Unfortunately, even though some latter-day albums contain some good tracks, there is no way to get around comparisons with their earlier great work. I haven't listened to the last three studio albums in years, actually probably the last six. While taste is indeed subjective, all one has to do is turn to the Stones' own selection to see that the vast majority of what has been played on recent tours is from the Golden Age. I agree that GHS and IORR are under-appreciated, but after Tattoo You, I don't think there's a single Stones album that is essential.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

foolish is the wrong word.

""That's minimal condition; the song needs to stand out in the first place; to have a significance, a story, a place in the history. Then the song would need to stand the test of time, to be something more than the hit of the day.""

These conditions do not have to apply to a EVERYONE, they could apply to a person and what was going in a person life, one person's history when the song came out, maybe a relationship starting/ending, or a happy/sad time... life/death.... a great road trip... etc etc... and thus a song could be a classic to a person, but not to everyone. It is all an opinion, one person's opinion is not foolish or wise.... it is just an opinion.

btw- I am not especially keen on "Angie" or "Start me up", just my opinion.

I agree with the term 'foolish' not being accurate, and sorry for using that. It should be something like "not likely to happen" or something to the effect.

I don't see any problem in the way you use the word 'classic', or I don't see it in contradiction to the way I tried to define it. I take those two conditions to be rather necessary elements: (a) to have a significance in the first place (in one's life, expressing the zeitgeist of the era, or whatever), and (b) then have a sort of lasting value (that is not forgotten) over a period of time. Yeah, it can be as subjective and personal as you say but I rather see it having a more democratic base: it has value over a bigger community that accepts and recognizes its classical status. This is the level I prefer to talk in regards to the Stones. The Stones and their music has a huge significance; they are a big cultural phenomenon. Their songs have a significance that is recognized almost by anyone who knows something about rock and roll music.

I personally don't care much about "Yesterday" or many other Beatles songs, but I recognize their classical status. It goes beyond my personal taste. I believe it is the same with you regards to "Start Me Up" or "Angie". I think it is foolish - now I use the term! - to deny their classical status in Rolling Stones catalog. They are big songs and surely The Stones know it too! They don't play them in concerts because of "liking them" so much but I would claim knowing their status, and how the crowds react to them.

So my point basically is that calling something "classic" is not barely based on individual preference, opinion or taste. It requires more.

- Doxa

Great points. Classic

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Early Day Stones Albums

THE ROLLING STONES & ENGLANDS NEWEST HIT MAKERS 8 (8) Great songs on this. Perhaps the truest element of The Rolling Stones: blues, rockers and soul music. Route 66, Mona, Little By Little, Honest I Do - great music.

12X5 5 (5) Not as good as the debut album but it does have great tunes on it, most notably Around Around, Time Is On My Side and It's All Over Now.

ROLLING STONES NOW! 7 (8) I love Down The Road Apiece. Down Home Girl, What A Shame, Heart Of Stone, Off The Hook and Pain In My Heart are killer tracks.

OUT OF OUR HEADS 10 (10) Great album. Either one. Insanely awesome. They were really starting to find their feet.

AFTERMATH 10 (10) US or UK version, doesn't matter. Well, the UK version superiour; the US got stuck with the incredibly boring I'm Goin' Home. No matter. Incredible album.

BETWEEN THE BUTTONS 6 (5) Something happened. Still haven't figured it out.

THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES REQUEST 3 (4) Even junk can be called art. With exception to Citadel, 2000 Light Years, 2000 Man and She's A Rainbow this album is incredibly bad. Which is good, of course, because it makes the other albums before it that much better and makes Beggars Banquet seem to come from a whole different universe altogether.

AMG and I concur think 12 X 5 is actually one of the better of the Stones early albums, ahead of England's newest hitmakers, even with Now! We may be dealing with different discs, USA vs. UK.

[www.allmusic.com]

One book, Everybody's Lucifer had a theory on Their Satanic Majesties that it was written to turn Brian off, the book would say to get rid of him but I'll say to turn him off since it was so different to prior Rolling Stones, no blues. It may have been sour grapes by the author, I don't know, I haven't accepted his premise ever. But TSM is not really an early Stones effort in my view. One reviewer at amazon said it was more like early Syd Barret Pink Floyd than the purported tie in as their answer to Sgt. Pepper's, everyone knows the Beatles faces can be found on the cover of that album too, trivia but I'd definitely say it is in a gray area of the Stones discography, not early and not big 4. But I think that reviewer was on to something, perhaps TSM is more like Saucerful of Secrets and if it had been polished up better, fined tuned, have more focus or something, maybe it could have worked like early Pink Floyd. The Lantern, Gomper really aren't that bad though I'm not in a rush to listen to them.

It's hard to talk about the Stones' early catalog and be on the same page, States has December's children, obviously a sister album to Out of Our Heads. I also find the USA Aftermath to lack something to be desired, while I am waiting, Flight 505, It's not easy are okay, the Flowers issue again, had a lot of splendid songs that perhaps did not find their ways to the USA's Aftermath album.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-09 21:29 by BroomWagon.

for me, this is a classic... time and space and history and memories





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-09 19:39 by Max'sKansasCity.

Some people think the Stones suck after Brian. Some think they suck after Mick Taylor. I think they suck after Bill Wyman. In the studio. They still pack a punch live. Jagger can still write lyrics like no one else out there, but the current studio crew has let him down.

Had they had a heavier hand for leaving out the weak FILLER that littered most of their later output...they would have had quite a respectable body of work to be proud of representing their "later" years. But alas, having so much filler so late in your career is damaging.

These albums are not going to age like fine wines. People talk about Exile not being well received, but the reappraisal for the most part happened in the following months, not over decades,

Justin,

Agreed: far too much filler in recent years, but tell me an artist who hasn't ? Bob Dylan ruined Infidels by leaving tracks in the vaults, e.g. Blind Willie McTell, that were absolutely amazing.

If, as per Life, Keith's relationship with Mick has utterly deteriorated, then this must be the prima facie reason as to why the albums, ostensibly, appear not as good as their earlier oeuvre. However, the boys have done some shockingly awful material as far back as the 60s. Has anyone heard their version of Under The Boardwalk ? Too Rude knocks spots off it, as does Harlem Shuffle. What about Short & Curlies ? Utterly throwaway in relation to Sparks Will Fly, even. Also, what about Flight 505, or Miss Amanda Jones ? Aren't they filler, too ?

Can they produce a great album ? Yes, if Mick and Keith are sympatico. I have a liking towards Voodoo, Bridges, & Bigger Bang. Steel Wheels has about 4 good songs on it. To be honest, even in their prime, filler has been on their great albums: Country Honk ? Factory Girl ? Not exactly great, are they ?

Country Honk, tribute to Hank Williams? Heard that the other day, Factory Girl, I will say, that nowadays most of us probably fine the track we like and repeatedly play it while with most of these, thinking about in particular "Dear Doctor", I would just listen to the whole album side of Beggar's Banquet, maybe's that is just me.

But nowadays, we are more prone to find a tune we like and play it more at least.

Indeed, Tom, yes they also had some clunkers early in their career but it seems to get a slide from both fans and critics for various reasons..."they were still a young band" to "they were testing new waters" to "they took a chance on a new sound" and in a way, they were all valid arguments. Before Tattoo You, the Stones were a true, working, creative band, a unit. No doubt about it. They took chances, they made hits, they made crap but they were into the game. Filler is forgiven when it's put up against strong, memorable material with integrity. Since Steel Wheels, they have released more filler than respectable songs.

After Steel Wheels, they made a subconscious decision to half ass it all. Mick and Keith (without them knowing it) got on their invisible high horses and believed that anything they wrote was gold. Combat that with their falling out in the 80's that they have never recovered from and you have the current situation: a songwriting team that does not communicate with each other thus no longer works well together.

Justin, very well put (even though I would add UNDERCOVER as the last of product as a "true, working, creative band, a unit").

- Doxa

Earlier in their career, they are seen as going up the hill towards the mighty summit of the Big Four, so a few slip-ups can be excused - this may be bad, but on the whole they're getting better.

From GHS onwards they are seen as over that hill and sliding down, and every less than perfect track is a symptom of that decline - if this is bad, it's only going to get worse. So latter-day albums get judged much more harshly.

It's too bad, I don't listen to Sean Hannity that much but caught a few minutes and a lady on their was selling her Christmas song for .99 cents from her website and Sean said 'nowadays, people usually buy just the single song'. That could be true, I can not say.

But I do believe I have heard before that before 1964, for Rock at least, you usually bought 45s, the hit, you might buy an album for a hit.

Kind of sideways on this issue but perhaps it is so.

The album might be something more of the past but most bands probably worked more with the big hit here and there.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-09 23:52 by BroomWagon.

Quote
stonesdan60

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
stonesdan60

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Especially Steel Wheels has been overlooked by many fans, imo. Mainly, it's due to the production, I think.

Can't see why Terrifying, Continental Drift, Almost Hear You Sigh, Hearts For Sale and Slipping Away should not get more recognition.

Glad I'm not totally alone in my thinking. The production on Steel Wheels? Hmmm...I never noticed a problem with it. Maybe I'll have to have another listen. It's been awhile since I gave it a spin.

Two things (and I know I am becoming repetitive in this):
re "Steel Wheels", what I did is make the boot of the rough mixes my actual album. It completely transformed my view of the album for me.
Other thing is that yes, the latter day albums don't get too much credit. That MIGHT have to do with all the Vegas style tours;where they have changed their image. With BU singers. Chuck, Keith taking a backseat etc.
Also, and I see it in the OP here too, it isn't the late day albums that don't get respect; it is the early ones. The R&B, and the Soul albums. No one even mentions them. From Hitmakers to Flowers.

Granted, I would much prefer to see them live without the singers, horns, or Chuck Leavell basically usurping Keith's place as band leader. Bring back Mac from the Faces on keys. He sounds more like Ian Stewart. But while I miss the stripped down Stones, I have to say that I saw them twice on the BB Tour and both shows were great! It also seemed that the hired help was pushed more into the background. The singers and horns seemed lower in the mix, the guitars were up front and the hired hands were rarely seen on the big screens. It always pissed me off in the past when the extras were given heavy screen time. I don't want to see them even if they do contribute to the sound. I want to see the Stones!

Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Ronnie Wood, Mick Taylor, Charlie Watts, Bill Wyman and Ian Mclagan. Everything else is superfluous.

I have faith that Mick and Keith will make a good album again: there have been some great songs on not so great albums, and rock music has even had the pleasure of hearing Wayne Shorter on How Can I Stop, which is a true blessing in itself.

You would also hear Keith getting flamenco vibes on Almost Hear You Sigh, what with that acoustic solo, and the world music extravaganza of Continental Drift. Back Of My Hand is a quality blues number. So the Stones do have some validity.

I feel, in contrast to Bob Dylan, that the Stones have used Lisa, Bernard, and others wisely. I own Live @ Budokan by Bob Dylan, and hearing femme voices on Like A Rolling Stone, amongst others, show an appalling lack of judgement. By 1988, and seeing Dylan live at Wembley Arena, I was praying that there'd be no girl singers. The Stones have used the singers with a modicum of taste. Horns were used as far back as 1971 on tour, and Keith sings well accompanied by the horns - check out his version of Oh Lord Don't Let Them Drop That Atomic Bomb On Me from the Weird Nightmare Mingus tribute album, from 1994, where the Uptown Kick Horns and Charlie Watts, from the Voodoo Lounge tour, cut loose. There is some quality from the Vegas Era.

We should also bear in mind that Chuck Leavell came recommended courtesy of Ian Stewart, and that his keyboard work is very good. He certainly, back in 1972, kicked the Allmans up the backside, and has excellent jazz fusion chops. His work on Eric Clapton's Unplugged is superlative, too.

The early albums have their merits too, but sometimes the covers are better than the originals i.e. Route 66, I'm A King Bee, That's How Strong My Love Is, as contrasted to Little By Little, which is a Jimmy Reed steal, though not as good as Jimmy Reed.

I would add that She Smiled Sweetly is a quality tune, but Who's Been Sleeping Here is a Dylan steal, and that some of Aftermath is not as good as hyped.

We, meaning everyone here, can talk about songs on probably every Stones album (and likely every solo one too). We can all pretty much imagine a linear discography of the band and draw a line-chart of the quality of their albums, etc. We can, because we're all hardcore fans - otherwise we wouldn't be here.

I think of a 'classic' being an album that is well-known to casual fans or people with an accute awareness of music. Or more broadly, songs by the band that, to put it bluntly - the masses know about or care about.

If it's not a song that grabs people, it's not going to be a hit. The Stones do have a sizeable fanbase - full of people like us who can actually name more than 3 albums past Tattoo You - but for the most part, as hit-makers, 'classic makers', and just makers of decent songs that are worthy of being regarded as classics, the Stones have failed everytime since Start Me Up - 30 years ago.

Albums sell as much as they deserve to, and with The Stones' giant pockets available for their Monster Hype Machine at their disposal - more than any band on earth, the fact that they still cannot function as song creators is made even MORE obvious. I think by A Bigger Bang though, the public were deservedly skeptical about the critic's drooling tug-job over mediocirty, and the sales reflected that.

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
2000man
These albums are not going to age like fine wines. People talk about Exile not being well received, but the reappraisal for the most part happened in the following months, not over decades,

And Exile is actually a good album.

It's one thing to like a song or songs on these latter day albums like I rated them and in the context of the albums to rate them as good really good etc but in comparison to the whole deal, ie in reality and comparison to Beggars, LIB, Sticky, Exile, SG, TY, they'll never be as good as the heyday songs etc.

Because they just aren't. To take the music seriously no one would (or should) pick any number of tunes: Sad Sad Sad, Out Of Control, It Won't Take Long etc over Can't You Hear Me Knocking, Monkey Man, Jigsaw Puzzle etc. There's just no way. Not serious anyway. Nothing to do with relevance; all to do with the vitality, the energy, the attitude, the writing, hell - the band.

A lot of people here really dig Out Of Control. And it is a killer tune. But not when held up to the overall work of the Stones. In its context it's great. In the context it's just a good or decent song.

I'd think the tunes that should be taken seriously are some of the very different ones that have happened, like Keith's You Don't Have To Mean It and especially the incredibly beautiful and insanely excellent How Can I Stop. Those tunes would not and could not have happened back in and on the heyday albums. That mentality just wasn't in there. In that mindset they can't even be compared to anything from those albums/that era.

You've hit the nail on the head WLTPTB. The key is inspiration. Mick clearly WAS inspired when he made Wandering Spirit, and he used whatever energy that was driving him into the record, and it all starts with the passion to create. If that's not there, we end up with (insert album here).

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
jamesfdouglas
We, meaning everyone here, can talk about songs on probably every Stones album (and likely every solo one too). We can all pretty much imagine a linear discography of the band and draw a line-chart of the quality of their albums, etc. We can, because we're all hardcore fans - otherwise we wouldn't be here.

I think of a 'classic' being an album that is well-known to casual fans or people with an accute awareness of music. Or more broadly, songs by the band that, to put it bluntly - the masses know about or care about.

If it's not a song that grabs people, it's not going to be a hit. The Stones do have a sizeable fanbase - full of people like us who can actually name more than 3 albums past Tattoo You - but for the most part, as hit-makers, 'classic makers', and just makers of decent songs that are worthy of being regarded as classics, the Stones have failed everytime since Start Me Up - 30 years ago.

Albums sell as much as they deserve to, and with The Stones' giant pockets available for their Monster Hype Machine at their disposal - more than any band on earth, the fact that they still cannot function as song creators is made even MORE obvious. I think by A Bigger Bang though, the public were deservedly skeptical about the critic's drooling tug-job over mediocirty, and the sales reflected that.

ABB's only crime was being 5 or 6 songs too long, including Streets of Love, not including Under the Radar, and not putting more effort into the mixing.

If the album were limited to this:


Rough Justice
She Saw Me Coming
Under The Radar
Oh No Not You Again
Dangerous Beauty
Back of My Hand
Rain Fall Down
It Won't Take Long
Laugh, I Nearly Died
This Place Is Empty

We'd have a modern day classic.

I think you have to be a bit more ruthless in the editing...the cuts that didn't make Some Girls for instance, are amazing...if they had come out with 16 songs in 1978, they may still have had a hit because of Miss You, but I wonder whether it would have sold in the numbers that it did.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-10 03:50 by treaclefingers.

Quote
dcba
"the problem with 'latter day' albums is that none of them contains a song that one, starting from Jagger to the most silent contributor here at IORR, could honestly claim to be "classic"

their last classic was SMU... 30 years ago.

I just don't know if I agree with this. Much of the reason a song becomes a warhorse is from the care and effort that the band then invests in it. Take YGMR, somehow, somewhere this utterly mediocre song has wiggled it's way into the warhorse line-up, just by the fact that Jagger seems to like doing it. Maybe it has easy lyrics to remember; plus that chorus is a no-brainer in a stadium show. But in 69-75 the Stones took those major iconic songs and transformed them on stage. They worked and honed them , and basically rammed them down our throats. "Sympathy for the Devil", that song has been explored, musically, rhythmically, showman ship-wise. SFM, as anthemic closer with Taylor soaring, or tight opener, with Jagger actually recalling the words.
In 97-98, when the Stones toured B2B, they took 5-6 songs off that very good album, and toured them hard. "Out of Control" and "Saint of Me" could easily be two of the big Stones cuts, had they more time under the belt, more stage time.
Undercover COULD have enjoyed a similar tour that SG got. Just by jamming the whole album. DW has "One Hit", "Dirty Work", "Had It With You" - they just never got a chance.
And ABB with one of the most hated singles in Stones' career, "Streets of Love" should have been represented much more. SOL was the best song in every show I saw it performed. After all the Stones are like any other band: they want to play the new songs. And one thing the Stones have always been tops at is to re-adapt songs for the live stage. make them even better.

"To be honest, even in their prime, filler has been on their great albums: Country Honk ? Factory Girl ? Not exactly great, are they ?"

No disrespect Tomcasagranda, but I think that you are just not getting those songs. I am too tired to give you a treatise, perhaps Doxa could if he so chooses to. They are not filler songs by any stretch of the imagination. I think particularly of Factory Girl which is a very profound song and says so much.

The last classic from the Stones was Start Me Up, no doubt about it. You could just feel the buzz in the air in late 1981, it was palatable. Hard to believe that it was 30 years ago.

Even though Exile is a masterpiece, I still say the ultimate "Rolling Stones" album, and possibly the ultimate rock album of all time, is Sticky Fingers. The songs, their age, the artwork, the attitude, the recording quality, the mix, the vibe, the feeling, the cohesiveness, the exploration, the writing, the decadence, the swing.... It's all there like some sort of rock'n'roll and Rolling Stones perfect storm.

Although I am a fan, I can't even retain any more than the "most known" songs and other songs that I personally like from the post-Tattoo You era in my head. People make references to post-1981 songs as being great, and sometimes I have to look them up on my computer to know what they are talking about. And perhaps more crucially, I forget them afterwards. I cannot retain them in my head. Meanwhile I can play back Honky Tonk Woman and lots of other songs in my head like I am playing back a tape recording.

Ironically enough, when Sticky Fingers came out I wasn't even really aware of the Stones. Six months later I started in Grade 8 and a new friend turned me onto the Stones and I discovered the album.

BTW, a lot of the comments in this thread are really great, truly insightful and I agree with a lot of what is being said. There are some in the "latter era" Stones camp that insist songs like Saint of Me are classics when they are clearly not.

MileHigh

P.S.: Here is a nice (although commercial) tribute to a Beatles classic. It almost brings a tear to my eye because of the trans-generational resonance the song has and how you can see it bringing people together. The true definition of a classic. When you think about the setting and events that took place not too long after this clip was made, the "Gimme Shelter" effect comes back to haunt us. Almost like the Holocaust begat the Killing Fields, we are victims of the human condition, but when you watch this clip you are supposed to shed a tear of joy.





Sorry that I am meandering all over the map here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-10 08:44 by MileHigh.

I agree with the latter day stuff not getting enough praise. Personally, from 1994-on has been a bit of a renaissance for the band, IMO. Voodoo Lounge - masterpiece. Stripped - tremendous live album, the one I play the most. Bridges To Babylon - loved it when it came out, but it sounds quite dated these days. Forty Licks - 3 out of 4 of the songs are great Stones gems, IMO. Don't Stop was classic Stones that should have been a much bigger hit. A Bigger Bang - absolutely amazing album!! I listen to it at least once a day for almost a year. A solid album start to finish.

Quote
treaclefingers


ABB's only crime was being 5 or 6 songs too long, including Streets of Love, not including Under the Radar, and not putting more effort into the mixing.

If the album were limited

Actually I want 16 or 18 song albums. Especially when they only put one out every 8 years or so.

Quote
uhbuhgullayew

Quote
treaclefingers


ABB's only crime was being 5 or 6 songs too long, including Streets of Love, not including Under the Radar, and not putting more effort into the mixing.

If the album were limited

Actually I want 16 or 18 song albums. Especially when they only put one out every 8 years or so.

I think we could both 'win', if they put out 10-11 song albums every couple of years, rather than waiting 8 years between albums.

But then you'd be talking about an actual 'functioning' band, which they really aren't. They can put it all together quite well (although there will be a lot of argument against that comment I'm sure) for an album/tour periodically, but the Rolling Stones are really a side thing for most of them.

They have their own lives, interests and occupations separate from the band.

With all that said, I still say EDIT the content and we'll have a better album.

I couldn't agree more. Latter day Stones albums deserve more credit. There are a # of factors which contribute to the reason why they don't get the credit they deserve from most people but,I don't believe that the actual quality of the music is really one of them. Individual tastes are also involved among the people who have actually listened to these albums. Many detractors have not actually listened to the albums. It's also more difficult for new or more current material to appeal to a generally older fan base who are so attached to the old music. There are other factors as well.

>Albums sell as much as they deserve to

I can't figure out what you mean by this. Why does any album by Britney Spears "deserve" to outsell any album by Howlin' Wolf?

Sales only reflect popularity, not quality.

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII
I couldn't agree more. Latter day Stones albums deserve more credit. There are a # of factors which contribute to the reason why they don't get the credit they deserve from most people but,I don't believe that the actual quality of the music is really one of them.

The Rolling Stones going through the motions of imitating themselves - posing sonically - is probably reason enough for old fans or greatest hits fans to not bother because it's not good, regardless of who you compare it to. Die hards will buy the albums and rant and rave that they're this good and deserve this much credit and acclaim when there is the odd track that is a glimpse of a glimmer of what they used to be when the fact remains, no matter how good of an album they make, because they can make a "good" album but it won't be inspired, they haven't been truly inspired since they had to record something to make sure they got the money for the Steel Wheels tour.

And what I can't understand is when creating something how can they seriously be serious about such garbage as Sweet Neo Con, for example, because it had a "good hook and we thought we'd do something with it" when the something should've been LEAVE IT ALONE.

I really don't believe that they're imitating themselves. They ARE themselves!! Maybe you could contend that they are trying to imitate themselves in parts of the Voodoo Lounge album but,after that (and before that) their work is very consistent with the way that they had been for ages (with the exception of some experiments). Sure,the "golden era" of '68 to the mid-late '70's will always cast a shadow over anything they have done or will ever do since then. It's not realistic to hold them responsible to maintain such a standard. How many,if any,other quality bands have ever even reached that level ??

NeoCon was probably released because they (or Jagger anyway) wanted to make a statement.

In a sense, the 1968-72 era for the Stones was the exception, because outside that context, the Stones have for the most part struggled a little with maintaining a strong level of consistency within their albums. Singles wise in the sixties, and especially up to and including 'Brown Sugar', the Stones have always delivered classic songs, instantly radio friendly too, with memorable hooks and riffs etc, within their own unique rock 'n' roll landscape, but over the length of an album they have nearly always struggled. THE ROLLING STONES NO1 was perhaps the Stones greatest album, up to AFTERMATH, and is perhaps amongst the greatest of all debut albums in terms of its level of energy, vitality and consistency. The Stones just seem so utterly self assured within this first long playing effort. It is almost as though they had just so leisurely slipped into the studio between shows, because they don't sound the least bit self conscious, or overawed. Yes, they may have not quite got their songwriting abilities working for them on a large scale as yet (with only 'Tell Me' being their one full songwriting credit), but performance wise, even the occasional filler tracks like 'Have I Got A Witness (Like Uncle Gene And Uncle Phil)' exude that wonderfully infectious energy. However, THE ROLLING STONES NO 2 largely is a very different story, and while there are certainly great moments at hand, and most especially 'Everybody Needs Somebody To Love' and 'Time Is On My Side', there are some seriously mediocre moments like 'Under The Boardwalk' and a couple of the Stones early songwriting efforts 'Grown Up Wrong' and 'What A Shame'. One senses that the Stones were feeling the pressure a little more second time around, because theoretically, all the elements seem to be in place, but the songs just don't translate so well in terms of spontaneity and raw energy. The Stones just sound that bit more contrived. The Stones next release 'OUT OF OUR HEADS' has more of a rawness, and a lot less trepidation to be found, and it is perhaps a little more like THE ROLLING STONES NO 1, in terms of character, only this time round with a potent injection of soul, within the Stones more typical rock 'n' roll sound. The album, however, sounds rushed and uneven, to me when compared with the Stones debut, although there are some developments within the Stones self penned efforts, which sound decidedly more self assured than those found on ROLLING STONES NO 2. 'Gotta Get Away' and 'I'm Free' are actually rather good, although i think they fall way short perhaps of classic status. Heart Of Stone' possibly is edging towards a genuinely early high for the band.

However, with all of these early albums, there are moments of magic, with of course, some albums appearing to find more than others, which i pretty much never seem to hear on much of the Stones post TATTOO YOU offerings. In those early days the Stones very much had something to prove, which i think can be heard between the grooves of all the songs found here. Sometimes things work better than others, but there's that indefineable urge by the Stones to be noticed, and to be reckoned with, where a level of conviction can be found, however on occasions, it may have seemed slightly misquided. By the time of UNDERCOVER, those elements had gone, and it was pretty much the Stones making music through force of habit. They had nothing at all left to prove, and instead of them existing as a fully engaged unit, it was more like a family gathering, at certain points in the calender year. Maybe there are the occasional ok songs like 'Undercover Of The Night', but none of them would ever transcend into qualifying as classics, and that's leading right up to the present day. The songs just lack that solid musical, and perhaps lyrical foundation, that exists with those more distinct songs that are to be remembered. The Stones can bang out a riff here and toss a few lyrics together there, but we've pretty much heard it all before with songs which have a much more solid foundation, where a clear distinction with their construction, sets them apart to exist on their own individual terms. The Stones post 1981 just lack any real conviction to see their ideas through, although it is perhaps also true that to imply they have any original ideas in the first place, actually seems a pretty tall order for them. Everything they do is pretty derivative of what they have done much more memorably in the past, when inspiration still played such a key role. Pretty much all of the Stones offerings post 1981, are sketchy, and underdeveloped, and lacking in any real conviction. Yes, maybe you may see just on the odd occasion, some things which developed more fully, may be the basis of something good, but, the Stones seldom manage to take the songs that far. Ultimately, the Stones are really just seeing themselves through, and living on past glories, with that element of the past seeming forever more distant.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-11 10:52 by Edward Twining.