part of the problem with superlatives is whether you are talking from the perspective of a fan or a critic. sounds like gazza is talking from a fan's perspective (alluding to how much pleasure it brings him) in which case anything can be magnificent (or whatever superlative you like). i doubt that the same standard would apply given a critical view.

i like plenty of music as a fan that as a critic i would not call magnificent, no matter how much pleasure or joy it may bring me as a listener....

perhaps this little posts helps to clarify; perhaps it only further muddies the waters; if you don't like it, it's okay, cos it wasn't very long.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-03 20:30 by StonesTod.

Quote
More Hot Rocks
is it any different than going to a parade for your home team that just won a championship. No.

I would say Yes, it is different. I tend to hear music more as an art form than as a cultural display, though surely my preferences are culturally influenced. But I know a lot of fans do approach their music as they do their sports.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-05 20:23 by cc.

Quote
71Tele
I went back to Bridges after reading your post. It sounds to me like two solo albums fighting it out. One of the least cohesive Rolling Stones albums, in my view. That doesn't mean I don't think there are some good tracks on it, I do. But the trendiness of some of the especially Jagger material and the sense that these two people were not even in the same building when most of it was recorded makes it a difficult listen for me.

It WAS two mini solo-albums which ended up as a Stones record, as I recall.

I can see your argument, but the basic test for me isnt how they recorded it, but whether the released songs are enjoyable or not. We can all be guilty of overanalysing a record, rather than just enjoying it for what it is. There are plenty of Stones albums which worked out fine despite being recorded under pretty chaotic conditions (all of the 'big four' apart from 'Sticky Fingers' could fall into that category). 'Exile' especially - if the Stones put out a record now where half the material was spruced up leftovers and which had a multitude of overdubs added by LA session musicians, most of this board would probably have a shitfit as thats not how a Stones record 'should' be made.

The end always justifies the means in my book. It doesnt bother me that much that Keith doesnt play on 'Saint of me', that there are about 4 or 5 co-producers, as many bassists and that it's Waddy Wachtel and not Ronnie or Keith playing that gorgeous coda at the end of 'Anybody Seen My Baby'. Its still a Stones album, and to my ears, its a bloody good one. Their best post-Tattoo You.

we spend alot of time on iorr don't we?

Quote
cc

Quote
More Hot Rocks
is it any different than going to a parade for your home team that just won a championship. No.

I would say Yes, it is different. I tend to hear music more as an art from than as a cultural display, though surely my preferences are culturally influenced. But I know a lot of fans do approach their music as they do their sports.

sports fan boo their teams when they stink it up; stones fans should be able to boo their band, similarly. if not us, then who????

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
cc

Quote
More Hot Rocks
is it any different than going to a parade for your home team that just won a championship. No.

I would say Yes, it is different. I tend to hear music more as an art from than as a cultural display, though surely my preferences are culturally influenced. But I know a lot of fans do approach their music as they do their sports.

sports fan boo their teams when they stink it up; stones fans should be able to boo their band, similarly. if not us, then who????

I only boo when they play stuff from the 80's.

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
cc

Quote
More Hot Rocks
is it any different than going to a parade for your home team that just won a championship. No.

I would say Yes, it is different. I tend to hear music more as an art from than as a cultural display, though surely my preferences are culturally influenced. But I know a lot of fans do approach their music as they do their sports.

sports fan boo their teams when they stink it up; stones fans should be able to boo their band, similarly. if not us, then who????

I only boo when they play stuff from the 80's.

i only boo when they play me and you and a dog named boo

Quote
Come On
'Thru and Thru' is the one that don't suck from them two studioalbums...

There's a lot to criticize about the Stones but if I'd think like that I really wouldn't hang around here no more . .

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
cc

Quote
More Hot Rocks
is it any different than going to a parade for your home team that just won a championship. No.

I would say Yes, it is different. I tend to hear music more as an art from than as a cultural display, though surely my preferences are culturally influenced. But I know a lot of fans do approach their music as they do their sports.

sports fan boo their teams when they stink it up; stones fans should be able to boo their band, similarly. if not us, then who????

I only boo when they play stuff from the 80's.

Yeah, Start Me Up, Waiting on a Friend, Black Limosine, Undercover Of The Night are true low points.><

Quote
Gazza

Quote
71Tele
I went back to Bridges after reading your post. It sounds to me like two solo albums fighting it out. One of the least cohesive Rolling Stones albums, in my view. That doesn't mean I don't think there are some good tracks on it, I do. But the trendiness of some of the especially Jagger material and the sense that these two people were not even in the same building when most of it was recorded makes it a difficult listen for me.

It WAS two mini solo-albums which ended up as a Stones record, as I recall.

I can see your argument, but the basic test for me isnt how they recorded it, but whether the released songs are enjoyable or not. We can all be guilty of overanalysing a record, rather than just enjoying it for what it is. There are plenty of Stones albums which worked out fine despite being recorded under pretty chaotic conditions (all of the 'big four' apart from 'Sticky Fingers' could fall into that category). 'Exile' especially - if the Stones put out a record now where half the material was spruced up leftovers and which had a multitude of overdubs added by LA session musicians, most of this board would probably have a shitfit as thats not how a Stones record 'should' be made.

The end always justifies the means in my book. It doesnt bother me that much that Keith doesnt play on 'Saint of me', that there are about 4 or 5 co-producers, as many bassists and that it's Waddy Wachtel and not Ronnie or Keith playing that gorgeous coda at the end of 'Anybody Seen My Baby'. Its still a Stones album, and to my ears, its a bloody good one. Their best post-Tattoo You.

Yeah, I see it very similar!
Bridges was a very good album. Even better when you compare it to other stuff from that time without prejudice.
And the solo-stuff thing just ruins the fun of listening. Beside they have worked like that since Sticky fingers, - if not so uncompromisingly.

Its funny..I don't think I have ever read more positive comments about B2B in any post here.

Never knew y'all considered this the best later period album...I may actually have to buy it now! I always got the impression that it was VL that was the "good" one.

Quote
lettingitbleed
Its funny..I don't think I have ever read more positive comments about B2B in any post here.

Never knew y'all considered this the best later period album...I may actually have to buy it now! I always got the impression that it was VL that was the "good" one.

I think a there is a lot of love for that album...but not from moi!
Do like Saint of Me, Thief and a couple of others, but not the whole album.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
71Tele
I went back to Bridges after reading your post. It sounds to me like two solo albums fighting it out. One of the least cohesive Rolling Stones albums, in my view. That doesn't mean I don't think there are some good tracks on it, I do. But the trendiness of some of the especially Jagger material and the sense that these two people were not even in the same building when most of it was recorded makes it a difficult listen for me.

It WAS two mini solo-albums which ended up as a Stones record, as I recall.

I can see your argument, but the basic test for me isnt how they recorded it, but whether the released songs are enjoyable or not. We can all be guilty of overanalysing a record, rather than just enjoying it for what it is. There are plenty of Stones albums which worked out fine despite being recorded under pretty chaotic conditions (all of the 'big four' apart from 'Sticky Fingers' could fall into that category). 'Exile' especially - if the Stones put out a record now where half the material was spruced up leftovers and which had a multitude of overdubs added by LA session musicians, most of this board would probably have a shitfit as thats not how a Stones record 'should' be made.

The end always justifies the means in my book. It doesnt bother me that much that Keith doesnt play on 'Saint of me', that there are about 4 or 5 co-producers, as many bassists and that it's Waddy Wachtel and not Ronnie or Keith playing that gorgeous coda at the end of 'Anybody Seen My Baby'. Its still a Stones album, and to my ears, its a bloody good one. Their best post-Tattoo You.

I agree with you completely that it's not how they get there, but if they get there that counts. Which is why I don't mind the overdubs on Ya-Ya's, for example, or the fact that Exile was actually recorded in many different places and times, not all in some mythical basement. Where we disagree is the result on Bridges. Had I not been aware of how it was recorded I still would think it sounds like a record made by a committee - not a band. You obviously disagree, which is great. To me, Mick (especially) was just trying to be too many things to too many people. Not sure that that's worse than Dirty Work where he didn't want to be there at all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-04 03:26 by 71Tele.

Highwire was good, but everything that was good about Side A of that single was dragged down by the disaster on Side B.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
cc

Quote
More Hot Rocks
is it any different than going to a parade for your home team that just won a championship. No.

I would say Yes, it is different. I tend to hear music more as an art from than as a cultural display, though surely my preferences are culturally influenced. But I know a lot of fans do approach their music as they do their sports.

sports fan boo their teams when they stink it up; stones fans should be able to boo their band, similarly. if not us, then who????

I only boo when they play stuff from the 80's.

Yeah, Start Me Up, Waiting on a Friend, Black Limosine, Undercover Of The Night are true low points.><

I believe four out of the five where recorded in the 70's.

Quote
More Hot Rocks
I believe four out of the five where recorded in the 70's.

3 out of the 4, yes that's correct

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
More Hot Rocks
I believe four out of the five where recorded in the 70's.

3 out of the 4, yes that's correct

I can't count. But I've proved my point.

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
More Hot Rocks
I believe four out of the five where recorded in the 70's.

3 out of the 4, yes that's correct

I can't count. But I've proved my point.

Well - you've stated your opinion, not proved any point.

I believe there are some terrific Rolling Stones songs from the 80s - even when not including "Tattoo You" in the 80s catalogue.

Heck even Dirty Work has some gems.....One Hit and Sleep Tonight being the ultimate examples.

Emotional Rescue and Undercover has too many great songs to mention (IMO)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-05 18:25 by Erik_Snow.

Out of what I consider the best modern day Stones albums I would rate them this way:
Voodoo Lounge
A Bigger Bang
B2B
Steel Wheels

I like all 4 they all have some fine songs but none are great. VL to me captures the Stones sound the best while B2B is the most adventerous. ABB could have been stronger with a few clunkers left out and SW is the weakest of the four but still has some good tunes like Mixed Emotions and Slipping Away.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
71Tele
I went back to Bridges after reading your post. It sounds to me like two solo albums fighting it out. One of the least cohesive Rolling Stones albums, in my view. That doesn't mean I don't think there are some good tracks on it, I do. But the trendiness of some of the especially Jagger material and the sense that these two people were not even in the same building when most of it was recorded makes it a difficult listen for me.

It WAS two mini solo-albums which ended up as a Stones record, as I recall.

I can see your argument, but the basic test for me isnt how they recorded it, but whether the released songs are enjoyable or not. We can all be guilty of overanalysing a record, rather than just enjoying it for what it is. There are plenty of Stones albums which worked out fine despite being recorded under pretty chaotic conditions (all of the 'big four' apart from 'Sticky Fingers' could fall into that category). 'Exile' especially - if the Stones put out a record now where half the material was spruced up leftovers and which had a multitude of overdubs added by LA session musicians, most of this board would probably have a shitfit as thats not how a Stones record 'should' be made.

The end always justifies the means in my book. It doesnt bother me that much that Keith doesnt play on 'Saint of me', that there are about 4 or 5 co-producers, as many bassists and that it's Waddy Wachtel and not Ronnie or Keith playing that gorgeous coda at the end of 'Anybody Seen My Baby'. Its still a Stones album, and to my ears, its a bloody good one. Their best post-Tattoo You.

I think it only sounds that way to you, 71Tele because you know the circumstances of the recording.

I think Bridges is brilliant in that it sounds very of it's time and modern and at the same time sounds like nobody but The Stones.

I'll go ahead and say what I really think: Bridges is up there with the big 4 albums. Yes, it is. A great listening experience. (I petition the court that we start saying "the Big six" and include Some Girls and Tattoo You.)

Voodoo is a crap album with only 2-3 good tracks.
It's a rorsharch test which 2-3 on it YOU prefer but who the hell likes all of it? It's awful.

I don't see how anyone could claim Baby break it down a favorite with it's trite lyrics, boring riff and melodramatic performance. It sounds very forced and It's total filler to me. I don't even think it really sounds like the Stones. But, if that's what YOU think The Stones sound like...more power to ya.

Personally, I don't think they should sound like a Dixie Chicks outtake.

A bigger bang has several great songs on it but it seems it is a GOOD record, not a great one. Maybe it's too long, maybe it's the 'demo like quality' as others have noted, maybe the production.Wahtever it's shortcomings I do think there are 5-6 great songs on it.

You may flame me now.

"I think it only sounds that way to you, 71Tele because you know the circumstances of the recording."

Umm....no.

Quote
slew
Out of what I consider the best modern day Stones albums I would rate them this way:
Voodoo Lounge
A Bigger Bang
B2B
Steel Wheels

I like all 4 they all have some fine songs but none are great. VL to me captures the Stones sound the best while B2B is the most adventerous. ABB could have been stronger with a few clunkers left out and SW is the weakest of the four but still has some good tunes like Mixed Emotions and Slipping Away.

Slew is correct...however, i could do without SOTJ..

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
More Hot Rocks

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
cc

Quote
More Hot Rocks
is it any different than going to a parade for your home team that just won a championship. No.

I would say Yes, it is different. I tend to hear music more as an art from than as a cultural display, though surely my preferences are culturally influenced. But I know a lot of fans do approach their music as they do their sports.

sports fan boo their teams when they stink it up; stones fans should be able to boo their band, similarly. if not us, then who????

I only boo when they play stuff from the 80's.

i only boo when they play me and you and a dog named boo

HAHAHAH!!! That made me laugh OUT LOUD!

[thepowergoats.com]