nonsense,the stones were rich by the mid-sixties.if they werent a working band what was the steel wheels tour,urban jungle,voodoo lounge,bridges to babylon etc? those were pretend live gigs with an imaginary audience?
truth is they've probably played more live dates since 1989 than they did before 1989 and they've done some damn good shows.i would bet most of the people on this board have only seen those "modern era" shows and they seem pretty happy.
as for the records-steel wheels,voodoo lounge,and bridges all sold multi-millions and like all stones records were unique from the ones that came before.
alot to be said for what the beatles did? what,getting your panties in a twist over an arguement and running home crying.for all their fighting at least mick and keith kept their band together.
Re: A Bigger Bang - What It Should Have Been
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: March 2, 2011 19:03
Ultimately I belong in the camp that says too much of the material was weak to really prove successful no matter how it was sequenced or how many songs were included. I agree it is a fascinating exercise from any perspective, though. The album isn't the interesting failure that UNDERCOVER or even DIRTY WORK are to my ears. There's nothing there that makes me appreciate how much effort went in when the spark just wasn't there. Instead I felt most of the album was hastily done with Mick and Keith only going through the motions. I wanted to love it, but my opinion has never changed 5 1/2 years on.
That said, I want every new song officially released and if 19 tracks are going to be released in a given year, I'd rather have them on one CD then wait for SINGLES 1971-2011 to collect them for me at a premium with much redundancy and dozens of remixes I'm not interested in owning.
That said, I want every new song officially released and if 19 tracks are going to be released in a given year, I'd rather have them on one CD then wait for SINGLES 1971-2011 to collect them for me at a premium with much redundancy and dozens of remixes I'm not interested in owning.
Re: A Bigger Bang - What It Should Have Been
Posted by:
JumpingKentFlash
()
Date: March 2, 2011 19:12
Quote
lem motlowQuote
StonesTodQuote
bianca
They stopped playing together as a band when they got rich. Bands gel when they play day in and day out. The Stones ceased being a working band in the mid to late 70s, and that is why there ain't any masterpices since then. Well polished efforts that almost sound like they sounded during the best years...yes. But nothing like before.
Alot to be said for what the Beatles did. As soon as they couldn't stand each other, they packed it in.
hard to argue with that...so i won't....
nonsense,the stones were rich by the mid-sixties.if they werent a working band what was the steel wheels tour,urban jungle,voodoo lounge,bridges to babylon etc? those were pretend live gigs with an imaginary audience?
truth is they've probably played more live dates since 1989 than they did before 1989 and they've done some damn good shows.i would bet most of the people on this board have only seen those "modern era" shows and they seem pretty happy.
as for the records-steel wheels,voodoo lounge,and bridges all sold multi-millions and like all stones records were unique from the ones that came before.
alot to be said for what the beatles did? what,getting your panties in a twist over an arguement and running home crying.for all their fighting at least mick and keith kept their band together.
Regarding the live dates comment:
I think they played their 2000th gig in 2007, and if I'm not mistaking Gazza, who runs a live date statistic on RocksOff, said that they reached their 1000th concert in the 60s. A Stones tour since 1989 consists of what? 120 concerts around the globe? Some a bit more and some a bit less. If the norm is about 120 concerts it'd only amount to around 600 concerts since 1989. That's not too shabby, but they did not play more concerts after 1989 than before 1989. It just seems that way. >
<JumpingKentFlash
Re: A Bigger Bang - What It Should Have Been
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: March 2, 2011 19:34
Quote
lem motlowQuote
StonesTodQuote
bianca
They stopped playing together as a band when they got rich. Bands gel when they play day in and day out. The Stones ceased being a working band in the mid to late 70s, and that is why there ain't any masterpices since then. Well polished efforts that almost sound like they sounded during the best years...yes. But nothing like before.
Alot to be said for what the Beatles did. As soon as they couldn't stand each other, they packed it in.
hard to argue with that...so i won't....
nonsense,the stones were rich by the mid-sixties.if they werent a working band what was the steel wheels tour,urban jungle,voodoo lounge,bridges to babylon etc? those were pretend live gigs with an imaginary audience?
truth is they've probably played more live dates since 1989 than they did before 1989 and they've done some damn good shows.i would bet most of the people on this board have only seen those "modern era" shows and they seem pretty happy.
as for the records-steel wheels,voodoo lounge,and bridges all sold multi-millions and like all stones records were unique from the ones that came before.
alot to be said for what the beatles did? what,getting your panties in a twist over an arguement and running home crying.for all their fighting at least mick and keith kept their band together.
facts are facts (gazza can give you exact numbers) - but they were hardly rich in the sixties...why do you think they moved out of england? hello?
and as to dates played before 89 and since? ummm...pretty sure they played alot more shows before than after that particular year.
definitions of a working band are up for grabs...i would argue like many others here, that the stones stopped being a working band after the '81 tour. since then, they've become a corporation that unites for a common purpose every so often to refill the financial coffers. your definitions may vary, but they have clearly not executed along the same model they did during the sixties and seventies. it's not a complaint and my panties remain untwisted; it's just a reflection on reality.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-02 19:35 by StonesTod.
Re: A Bigger Bang - What It Should Have Been
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: March 2, 2011 19:38
Quote
Rocky Dijon
Ultimately I belong in the camp that says too much of the material was weak to really prove successful no matter how it was sequenced or how many songs were included. I agree it is a fascinating exercise from any perspective, though. The album isn't the interesting failure that UNDERCOVER or even DIRTY WORK are to my ears. There's nothing there that makes me appreciate how much effort went in when the spark just wasn't there. Instead I felt most of the album was hastily done with Mick and Keith only going through the motions. I wanted to love it, but my opinion has never changed 5 1/2 years on.
That said, I want every new song officially released and if 19 tracks are going to be released in a given year, I'd rather have them on one CD then wait for SINGLES 1971-2011 to collect them for me at a premium with much redundancy and dozens of remixes I'm not interested in owning.
well-stated post and one i happen to agree with
i think i was one of those fans up until about bridges that listened with my heart rather than my ears....since then, i've given my ears the job....my ears tell me now what my heart was never willing to admit before....
Re: A Bigger Bang - What It Should Have Been
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: March 2, 2011 21:19
jumpingKentFlash- i think the bulk of that number is from 62-66 when they were playing clubs and short sets to screaming girls.not saying it doesnt count but my point was the stones ARE a working band.
europe 73-one of their best tours was 29 shows
europe 90-was 40+ shows
usa 2005 -first leg was 40+ shows
in fact since 81 they've done almost exclusively stadiums,shows that dwarf the ones from the 60s and 70s.
saying they're not a "working band" is silly,you have to look at it in real world terms-how many musicians would like to be backing the old voodoo lounge stage up to the stadium for a show in front of 50,000 people?. they were playing there asses off too,if thats not a "working band"what is the exact job description?
StonesTod- i would think the stones version of being broke is different than yours or mine.keith and mick bought redlands and stargroves in 66/67 with cash.24yr old living in a mansion and driving a bentley? if they had to sell the car to eat maybe,otherwise-not broke.the post i was responding to[not yours] said "they stopped playing together when they got rich"
thats ridiculous..
the records -abb in particular i will concede are not great.but whatya gonna do-you've painted about nine mona lisa's and everyone is waiting for another one...not easy
by the way,look again -the "panties in a twist" comment wasnt a shot at you-it was made toward the beatles
europe 73-one of their best tours was 29 shows
europe 90-was 40+ shows
usa 2005 -first leg was 40+ shows
in fact since 81 they've done almost exclusively stadiums,shows that dwarf the ones from the 60s and 70s.
saying they're not a "working band" is silly,you have to look at it in real world terms-how many musicians would like to be backing the old voodoo lounge stage up to the stadium for a show in front of 50,000 people?. they were playing there asses off too,if thats not a "working band"what is the exact job description?
StonesTod- i would think the stones version of being broke is different than yours or mine.keith and mick bought redlands and stargroves in 66/67 with cash.24yr old living in a mansion and driving a bentley? if they had to sell the car to eat maybe,otherwise-not broke.the post i was responding to[not yours] said "they stopped playing together when they got rich"
thats ridiculous..
the records -abb in particular i will concede are not great.but whatya gonna do-you've painted about nine mona lisa's and everyone is waiting for another one...not easy
by the way,look again -the "panties in a twist" comment wasnt a shot at you-it was made toward the beatles
Re: A Bigger Bang - What It Should Have Been
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: March 2, 2011 21:21
What should have been? Easy. An album with fewer - and better - songs.
Re: A Bigger Bang - What It Should Have Been
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: March 2, 2011 21:23
who said anything about them being broke? you said they were rich. and now a concert doesn't count if there are screaming girls? i'm trying to play ball with you here, lemmie, but you keep moving the goalposts!
the stones were a working band in their heyday much like most hungry, ambitious bands are that are fueled by their mutual creative desires. do they work when they are on tour? sure...but if that's the definition of a working band, then every band in existence fits the definition.
and i know the panties twist comment wasn't directed at me. just havin' some fun with it. direct anything you want my way, though. i love a good debate.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-02 21:25 by StonesTod.
the stones were a working band in their heyday much like most hungry, ambitious bands are that are fueled by their mutual creative desires. do they work when they are on tour? sure...but if that's the definition of a working band, then every band in existence fits the definition.
and i know the panties twist comment wasn't directed at me. just havin' some fun with it. direct anything you want my way, though. i love a good debate.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-02 21:25 by StonesTod.
Re: A Bigger Bang - What It Should Have Been
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: March 2, 2011 21:27
Quote
71Tele
What should have been? Easy. An album with fewer - and better - songs.
haha. ok, well, if yer gonna knit-pick....
Re: A Bigger Bang - What It Should Have Been
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: March 2, 2011 21:56
mansion paid for,bentley=freakin loaded.
actually i think i got that "broke" thing from something bill said,i found it really funny.lets be honest,klein took them for a ride but they always had big money to throw around by any normal standards.
anyway,the original poster said"they stopped playing together as a band when they got rich" i saw them in 78 did they have money then? they sure were playing together as a band i promise you.
i will agree,of course the early shows counted and there probably was more of them but a 10 song set lasting 45 minutes doesnt really hold a candle to 2 hours in front of 50-80,000 people in terms of "working". thats something that very few people ever do and ALOT of work goes into it.
as far as the band being "fueled by their mutual creative desires"in the early days,maybe.most of the time they said they were just trying to make a few quid and impress girls.replace"a few quid" with millions and "girls" with supermodels and you'll see they never really changed.
actually i think i got that "broke" thing from something bill said,i found it really funny.lets be honest,klein took them for a ride but they always had big money to throw around by any normal standards.
anyway,the original poster said"they stopped playing together as a band when they got rich" i saw them in 78 did they have money then? they sure were playing together as a band i promise you.
i will agree,of course the early shows counted and there probably was more of them but a 10 song set lasting 45 minutes doesnt really hold a candle to 2 hours in front of 50-80,000 people in terms of "working". thats something that very few people ever do and ALOT of work goes into it.
as far as the band being "fueled by their mutual creative desires"in the early days,maybe.most of the time they said they were just trying to make a few quid and impress girls.replace"a few quid" with millions and "girls" with supermodels and you'll see they never really changed.
Re: A Bigger Bang - What It Should Have Been
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 2, 2011 22:23
OK, here your ABB on vinyl...IMHO, side one is bullet proof
Side 1
1. Oh No, Not You Again
2. Dangerous Beauty
3. Rough Justice
4. Under the Radar
5. Back of My Hand
Side 2
1. She Saw Me Coming
2. Rain Fall Down
3. It Won't Take Long
4. This Place is Empty
5. Laugh I Nearly Died
6. Hurricane (uncredited hidden 'bonus' track)
Side 1
1. Oh No, Not You Again
2. Dangerous Beauty
3. Rough Justice
4. Under the Radar
5. Back of My Hand
Side 2
1. She Saw Me Coming
2. Rain Fall Down
3. It Won't Take Long
4. This Place is Empty
5. Laugh I Nearly Died
6. Hurricane (uncredited hidden 'bonus' track)
Re: A Bigger Bang - What It Should Have Been
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: March 2, 2011 22:41
Quote
lem motlow
mansion paid for,bentley=freakin loaded.
actually i think i got that "broke" thing from something bill said,i found it really funny.lets be honest,klein took them for a ride but they always had big money to throw around by any normal standards.
anyway,the original poster said"they stopped playing together as a band when they got rich" i saw them in 78 did they have money then? they sure were playing together as a band i promise you.
i will agree,of course the early shows counted and there probably was more of them but a 10 song set lasting 45 minutes doesnt really hold a candle to 2 hours in front of 50-80,000 people in terms of "working". thats something that very few people ever do and ALOT of work goes into it.
as far as the band being "fueled by their mutual creative desires"in the early days,maybe.most of the time they said they were just trying to make a few quid and impress girls.replace"a few quid" with millions and "girls" with supermodels and you'll see they never really changed.
they didn't have the megabucks in '78 that they enjoy now. a matter of scale involved here.
you really think keith (for instance) "works" harder cos he's playing to 50,000 twice a week??? ummm....no, i would say playing for screaming girls nightly while traveling from one location to the next several times a week, all the while writing and recording new material is ALOT more work. THAT satisfies many of us as the definition of a "working band."
Re: A Bigger Bang - What It Should Have Been
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 2, 2011 22:52
Quote
StonesTodQuote
lem motlow
mansion paid for,bentley=freakin loaded.
actually i think i got that "broke" thing from something bill said,i found it really funny.lets be honest,klein took them for a ride but they always had big money to throw around by any normal standards.
anyway,the original poster said"they stopped playing together as a band when they got rich" i saw them in 78 did they have money then? they sure were playing together as a band i promise you.
i will agree,of course the early shows counted and there probably was more of them but a 10 song set lasting 45 minutes doesnt really hold a candle to 2 hours in front of 50-80,000 people in terms of "working". thats something that very few people ever do and ALOT of work goes into it.
as far as the band being "fueled by their mutual creative desires"in the early days,maybe.most of the time they said they were just trying to make a few quid and impress girls.replace"a few quid" with millions and "girls" with supermodels and you'll see they never really changed.
they didn't have the megabucks in '78 that they enjoy now. a matter of scale involved here.
you really think keith (for instance) "works" harder cos he's playing to 50,000 twice a week??? ummm....no, i would say playing for screaming girls nightly while traveling from one location to the next several times a week, all the while writing and recording new material is ALOT more work. THAT satisfies many of us as the definition of a "working band."
My dad feels like he's working harder than he ever has...he just accomplishes so much less.
Re: A Bigger Bang - What It Should Have Been
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: March 2, 2011 22:59
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
StonesTodQuote
lem motlow
mansion paid for,bentley=freakin loaded.
actually i think i got that "broke" thing from something bill said,i found it really funny.lets be honest,klein took them for a ride but they always had big money to throw around by any normal standards.
anyway,the original poster said"they stopped playing together as a band when they got rich" i saw them in 78 did they have money then? they sure were playing together as a band i promise you.
i will agree,of course the early shows counted and there probably was more of them but a 10 song set lasting 45 minutes doesnt really hold a candle to 2 hours in front of 50-80,000 people in terms of "working". thats something that very few people ever do and ALOT of work goes into it.
as far as the band being "fueled by their mutual creative desires"in the early days,maybe.most of the time they said they were just trying to make a few quid and impress girls.replace"a few quid" with millions and "girls" with supermodels and you'll see they never really changed.
they didn't have the megabucks in '78 that they enjoy now. a matter of scale involved here.
you really think keith (for instance) "works" harder cos he's playing to 50,000 twice a week??? ummm....no, i would say playing for screaming girls nightly while traveling from one location to the next several times a week, all the while writing and recording new material is ALOT more work. THAT satisfies many of us as the definition of a "working band."
My dad feels like he's working harder than he ever has...he just accomplishes so much less.
yes. well, productivity and effort are two different things that are often confused for each other....
Re: A Bigger Bang - What It Should Have Been
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: March 3, 2011 00:07
Quote
StonesTodQuote
lem motlow
mansion paid for,bentley=freakin loaded.
actually i think i got that "broke" thing from something bill said,i found it really funny.lets be honest,klein took them for a ride but they always had big money to throw around by any normal standards.
anyway,the original poster said"they stopped playing together as a band when they got rich" i saw them in 78 did they have money then? they sure were playing together as a band i promise you.
i will agree,of course the early shows counted and there probably was more of them but a 10 song set lasting 45 minutes doesnt really hold a candle to 2 hours in front of 50-80,000 people in terms of "working". thats something that very few people ever do and ALOT of work goes into it.
as far as the band being "fueled by their mutual creative desires"in the early days,maybe.most of the time they said they were just trying to make a few quid and impress girls.replace"a few quid" with millions and "girls" with supermodels and you'll see they never really changed.
they didn't have the megabucks in '78 that they enjoy now. a matter of scale involved here.
you really think keith (for instance) "works" harder cos he's playing to 50,000 twice a week??? ummm....no, i would say playing for screaming girls nightly while traveling from one location to the next several times a week, all the while writing and recording new material is ALOT more work. THAT satisfies many of us as the definition of a "working band."
"they didnt have the megabucks in 78 they enjoy now"- now who's moving the goalposts?
and of course a modern era mega-tour is more work than one of the teeny-bopper era gigs.those shows were a joke.run onstage,play ten songs that nobody can hear and head out the back.so they travelled more back then,so what.my idea of a working band has to do with playing not driving around in a van.
how many gigs in 65 did it take to equal one night at wembley? which one brings more pressure to get it right,nail it in front of the world when you're not the hot new band but the guys everyone is waiting to fall on their faces so they can say"we told you so,they're washed up"
what band sounded better the"got live if you want it" stones or the voodoo lounge stones?
the mega-tours from 81-07 are the gold standard for big time rock and roll.thats no small accomplishment and not something you snap your fingers to make happen.
think of the beating keith took for his playing in 07,think that" working band" from 65 would've caught that kinda heat?no one would've even heard the bad notes.
we're really talking about two things here,the studio band and the live band.as for the studio stones-i concede the point,that ship has sailed.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
bitusa2012 , BOW2007 , CoyMeece59 , DandelionPowderman , joguema , jumpingjackflash5 , pichenot , quarkie , Quique-stone , Rolling Hansie , rootsman , Sjouke , skorpio65 , Spud , spunky , syrel , vant0037 , witterings
Guests:
1667
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10