"In a lot of ways, the Stones are playing better now than they were in the Sixties. They were quite sloppy in the early days - which I enjoy. Technically, they're better than they've ever been. The trouble is, their power comes from their first 12 albums. There have been a few great songs since '72, but only a handful. If they were making great records and playing live the way they are now, my God, how amazing would that be?"

These were a few of the words of Steven Van Zandt from the write up he did on the Stones in Rolling Stone magazines recent (updated from 2004) special collectors edition featuring the 100 greatest artists of all time. The Stones came in at #4 behind the Beatles, Dylan, and Elvis. Steven's comments about the Stones artistic productivity (or lack of) in terms of great songs/albums since '72 seem to echo the opinions of the majority of the members on this forum. Personally, I think they have produced more than a handful of great songs since '72, but I realize I am in the minority with this belief, however, I do agree it is time for them to really focus in on creating at least one last great album before calling it a day.

The same thing could be said for Bruce Springsteen.

Like that other thread about them becoming a recording band now or post 50th tour, they can produce a great album IMHO if they put their mind and time to it along with a a good producer. I do agree that they have produced more than just a handful of great songs after the first twelve.

"Technically, they're better " That's true up to a point. Their guitar playing is a serious weak spot.

Um, Bruce never played in the 60's...

Quote
donteverstop
Um, Bruce never played in the 60's...

Bruce Springsteen with Child - KT88 at The Free University "The Center" in Richmond VA on September 20/1969

The quality is not so good, but this is currently the earliest Child/Steel Mill audio in circulation

Copied from Springsteenlyrics: The tune was played in concert up until mid-1970 and a couple of live performances are in circulation. Allegedly a variation of this tune was performed by Bruce Springsteen & The E Street Band during a few shows early in The Greetings From Asbury Park NJ tour

[www.brucespringsteen.it]

Quote
donteverstop
Um, Bruce never played in the 60's...

He DID... and much to my surprise he started in... 1965!!!
[www.brucespringsteen.it]

46 years doing live shows!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-05-07 22:02 by dcba.

Bruce was playing garage rock and pop covers in his New Jersey band The Castilles in 67.

Bruce wrote better and more songs in the '80's than the Stones.
Bruce wrote more and better songs in the '90's than the Stones.
Bruce wrote more and better songs in the 'oughts than the Stones.
Haven't seen about the teens yet.

Quote
bam
Bruce wrote better and more songs in the '80's than the Stones.
Bruce wrote more and better songs in the '90's than the Stones.
Bruce wrote more and better songs in the 'oughts than the Stones.
Haven't seen about the teens yet.

Ouch! This alone should motivate them to make one final push (2012-2022) in the studio!

Quote
bam
Bruce wrote better and more songs in the '80's than the Stones.
Bruce wrote more and better songs in the '90's than the Stones.
Bruce wrote more and better songs in the 'oughts than the Stones.
Haven't seen about the teens yet.

And yet he still fails to be better overall. The Stones concerts are unbeatable.

JumpingKentFlash

nothing man is so beautifull.....that song!!

To be fair, Bruce has been constistent throughout his 38 years spanning career as an recording artist which cannot be said about The Rolling Stones despite their early run of albums being in so many ways unmatched.However Bruce is still able to release an album almost on par with his best work which is as brilliant as anything anyone else has ever put on tape.The Stones' last 6 or so albums are vastly inferior to their best work despite having some great moments scattered over the last twenty plus years of their career.Of course, this is just my opinion and I see how some people might strongly object to it but the sad fact is that I do not eagarly anticipate the stones' new material hoping to get the healthy dose of the classic stones' sound whereas in the case of Springsteen's new material anything that he puts out is almost just as relevant and cherishable as his classic material.

Springsteen's Magic was very good. Looking back from ABB to, pick a Stones disc, there is a potential classic work in there somewhere if we could pick and choose selected cuts. They can still surprise us it they want to.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-05-08 06:27 by deadegad.

Quote
deadegad
Springsteen's Magic was very good. Looking back from ABB to, pick a Stones disc, their is a potential classic work in there somewhere if we could pick and choose selected cuts. They can still surprise us it they want to.

I thought Laugh I Nearly Died was very good and She Saw me Coming was fun, but beyond that, I am not so sure. They can do better, and did, with the ten new/old Exile tracks.

The thing is you can still emotionally connect with Springsteen's new tracks such as The Last Carnival, Long way home,The Last to die,My city of Ruins etc.These are all songs performed in a very heartfelt matter, tackling some serious subjects that people can easily relate to.There are some great musical ideas among the stones' most recent output but for the most of the time the songs are just too bland emotionally and lyrically and just plain fall flat despite an odd great guitar lick or Mick's excellent vocal performance.Take Biggest Mistake, it's a catchy little tune, an ear candy that people can easliy enjoy if ,lets say,it suddenly comes up while driving or doing housework or whatever, but it's unable to elicit any true emotional response from the listener.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-05-08 04:59 by stones_serb.

Quote
stones_serb
The thing is you can still emotionally connect with Springsteen's new tracks such as The Last Carnival, Long way home,The Last to die,My city of Ruins etc.These are all songs performed in a very heartfelt matter, tackling some serious subjects that people can easily relate to.There are some great musical ideas among the stones' most recent output but for the most of the time the songs are just too bland emotionally and lyrically and just plain fall flat despite an odd great guitar lick or Mick's excellent vocal performance.Take Biggest Mistake, it's a catchy little tune, an ear candy that people can easliy enjoy if ,lets say,it suddenly comes up while driving or doing housework or whatever, but it's unable to elicit any true emotional response from the listener.

You are right on in regards to the overall lack of emotion generated in ABB, although, the ladies tear up for SOL.

Quote
JumpingKentFlash

Quote
bam
Bruce wrote better and more songs in the '80's than the Stones.
Bruce wrote more and better songs in the '90's than the Stones.
Bruce wrote more and better songs in the 'oughts than the Stones.
Haven't seen about the teens yet.

And yet he still fails to be better overall. The Stones concerts are unbeatable.

not true at all. springsteen live has been better than the stones for close to 20 years

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
JumpingKentFlash

Quote
bam
Bruce wrote better and more songs in the '80's than the Stones.
Bruce wrote more and better songs in the '90's than the Stones.
Bruce wrote more and better songs in the 'oughts than the Stones.
Haven't seen about the teens yet.

And yet he still fails to be better overall. The Stones concerts are unbeatable.

not true at all. springsteen live has been better than the stones for close to 20 years

The Stones could never top Born to Run or Darkness on the edge of town tours

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
JumpingKentFlash

Quote
bam
Bruce wrote better and more songs in the '80's than the Stones.
Bruce wrote more and better songs in the '90's than the Stones.
Bruce wrote more and better songs in the 'oughts than the Stones.
Haven't seen about the teens yet.

And yet he still fails to be better overall. The Stones concerts are unbeatable.

not true at all. springsteen live has been better than the stones for close to 20 years

Try 35.

Quote
bam
Bruce wrote better and more songs in the '80's than the Stones.
Bruce wrote more and better songs in the '90's than the Stones.
Bruce wrote more and better songs in the 'oughts than the Stones.
Haven't seen about the teens yet.

That is true IF you like Bruce!
I respect the man. But he never moved me at all. Pink Cadillac by Jerry Lee Lewis is probably my favorite thing Bruce has done.

Quote
stones_serb
The thing is you can still emotionally connect with Springsteen's new tracks such as The Last Carnival, Long way home,The Last to die,My city of Ruins etc.These are all songs performed in a very heartfelt matter, tackling some serious subjects that people can easily relate to.There are some great musical ideas among the stones' most recent output but for the most of the time the songs are just too bland emotionally and lyrically and just plain fall flat despite an odd great guitar lick or Mick's excellent vocal performance.Take Biggest Mistake, it's a catchy little tune, an ear candy that people can easliy enjoy if ,lets say,it suddenly comes up while driving or doing housework or whatever, but it's unable to elicit any true emotional response from the listener.

I thought Gypsy Biker was pretty 'moving.'

Quote
stonescrow

Quote
deadegad
Springsteen's Magic was very good. Looking back from ABB to, pick a Stones disc, there is a potential classic work in there somewhere if we could pick and choose selected cuts. They can still surprise us it they want to.

I thought Laugh I Nearly Died was very good and She Saw me Coming was fun, but beyond that, I am not so sure. They can do better, and did, with the ten new/old Exile tracks.

I might not have been clear. What I'm saying is that if we were to cull selected tracks form say VooDoo Lounge thru ABB there is one great disc in there somewhere! Mayebe more.

Yet when i think of Springsteen's Magic for example there might not be as many, or any, Stones songs as heavy, or moving, as some from that disc.

Quote
Silver Dagger
The same thing could be said for Bruce Springsteen.

I agree...everything springsteen's done since '72 has been shyte.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Silver Dagger
The same thing could be said for Bruce Springsteen.

I agree...everything Springsteen's done since '72 has been shyte.

Agree. I mean 'Born to Run?' Gimme a break lyrically it does not equal Satisfaction!

Or how about Springsteen's Jungland? It just does not paint a picture. Simply not evocative of anything. Not sweeping in anyway like say Too Much Blood(which I like). LOL!

Bruce is a totally different act. His music has a completely different sound. Yes, he can or could do 4 hour shows but he puts people to sleep with half of the songs and his voice does not even compare to Jagger. I disagree with any of Bruce's stuff being better than the Stones. He has some good stuff but it certainly is not my favourite and I would never travel to see him.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
JumpingKentFlash

Quote
bam
Bruce wrote better and more songs in the '80's than the Stones.
Bruce wrote more and better songs in the '90's than the Stones.
Bruce wrote more and better songs in the 'oughts than the Stones.
Haven't seen about the teens yet.

And yet he still fails to be better overall. The Stones concerts are unbeatable.

not true at all. springsteen live has been better than the stones for close to 20 years

Try 35.

Try .35

Quote
Gazza

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
JumpingKentFlash

Quote
bam
Bruce wrote better and more songs in the '80's than the Stones.
Bruce wrote more and better songs in the '90's than the Stones.
Bruce wrote more and better songs in the 'oughts than the Stones.
Haven't seen about the teens yet.

And yet he still fails to be better overall. The Stones concerts are unbeatable.

not true at all. springsteen live has been better than the stones for close to 20 years

Try 35.

ok then 35

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Silver Dagger
The same thing could be said for Bruce Springsteen.

I agree...everything springsteen's done since '72 has been shyte.

I love Springsteen's work till about The Tunnel Of Love but then the great songs only come every now and then. I guess it's because he writes with stadiums in mind, like the Stones.

Quote
stones_serb

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
JumpingKentFlash

Quote
bam
Bruce wrote better and more songs in the '80's than the Stones.
Bruce wrote more and better songs in the '90's than the Stones.
Bruce wrote more and better songs in the 'oughts than the Stones.
Haven't seen about the teens yet.

And yet he still fails to be better overall. The Stones concerts are unbeatable.

not true at all. springsteen live has been better than the stones for close to 20 years

The Stones could never top Born to Run or Darkness on the edge of town tours

Still waiting for Springsteen to show me something that I'll think is better than the Stones. I'm open for it, but I'm also still waiting. I agree that the emotions that's on his records (Also, or maybe even especially, in latter years) are more clear than on the Stones latter day albums. That's great, but I still think he doesn't have 1.- A band that is very good, 2.- Compositions worth listening to much (There's some, but not a whole lot) and 3.- An interesting solo career. I've tried. I've tried to like him, but it falls flat for me. To me he falls in the same category as Bob Dylan and Neil Young. The reviewers' pets. Of the three I never really thought Neil Young was interesting at all. Bob is cool, but overrated too I think. Same goes for Bruce, although he'd rank under Bob for me.
Again, this is just my opinion.

JumpingKentFlash